iPad 3 has same exact CPU as iPad 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gwu168

Gawd
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
721
Well, I'm pretty disappointed. I knew the iPad 3 was going to cortex A9 based since no one has released any cortex A15 based chips in volume. Thus I wasn't expecting much of a boost in terms of CPU performance in the iPad 3. However, I expect the iPad 3 to have at least a tiny boost in CPU speed (e.g. run at 1.2-1.5GHz).

Nope, the iPad 3 CPU is clocked at 1GHz like the iPad2. Thus the iPad 3 scores exactly the same as the iPad 2 in Geekbench, which is a CPU benchmark.

Once again misleading claims by Apple stating the A5X is four times faster than the Tegra 3. First the A5X is only faster graphically than the Tegra 3. Second they claim double performance going from 2 core to 4 cores GPU. My guess in the real world the iPad 3 is only going to be 2-3x faster than the Tegra 3 at best.

Now by Apple's logic the Tegra 3 is 3x faster than the iPad 3 (in terms of CPU). Tegra 3 has 4 1.5GHz cortex A9 CPU versus 2 1GHz cortex A9 CPU in the A5X (6GHz vs 2GHz, respectively) :rolleyes:

Blah, it seems so obvious that Apple is holding back progress intentionally, so they release to help sell a future product :cough: iPad 4 :cough: I really doubt Apple is that incompetent that they weren't able to improve the A5 to squeeze out a few extra MHz :mad:

IMO web browser is one of the most important application for a tablet, and tablets are already slow enough in that department. My old laptops still kick the crap out of any new tablets in terms of web browsing speeds. The CPU is still the main bottle neck of web browsers, so most likely web browsing speed is going to be exactly the same between the iPad 2 and iPad 3. Thus android is going to further pull ahead in web browsing speeds.

Well at least apple finally bumped up the RAM to 1GB. Now at least I don't have to reload pages completely between 3+ tabs...
 
Last edited:
A couple of notes:
- Apple stated GPU performance increases.
- Clockspeed isn't the goal of the iPad. A higher clock could necessitate even more battery to meet the 9-10 hour life, compromising the device's weight and size. (25wh -> 42.5wh was a lot!)
- A web browser benchmark score doesn't imply a good user experience.
 
I'm not surprised at all. The A5 is pretty damn fast (paired with iOS). After owning my iPad2 for the past year, I've NEVER run into a situation where I thought to myself "this thing needs a faster CPU". Safari has always performed great IMO, especially with iOS5. The lack of Ram was apparent in 3rd party browsers though (skyfire) The GPU, however (considering just about everything in iOS is GPU accelerated), was required to compensate for the increased resolution. Considering it would eat into battery life, I'm certainly not disappointed... as long as it performs well (which I'm sure it will)

I am glad that they increased the amount of memory though. That is/was iOS devices biggest weakness IMO. I got rid of my original iPad for an iPad2 because of the lack of memory (not the cpu or gpu speeds). The 512MB in the 2 was a pretty big improvement... 1GB should be just as huge (I hope)
 
martinmsj said:
Might help your argument to at least post a link to a source or two.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/13/new-ipad-gets-benchmarked-1gb-ram-confirmed-no-boost-in-cpu-sp/
Click to expand...

Thanks :D

GLBenchmarks are out.http://www.glbenchmark.com/phonedetails.jsp?benchmark=glpro21&D=Apple+iPad+3&testgroup=overall

The only thing interesting are the 720p off screen rendering that isn't vsync limited. Even then the results are only 50% increase (as reasonably expected from going from dual core to quad core).
 
I really hate to state it this way, but I suppose I will...
The specs in and of themselves are irrelevant. They don't really dictate what the experience of the device will be like for the end user. If you want a device that merely competes on specs than Android is right up your alley. Apple clearly has no interest in going into a spec war against Android. Apple has clearly gone into other forms of market differentiation, which has ultimately been more valuable in terms of user driven focus and of course straight dollars (market share.)

This is why they don't bother to release specifications to the public. Of course they realize that tech heads such as yourself, myself, and others on this forum will find them out, but what they are trying to drive is user experience. All of their specifications are used to drive that experience.

You believe that they are "holding back" in order to drive future sales, but I believe the choice was made based upon other factors. Such as, does giving the iPad more cores or a faster clock speed give a better user experience? They answered no. One of the reasons why is battery life, something that is ignored by so many organizations other than Apple. The new iPad supposedly touts better battery life than the iPad 2, how did that happen? It wasn't by magic or fairy dust, they had to increase the size of the battery by 70%. Part of the user experience is being able to use the device for as long as possible. A higher frequency processor, or more cores would have been energy-inefficient and likely not improved what you want it to improve.

Androids "dominance" if you want to call it that in web browsing has less to do with raw processor speed as it does with very specific coding that is a part of Google's Honeycomb. Sure, Apple may be behind the ball in terms of browsing performance vs Android, but I would say that that has little to do with GHz.
 
dr.stevil said:
I'm not surprised at all. The A5 is pretty damn fast (paired with iOS). After owning my iPad2 for the past year, I've NEVER run into a situation where I thought to myself "this thing needs a faster CPU". Safari has always performed great IMO, especially with iOS5.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You must still be living off the novelty concept of tablet devices :rolleyes: Tablets are still really freaking slow compare to laptop at web rendering. So slow for me in fact that I away use a laptop if the situation allows.

rflcptr said:
A couple of notes:
- Apple stated GPU performance increases.
- Clockspeed isn't the goal of the iPad. A higher clock could necessitate even more battery to meet the 9-10 hour life, compromising the device's weight and size. (25wh -> 42.5wh was a lot!)
- A web browser benchmark score doesn't imply a good user experience.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you define as a good user experience. For me speed trumps nearly everything else. For other's it might just be silky smooth and responsive interface (which iPad excels at).
 
gwu168 said:
Depends on what you define as a good user experience. For me speed trumps nearly everything else. For other's it might just be silky smooth and responsive interface (which iPad excels at).
Click to expand...

a) user experience
b) battery life
c) speed (in the context of?)

Pick 2 to sell your mobile product with.
 
gwu168 said:
Seriously? You must still be living off the novelty concept of tablet devices :rolleyes: Tablets are still really freaking slow compare to laptop at web rendering. So slow for me in fact that I away use a laptop if the situation allows.
Click to expand...

I'm sure some tablets do suck for browsing the internet. The iPad2, however, was great at it. No slower than my desktop.


Depends on what you define as a good user experience. For me speed trumps nearly everything else. For other's it might just be silky smooth and responsive interface (which iPad excels at).
Click to expand...

Let me guess, you're still using MSDos? If speed is the only thing that matters to you, I can't imagine using a bloated piece of software like Windows ;)
 
dr.stevil said:
Let me guess, you're still using MSDos? If speed is the only thing that matters to you, I can't imagine using a bloated piece of software like Windows ;)
Click to expand...

I define speed as how much and fast I can process the information with upper being my mind. Sure text based renders are fast, but it's not information that I can process fast (an image link doesn't contain as much info for me visually which is how most of us process data). For navigation touch devices is fairly even with tradition inputs (mouse and keyboard) for reading and browsing (they both have their pluses and minuses). However tablets are still super slow at rendering the same content vs desktops.

Anyways typical browser usage I'll have two or three windows with a dozen tabs each. This doesn't translate so well onto the iPad. Even if I limit myself to one window and 8 tabs, my speed will be much higher on a desktop/laptop. This is mainly cause tablet base web renders are still 4-6x slower than mid range tradition pc. Thus sites take anywhere form 3-10s to load on an ipad vs 2s or under on a laptop. The limited ram also forces pages to be stored off RAM (every 3-4th tab I switch to on the iPad has to be pull off local storage which takes 1-3s which is far cry from instant)

My point is that desktops are just barely capable of keeping up in all browsing suitations. Thus much slower devices like the iPad still have a ton of room for improvement.

Also this hardforums. I'm astonish that anyone here is defending apple's design decision to keep the same processor. Tablets devices are still too slow from being ideal thus no excuse not to pursue additional performance especially when it is feasible.
 
Last edited:
gwu168 said:
Well, I'm pretty disappointed. I knew the iPad 3 was going to cortex A9 based since no one has released any cortex A15 based chips in volume. Thus I wasn't expecting much of a boost in terms of CPU performance in the iPad 3. However, I expect the iPad 3 to have at least a tiny boost in CPU speed (e.g. run at 1.2-1.5GHz).

Nope, the iPad 3 CPU is clocked at 1GHz like the iPad2. Thus the iPad 3 scores exactly the same as the iPad 2 in Geekbench, which is a CPU benchmark.

Once again misleading claims by Apple stating the A5X is four times faster than the Tegra 3. First the A5X is only faster graphically than the Tegra 3. Second they claim double performance going from 2 core to 4 cores GPU. My guess in the real world the iPad 3 is only going to be 2-3x faster than the Tegra 3 at best.

Now by Apple's logic the Tegra 3 is 3x faster than the iPad 3 (in terms of CPU). Tegra 3 has 4 1.5GHz cortex A9 CPU versus 2 1GHz cortex A9 CPU in the A5X (6GHz vs 2GHz, respectively) :rolleyes:

Blah, it seems so obvious that Apple is holding back progress intentionally, so they release to help sell a future product :cough: iPad 4 :cough: I really doubt Apple is that incompetent that they weren't able to improve the A5 to squeeze out a few extra MHz :mad:

IMO web browser is one of the most important application for a tablet, and tablets are already slow enough in that department. My old laptops still kick the crap out of any new tablets in terms of web browsing speeds. The CPU is still the main bottle neck of web browsers, so most likely web browsing speed is going to be exactly the same between the iPad 2 and iPad 3. Thus android is going to further pull ahead in web browsing speeds.

Well at least apple finally bumped up the RAM to 1GB. Now at least I don't have to reload pages completely between 3+ tabs.



1. Even if its only 2-3 times faster than Tegra, I'll take that and be happy

2. "Now at least I don't have to reload pages, etc" Does that mean after your rant, you are getting the New iPad anyway ? :confused:
Click to expand...
 
gwu168 said:
Also this hardforums. I'm astonish that anyone here is defending apple's design decision to keep the same processor. Tablets devices are still too slow from being ideal thus no excuse not to pursue additional performance especially when it is feasible.
Click to expand...

The A6 isn't ready for primetime yet. It's not like Apple has stacks of them sitting on a shelf that they could have put in the iPad. It's kinda like looking at Intel's current lineup and complaining that Intel obviously withheld an octo-core i9. It's not a conspiracy. There is no i9 (yet?). The new screen panels were ready (and Apple and their partners busted their asses to be able to deliver the 2048x1536 panels in time) and the new batteries were ready, and the new GPU was enough to drive a smooth experience at the new resolution, so Apple brought it to market.

Krait is making waves already and it's probably faster in raw benchmarks than the A5X, but I think it's unlikely to beat the new iPad in browsing/rendering speed, simply because there's no browsers for Android with as powerful a Javascript engine as Nitro (Mobile Safari). Chrome for Android is a step in the right direction, but it's still in Beta and miles away from being ready. I don't think we'll see it as a core part of Android until Android 5 at the earliest.
 
gwu168 said:
Anyways typical browser usage I'll have two or three windows with a dozen tabs each. This doesn't translate so well onto the iPad. Even if I limit myself to one window and 8 tabs, my speed will be much higher on a desktop/laptop. This is mainly cause tablet base web renders are still 4-6x slower than mid range tradition pc. Thus sites take anywhere form 3-10s to load on an ipad vs 2s or under on a laptop. The limited ram also forces pages to be stored off RAM (every 3-4th tab I switch to on the iPad has to be pull off local storage which takes 1-3s which is far cry from instant).
Click to expand...

I see your point. I'm certainly not the type of person to have that many tabs and pages open at once. 5 tabs is a lot for me (I'm OCD about that kind of stuff) so that probably explains the differences in opinion. I can deffinately see why it'd start slowing down on you. At any rate, the ram upgrade should help users that are into viewing that many tabs at once.

gwu168 said:
Also this hardforums. I'm astonish that anyone here is defending apple's design decision to keep the same processor. Tablets devices are still too slow from being ideal thus no excuse not to pursue additional performance especially when it is feasible.
Click to expand...

Because people also like the battery life on the iPad. If the A5 can get the job done (we'll see when people actually get their hands on 'em) then Apple probably made a wise decision.

What do you mean by 'too slow'? Too slow for what? :confused: You're not going to be rendering 3D images or folding on an iPad (or a laptop for that matter, in most cases)... workstations are better suited for those tasks
 
SR45 said:
gwu168 said:
1. Even if its only 2-3 times faster than Tegra, I'll take that and be happy

2. "Now at least I don't have to reload pages, etc" Does that mean after your rant, you are getting the New iPad anyway ? :confused:
Click to expand...

iPad 3 is only graphically 2-3x faster than the Tegra 3. Alternatively, the Tegra 3 is about 2-3x faster on the CPU side compare to the iPad 3.

Basically the iPad 3 isn't going to feel faster than the iPad 2. The boosted GPU is mainly there to insure the same performance on the iPad 3's 2048x1536 resolution vs the lower resolution iPad 2.

I'm VERY VERY happy about the resolution increase since I can never have enough resolution (also why I'm currently huge fan Android going 720p on their phones)

Just cause I'm really digging the new GPU and display doesn't mean I can't also be disappointed about the CPU.

The iPad 3 isn't even release and its already shown to be lagging behind last gen Android tablet offerings (Not to mention A15 and S4 which are beasts!)

Anyways, I'm not even sure the increase to 1GB of RAM will offset the loading issues since higher resolution display is going to require more storage. It remains to be seen I guess.

Anyways this is my ideal iPad 3 improvements
dual core A15 at 1GHz, dual core A9 at 1.5GHz, or quad core A9 at 1GHz
2GB of RAM to offset 4x increase of pixels.
Default GPS and GNOASS in the wifi models
1.3MP (720p) front facing camera (seriously 640x480 VGA FFC is going to look really out of place on the new retina iPad 3 display :confused:)

If the iPad 3 had those improvements, I would have zero complains even if its $100-200 more.

Anyways, I'm always very disappointed when there are new products released that have major components that aren't upgraded :cough: Galaxy Nexus :cough:. To me the iPad 3 feels almost like a Galaxy Nexus release.
Click to expand...
 
gwu168 said:
Also this hardforums. I'm astonish that anyone here is defending apple's design decision to keep the same processor. Tablets devices are still too slow from being ideal thus no excuse not to pursue additional performance especially when it is feasible.
Click to expand...

1st I have no intention of defending apple, but I kind of understand their business tactic. Yes, this is Hardforum where enthusiast like us gather and oclock the shit out of our pc/laptops. However, this product is not for people who craves for specs. It's for consumers who does not give a shit about the specs as long as the experience meets their satisfaction.

Not 100% who will buy this product just because of the specs, but one big reason is because it's Apple product. We are minority when it comes to apple's specs. Yes, it still slow compare to a laptop, but this product is not meant to replace laptops. Why do you think apple still selling macbook air/macbook pro? It may not be ideal for alot of people, but like I said earlier, it's ideal for most because the experience meets their satisfaction and apple seems to know the sweet spot when it comes to customer experience despite their minimal upgrade from this device.
 
dr.stevil said:
What do you mean by 'too slow'? Too slow for what? :confused: You're not going to be rendering 3D images or folding on an iPad (or a laptop for that matter, in most cases)... workstations are better suited for those tasks
Click to expand...

Its still too slow as a stand alone device for strictly web browsing. I dare you to do serious research using only an iPad 3. Constantly switching tabs to reference different journal articles is extremely frustrating on iPad. The iPad can't keep all the articles on memory (hell most the articles I browse the iPad 2 can barely keep the whole article on memory), so you end up wasting 2-3s between switching articles (compare to nearly instant on a desktop). These 2-3s really add up when you're constantly cross referencing stuff.

Also, its important for specs to be constantly upgraded to keep with the ever increasing processing requirement of the web and other media. Thus a devices will perceivably feel slower as time goes on due to increasing processing demand :cough: HTML5 rich content :cough:
 
Last edited:
Good grief. Don't buy the iPad 3 then. No one cares one bit. Apple will still sell plenty of tablets without you. I've had plenty of Windows/tabs open on my iPad 2 and speed was never an issue. There is just no end to the haters around...it is so easy to be a hater. It takes no effort and zero thought.
 
gwu168 said:
Anyways, I'm not even sure the increase to 1GB of RAM will offset the loading issues since higher resolution display is going to require more storage. It remains to be seen I guess.
Click to expand...
It's perfectly unreasonable to assume that the additional memory won't be more than ample. A 2048x1536 frame buffer is only 9MB larger than a 1024x768 buffer, and there will only be two of those. Higher-resolution assets, like home screen icons, background wallpapers and other iconography will require more memory, but certainly not 512MB more. The idea that the GPU will need 2GB of memory to draw from is absolutely, comically absurd.
 
wonderfield said:
It's perfectly unreasonable to assume that the additional memory won't be more than ample. A 2048x1536 frame buffer is only 9MB larger than a 1024x768 buffer, and there will only be two of those. Higher-resolution assets, like home screen icons, background wallpapers and other iconography will require more memory, but certainly not 512MB more. The idea that the GPU will need 2GB of memory to draw from is absolutely, comically absurd.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to suggest it will require 2GB of memory to offset the 4x increase in graphic assets. I would just ideally like more memory, so I can keep everything quickly accessible without slow local storage paging. Hell 1GB is probably enough to offset the increase in graphical assets while allowing for a little additional memory. Anyways, it hard for me to have a conclusive statement without either knowing the actual memory profile of the iPad 2 or experimenting with an iPad 3.

Anyways, there is always room for improvement and technology is constantly moving forward. Thus I find it impossible to feel completely attached or love any devices since there is always something better in the near future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top