PDA

View Full Version : iPad 3 to Have 1GB of RAM?




GoGa
Mar 6, 2012, 07:12 PM
i mentioned this on twitter awhile ago already, but figured this was worth noting here as well.

It's been in plain sight since the beginning of february when bgr posted their exclusive photos of debug output from an ipad 3 development unit. The (full) last line says:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/files.posterous.com/temp-2012-03-06/hntytqictwcgoewewbcoizgyhscyhrijpaxlcvyeollvrbbgaynjafzfphhr/ipad-3-3.jpg?awsaccesskeyid=akiajfzae65uyrt34aoq&expires=1331082928&signature=zrap7cmfnm0aulphfrterdmyyyo%3d

vm_page_bootstrap: 244276 free pages and 8396 wired pages

so, just do some simple math:

244,276 (pages) x 4,000 bytes (size of a page) = 977,104,000 bytes = 977mb

Original link here (with picture): http://chronicwire.com/the-ipad-3-has-1gb-of-ram

:D



MacRumors
Mar 6, 2012, 07:21 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/03/06/ipad-3-to-have-1gb-of-ram/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/03/1gb.jpg


Based on debug screenshots originally posted by BGR (http://www.bgr.com/2012/02/01/ipad-3-photos-show-quad-core-processor-wi-fi-and-global-lte-options/), ChronicWire (http://chronicwire.com/the-ipad-3-has-1gb-of-ram) believes the iPad 3 (or iPad HD) being announced tomorrow will have 1GB of RAM total.

This belief is based on some calculations based on the vm_page_bootstrap number, which yields a number close to 1GB of RAM.

The Verge had previously suggested (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/03/06/dual-core-a5x-ipad-3-coming-tomorrow-with-multiple-lte-and-3g-variants/) that the new iPad would have more RAM, but didn't specify the amount. The iPad 2 presently has 512MB of RAM (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/09/first-ipad-2-reviews-evolutionary-512mb-ram-thinner-faster/).

Article Link: iPad 3 to Have 1GB of RAM? (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/03/06/ipad-3-to-have-1gb-of-ram/)

Paradoxally
Mar 6, 2012, 07:22 PM
It's only natural, I mean, 512 MB won't cut it and it would be a waste of the new processor if you don't have enough memory to 'catch' up with it.

penajmz
Mar 6, 2012, 07:22 PM
Makes sense.

falcora
Mar 6, 2012, 07:24 PM
With a retina display, its more important to have a larger amount of RAM. Applications are going to need to load higher resolution artwork into memory.

Leehro
Mar 6, 2012, 07:30 PM
Saw this too, made me look at the BGR photos again. Was this the photo set that led us to believe iPad 3 would have a quad-core CPU? Because I don't see it -- there are four "[NAND] Found Chip ID" lines, but wouldn't those be for NAND flash memory?

Kinda late in the game, I'm just wondering if that's where the quad-core rumor came from in the first place (meaning - there isn't one).

Bradllez
Mar 6, 2012, 07:31 PM
Yay.

/approval

DenisAuermann
Mar 6, 2012, 07:31 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A405)

I think you're right. The first iPad had 256 of RAM, the second on had 512 and the third one 1Gb. It looks like they're doubling it this time

VinceDae
Mar 6, 2012, 07:32 PM
Will be awesome if true...

Retina, 1gb ram, SIRI and PLEEEEASE give us 128gb (32gb start) :D

Macdude2010
Mar 6, 2012, 07:32 PM
Looking good, think its good that apple is doing this to make sure the retina display works properly. But the ARM part number from this debug image is the A5X leaked part number

carmenodie
Mar 6, 2012, 07:36 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Wow! It's amazing the amount of crap you can decipher form a bunch of effing gibberish.

Porco
Mar 6, 2012, 07:37 PM
And they shall call the new product the iPad GB.

(joke)

MacinDoc
Mar 6, 2012, 07:43 PM
Fingers crossed that it's true...

darkslide29
Mar 6, 2012, 07:45 PM
Too bad that Apple never reveals the amount of ram in their iPad devices. We'll have to wait for a third party tear down to know for sure.

balamw
Mar 6, 2012, 07:46 PM
And they shall call the new product the iPad GB.

(joke)

Only when sold in England, Scotland or Wales.

(also joke).

B

snowmoon
Mar 6, 2012, 07:50 PM
And you call yourself geeks; a page is 4096 bytes, not 4000.

244,276+8396 (pages) x 4,096 bytes (size of a page) = 1,034,944,512 ( 987 MB )

komodrone
Mar 6, 2012, 07:56 PM
if only it was quad core

Four oF NINE
Mar 6, 2012, 07:58 PM
It's not an improvement if it's not a help. It's not an upgrade if you don't' notice the difference. It's not aspirational if it's just a number

GenesisST
Mar 6, 2012, 07:59 PM
And you call yourself geeks; a page is 4096 bytes, not 4000.

244,276+8396 (pages) x 4,096 bytes (size of a page) = 1,034,944,512 ( 987 MB )


Geeks round things up, nerds are precise... ;)

MacinDoc
Mar 6, 2012, 08:00 PM
Too bad that Apple never reveals the amount of ram in their iPad devices. We'll have to wait for a third party tear down to know for sure.
I have the feeling Apple might say something along the lines of "we've doubled the RAM" at tomorrow's keynote. And maybe also claims of "five times the graphics power", "four times the screen resolution", and perhaps "up to ten times the download speed".

snowmoon
Mar 6, 2012, 08:02 PM
It's not an improvement if it's not a help. It's not an upgrade if you don't' notice the difference. It's not aspirational if it's just a number

The vast majority of crashes on my iPad are from out of memory situations, some websites will not open at all because of their complexity. The beauty of iOS ( and OSX before it ) was in not being noticed.

Neodym
Mar 6, 2012, 08:30 PM
With 4x the pixels (Retina) compared to iPad 1/2 the "relative" usable Ram will be back to the iPad 1's meager 256MB, won't it? Wonder if that will be as noticeable on that new iPad as on the first one in everyday use...

Macopotamus
Mar 6, 2012, 08:32 PM
1GB of RAM would be fantastic, let's hope it's true

Roy G Biv
Mar 6, 2012, 08:34 PM
With 4x the resolution and only 2x the memory, won't the iPad be forgetting stuff and losing track of information? I can hardly remember where I parked at Wal-Mart, and I read in a book once that said my brain is the most powerful computer in the world! :eek:

Spectrum Abuser
Mar 6, 2012, 08:35 PM
Not that it desperately needs it, but competition dictates that it does. My Samsung Galaxy tab 7.0 plus has 1GB of ram and it's nearing or past six months old already.

Shrink
Mar 6, 2012, 08:40 PM
With 4x the resolution and only 2x the memory, won't the iPad be forgetting stuff and losing track of information? I can hardly remember where I left my parked at Wal-Mart, and I read in a book once that my brain is the most powerful computer in the world! :eek:

Well, perhaps not YOUR brain...:rolleyes: ;) :D

shartypants
Mar 6, 2012, 08:44 PM
With a Retina display that big, how could it not have 1G RAM.

omgitscro
Mar 6, 2012, 08:48 PM
I think there is some lack of understanding regarding the memory situation and how it relates to the resolution of the screen. The RAM that we are talking about here is not necessarily RAM devoted to graphics. An application that requires four times the resolution won't actually take up four times more RAM than its standard-resolution version. The actual amount of RAM devoted to the graphical elements of an application might only be around 5% of the total running application's RAM slice or even less (or more, but you get the point). Multiplying that by four is still not a significant chunk of RAM. You are gaining tons of extra RAM even if the amount of RAM isn't being multiplied by four. Think of it as absolute advantage vs. relative advantage (if you've taken any economics course).

longofest
Mar 6, 2012, 08:51 PM
Saw this too, made me look at the BGR photos again. Was this the photo set that led us to believe iPad 3 would have a quad-core CPU? Because I don't see it -- there are four "[NAND] Found Chip ID" lines, but wouldn't those be for NAND flash memory?

Kinda late in the game, I'm just wondering if that's where the quad-core rumor came from in the first place (meaning - there isn't one).

Yeah... i came to same conclusion (http://www.techperfect.net/2012/02/quad-core-assumption-of-a5x-premature-event-confirmed-for-march-7/)

Kenrik
Mar 6, 2012, 09:09 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Wow! It's amazing the amount of crap you can decipher form a bunch of effing gibberish.

To a developer it's not a bunch of gibberish.

dukeblue91
Mar 6, 2012, 09:09 PM
Great news!
I was really afraid that Apple would cheapen out on the ram again.
If the iPad 1 would have had 1 gig of ram it would still be a top notch device in regards to the competition and I would not have to upgrade now.
Although Retina and new and shiny will make it all worth it.

Rocketman
Mar 6, 2012, 09:14 PM
Apple is minimalist mainly to force future upgrades. No fanboy likes it and no fanboy revolts.

Apple is infamous for "shared" graphics memory with main memory.

So if you absolutely insist on being crippled two different ways (and 2 cores not 4 because the 2C design is more evolved), would you PLEASE do a scheme to employ GPU memory as a coprocessor for SOMETHING?

Yes it is a consumer device not a real computer, but that does not stop you from leveraging recent tech or even Amiga tech to deliver outsized performance for undersized silicon.

For god's sake offer a 2x battery option!!

Rocketman

Kenrik
Mar 6, 2012, 09:20 PM
I think there is some lack of understanding regarding the memory situation and how it relates to the resolution of the screen. The RAM that we are talking about here is not necessarily RAM devoted to graphics. An application that requires four times the resolution won't actually take up four times more RAM than its standard-resolution version. The actual amount of RAM devoted to the graphical elements of an application might only be around 5% of the total running application's RAM slice or even less (or more, but you get the point). Multiplying that by four is still not a significant chunk of RAM. You are gaining tons of extra RAM even if the amount of RAM isn't being multiplied by four. Think of it as absolute advantage vs. relative advantage (if you've taken any economics course).

Wrong.

Test:
Sameimage.PNG

at 1024x768 - 299kb
at 2048x1536 - 664kb

You would need double the ram just to hold the graphics in memory and retain the same usability. Don't think that 1GB is really going to help that much it's just enough to account for the increase in resolution.

As an app developer if you jump to retina you're going to have a double the graphics/ram footprint.

Datalinks
Mar 6, 2012, 09:29 PM
it was about time...

spokenblurb
Mar 6, 2012, 09:39 PM
Wrong.

Test:
Sameimage.PNG

at 1024x768 - 299kb
at 2048x1536 - 664kb

You would need double the ram just to hold the graphics in memory and retain the same usability. Don't think that 1GB is really going to help that much it's just enough to account for the increase in resolution.

As an app developer if you jump to retina you're going to have a double the graphics/ram footprint.

This is my fear too this thing need at least 1.5 gigs to compensate for the display and still leave enough available memory for apps and multitasking,the ipad3/hd needs to perform better than the ipad2 even with the high ppi Display so this thing better come correct spec wise, not to please the spec watchers rather to ensure that this truly is a upgrade because id take a well performing ipad2 than a poor performing ipad 3 with Retina it would be like ipad 1 all over again just prettier

bit density
Mar 6, 2012, 09:48 PM
The one with all the Gee Bees.

Yamcha
Mar 6, 2012, 09:49 PM
Yup seems like the natural progression..

-LikesMac-
Mar 6, 2012, 09:57 PM
I wonder how it all will go down tomorrow. :apple:

Giuly
Mar 6, 2012, 11:00 PM
And you call yourself geeks; a page is 4096 bytes, not 4000.

244,276+8396 (pages) x 4,096 bytes (size of a page) = 1,034,944,512 ( 987 MB )
1GB = 1 Billion Bytes. It said so on my iPhone box.

"2GB of RAM" are 505181 pages, or 2,069,221,376 bytes. Not quite 2048MB, huh?

Bchagey
Mar 6, 2012, 11:08 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

This is great news. 1GB of ram packed into the iPad, with possible quad-core processor..can't wait to see great new FPS games come out this year.

EnlightenedOne1
Mar 6, 2012, 11:14 PM
Seems to me that for a device running a resolution of 1536 x 2048 it would need A LOT more than 1gb of RAM. Especially for more graphics intensive apps and games. There arn't too many desktop or laptop pc's that can even run games at that resolution and those usually have at least 4gbs of RAM along with a quad core processor. I predict that there will be very few apps that actually run at the full "retina" resolution. People will complain that their new "HD" iPad hardly has any "HD" content and Apple will add even more RAM along with a quad core processor for the "iPad 4".

LaazyEye
Mar 6, 2012, 11:18 PM
1GB = 1 Billion Bytes. It said so on my iPhone box.

Are you kidding me?

The marketed "gigabyte" is indeed 1000 megabytes but the actual gigabyte is 1024 megabytes (or 1,073,741,824 bytes)


Seems to me that for a device running a resolution of 1536 x 2048 it would need A LOT more than 1gb of RAM. Especially for more graphics intensive apps and games. There arn't too many desktop or laptop pc's that can even run games at that resolution and those usually have at least 4gbs of RAM along with a quad core processor. I predict that there will be very few apps that actually run at the full "retina" resolution. People will complain that their new "HD" iPad hardly has any "HD" content and Apple will add even more RAM along with a quad core processor for the "iPad 4".

I do see what you mean, and although a computer and an ipad are two whole different animals, I think you're mixing up two different aspects of ram, one being video ram and the other being system ram. Lets go with a graphically intensive ipad game such as Infinity Blade. The app itself is no more than a gig, whereas a typical pc game can take up to around 10 gigs of space (which is still probably compressed). This is why 4gb is needed on a tower pc system, the data, not necessarily the resolution.

And although there are games on desktops that can only run at their best settings with two top of the line vid cards, there are no games that come close to that graphical clarity on the ipad.

Also don't mix up resolution and grahics. I can have a cube at 640x480 and a cube a 1920x1200 and the cube will require relatively the same amount of graphical power. Of course it will need more to power the higher res version in order to anti-alias the **** out of it, but not as much as if that higher res cube had a **** ton of additional geometry, textures and bumpmapping.

well i hope that made sense =p

locksmack
Mar 6, 2012, 11:46 PM
Wrong.

Test:
Sameimage.PNG

at 1024x768 - 299kb
at 2048x1536 - 664kb

You would need double the ram just to hold the graphics in memory and retain the same usability. Don't think that 1GB is really going to help that much it's just enough to account for the increase in resolution.

As an app developer if you jump to retina you're going to have a double the graphics/ram footprint.

Wrong.

What the previous poster was saying is that your RAM is not only used by graphics. let me use an example:

Some game uses 10% of the iPad 2's RAM for graphics = 51.2mb
The game also uses 5% of the iPad 2's RAM for processing tasks = 25.6mb
RAM left over (ignoring system used RAM)) = 512mb - 51.2mb - 25.5mb = 435.2mb

The same game on a Retina iPad with updaded graphics:
RAM used by graphics = 51.2mb * 4 = 204.8mb
RAM used by processing tasks would be the same = 25.6mb
RAM left over (ignoring system used RAM) = 1024mb - 204.8mb - 25.6mb = 793.6mb

As you can see, the 1gb RAM Retina iPad has more leftover RAM than the iPad 2 when using the same app with Retina graphics.

This is VERY rough but should give you an idea of what the original poster meant. I have made several assumptions but the principle still holds.

nooaah
Mar 7, 2012, 12:01 AM
With 4x the pixels (Retina) compared to iPad 1/2 the "relative" usable Ram will be back to the iPad 1's meager 256MB, won't it? Wonder if that will be as noticeable on that new iPad as on the first one in everyday use...

You're assuming ram is only used for graphics.

squirrelist
Mar 7, 2012, 12:14 AM
The marketed "gigabyte" is indeed 1000 megabytes but the actual gigabyte is 1024 megabytes (or 1,073,741,824 bytes)

I'm inclined to agree with the "marketing". Giga is a billion. A gibibyte is 1,024 mebibytes. I'm sure that non-computer scientists who hear "kilo is 1,024" must squirm in their skin. It's simply inaccurate.

In a perfect world we would have never even had the term "megabyte". It would have been "mebibyte" right from the beginning.

Carlson-online
Mar 7, 2012, 01:55 AM
there's also nothing stopping you using vector art in your applications, that scale nicely to any resolution, for the same file size ;)

Macman45
Mar 7, 2012, 01:57 AM
It's only natural, I mean, 512 MB won't cut it and it would be a waste of the new processor if you don't have enough memory to 'catch' up with it.

Exactly, plus the retina display and the fact that the Devs. will take full advantage of this, particularly in games, then 1GB is a must have for the 3.

MacRumorUser
Mar 7, 2012, 02:33 AM
But will we notice any difference. As others have pointed out with a higher res screen having to load higher res files, will we the end user see any speed or peformance difference with 1gb?

Likewise is it not possible that even with more memory, and faster dual core CPU, peformance could be fractionally worse because of the extra oomph it requires to render the retina resolution! (I doubt it will be worse, but that doesn't make it theoretically impossible).

I'd have hoped 1gb would help with multi-tasking, but if it's used up with the extra rendering of the retina display then it may not help much at all and just be there out of necessity.

My hopes are high with iPad 3 and it will be day 1 purchase as was ipad and ipad2, but we will see.


The one thing I would like with iPad 3 is haptic feedback for the keyboard though.

astrorider
Mar 7, 2012, 02:37 AM
Wrong.

What the previous poster was saying is that your RAM is not only used by graphics. let me use an example:

Some game uses 10% of the iPad 2's RAM for graphics = 51.2mb
The game also uses 5% of the iPad 2's RAM for processing tasks = 25.6mb
RAM left over (ignoring system used RAM)) = 512mb - 51.2mb - 25.5mb = 435.2mb

The same game on a Retina iPad with updaded graphics:
RAM used by graphics = 51.2mb * 4 = 204.8mb
RAM used by processing tasks would be the same = 25.6mb
RAM left over (ignoring system used RAM) = 1024mb - 204.8mb - 25.6mb = 793.6mb

As you can see, the 1gb RAM Retina iPad has more leftover RAM than the iPad 2 when using the same app with Retina graphics.

This is VERY rough but should give you an idea of what the original poster meant. I have made several assumptions but the principle still holds.

Not quite. Using your example, the iPad 2 can have 512/(51.2+25.6) = 6 of those applications in memory at once. The iPad 3 could only have 1024/(204.8+25.6) = 4 of those applications in memory at once.

Superken7
Mar 7, 2012, 02:54 AM
Am I the only one who thinks that 1gb might not be much of an improvement?

The ipad 1 I have constantly kills the browser and other apps due to out of memory, and this happens in the ipad 2 far less often. Now, every gfx asset in the new ipad will be 4x as heavy due to the 4x pixel increase. While 2gb ram might not be required, as certainly not everything is gfx, i fear that the 1gb might be more comparable to an ipad 1 than to an ipad 2. Hope I'm wrong, and bus speed and video ram were also the cause of poor performance in ipad 1, but i think the amount of ram is more the issue.

rmwebs
Mar 7, 2012, 03:18 AM
The iPad 4 will have 2 GB RAM...you heard it here first ;)

Ciclismo
Mar 7, 2012, 04:10 AM
Great news!
I was really afraid that Apple would cheapen out on the ram again.
If the iPad 1 would have had 1 gig of ram it would still be a top notch device in regards to the competition and I would not have to upgrade now.
Although Retina and new and shiny will make it all worth it.

Ditto - my Gen 1 iPad keeps crashing out of apps lately. Even two tabs in Safari can cause issues. At least that's the excuse I'm sticking to when justifying the purchase to the missus.

locksmack
Mar 7, 2012, 04:32 AM
Not quite. Using your example, the iPad 2 can have 512/(51.2+25.6) = 6 of those applications in memory at once. The iPad 3 could only have 1024/(204.8+25.6) = 4 of those applications in memory at once.

Good point, but if we change my example to be less graphic intense, say 10mb graphical ram (40mb retina) and 100mb processing task ram (same for retina), the tables are turned.

I guess that this really points out that whether retina@1024 or non-retina@512 is better completely depends on the apps being run.

kyjaotkb
Mar 7, 2012, 04:41 AM
if only it was quad core

having no issues with my dual core computers since 2007.
don't see the point of quad core in a tablet. what apps would use those cores anyway?

----------

Ditto - my Gen 1 iPad keeps crashing out of apps lately. Even two tabs in Safari can cause issues. At least that's the excuse I'm sticking to when justifying the purchase to the misses.

same issue with my 3GS. Takes ages to load an app, sometimes won't load an app or crash safari. But transitions, 3D animation, everything is still smooth. It is just blatantly lacking RAM. Apart from that is seems to have enough CPU/GPU power even in 2012.

justperry
Mar 7, 2012, 04:46 AM
Original link here (with picture): http://chronicwire.com/the-ipad-3-has-1gb-of-ram

:D

How come your post is(Number 1) 9 Minutes before MacRumors Post, 08.12 v 08.21:confused:

That linked post is still wrong as snowmoon pointed out, they forgot to add the 8396 wired pages.

Does the iPad 2 have problems with memory, if not and the ipad 3 has double ram I don't think it would have problems either.

pubjoe
Mar 7, 2012, 04:51 AM
Wrong.

Test:
Sameimage.PNG

at 1024x768 - 299kb
at 2048x1536 - 664kb

You would need double the ram just to hold the graphics in memory and retain the same usability. Don't think that 1GB is really going to help that much it's just enough to account for the increase in resolution.

As an app developer if you jump to retina you're going to have a double the graphics/ram footprint.
To prove him wrong, you've used an example which actually fills less than 1% of the ipad's total ram.

Also, not many graphics are full screen. In an actual application, there will be various graphical elements loaded into memory. Most of them will be smaller images (ie: sprites or text) that are re-used many times.

There is of course many different examples depending on use of vectors, 3D models, textures or videos which all scale up in memory differently. You could talk about this forever.

Fukui
Mar 7, 2012, 05:15 AM
Also, not many graphics are full screen. In an actual application, there will be various graphical elements loaded into memory. Most of them will be smaller images (ie: sprites or text) that are re-used many times.


like you said, one could talk about this forever, but I think there are a legitimate concern, since apps can't take advantage of that whole 1GB all by themselves. for example, an iPad1 app could take up around 20mb total before it would be force-quit by the OS, whereas an ipad2 app could get away with around 35-40Mmb...

One of the recent apps I worked (still working) on is a catalog app for a fashion client, and all their artwork is pixel- based, not vector, and full screen with multiple layers of transparent images (for fade effects etc), and right now, on the iPad 2, we can buffer in around 8 full-screen images plus some simple movie on top of that, with the others being pulled into memory and released as the user swipes up and down in the catalog... Right now, hitting the flash memory is the slowest operation, so the more ram the better, but again, quadrupaling the pixels, means either buffering less and having a slower response sometimes with 1gb, or being able to buffer the same amount and have a relatively fluid interface with 2gb.... Also reading almost 4 time the memory from slow-@ss flash storage will just make things worse... So ya, in our usage case, 1gb may not be "enough"...

mijail
Mar 7, 2012, 05:32 AM
Also reading almost 4 time the memory from slow-@ss flash storage will just make things worse...

Slow? You mean things would be better if you read from a spinning hard disk or from the network?

iMacian
Mar 7, 2012, 05:32 AM
Man,they always leave us starved for RAM. No matter if Macs or iOS devices. At least my MBP now sports 16GB of RAM, that will last me for some time:)

Meidan
Mar 7, 2012, 05:38 AM
Does the iPad 2 have problems with memory, if not and the ipad 3 has double ram I don't think it would have problems either.

When at my parents house i use there iPad 2 al the time and it never crashed(safari) on me. Well my iPad is a hole different story, it just misses his ram juices.;)

pubjoe
Mar 7, 2012, 05:52 AM
like you said, one could talk about this forever, but I think there are a legitimate concern, since apps can't take advantage of that whole 1GB all by themselves. for example, an iPad1 app could take up around 20mb total before it would be force-quit by the OS, whereas an ipad2 app could get away with around 35-40Mmb...

One of the recent apps I worked (still working) on is a catalog app for a fashion client, and all their artwork is pixel- based, not vector, and full screen with multiple layers of transparent images (for fade effects etc), and right now, on the iPad 2, we can buffer in around 8 full-screen images plus some simple movie on top of that, with the others being pulled into memory and released as the user swipes up and down in the catalog... Right now, hitting the flash memory is the slowest operation, so the more ram the better, but again, quadrupaling the pixels, means either buffering less and having a slower response sometimes with 1gb, or being able to buffer the same amount and have a relatively fluid interface with 2gb.... Also reading almost 4 time the memory from slow-@ss flash storage will just make things worse... So ya, in our usage case, 1gb may not be "enough"...
Thanks for your real world example. That's really insightful.

That's very true that while the average memory usage might remain relatively low, a raster heavy app like yours will struggle.

I expect that the main benefit on a "retina" iPad will merely be a very sharp home screen, UI and text for quite a while, and while some apps will transition easily with a relatively small hit on ram, others will have to make a difficult choice.

However, I'm keen to see the screen with my own eyes. As the pixel matrix becomes smaller, scaling is less noticeable. It may be that a middle ground 200dpi image would still look very crisp on the screen while saving you a lot of memory. 200dpi in print is often fine (I used to design book covers that would go to print at 200 and they looked excellent). Of course print is completely different as a lower dpi image scaled up to a fixed size pixel screen usually looks naff. But then I've never seen how that would look when the pixel grid is so small that it is practically invisible. ...Just thinking aloud here. :)

justperry
Mar 7, 2012, 06:04 AM
When at my parents house i use there iPad 2 al the time and it never crashed(safari) on me. Well my iPad is a hole different story, it just misses his ram juices.;)

With a bit of luck we will find out in 6 hours, but I will still probably have to wait a few months before they arrive here, but I think I will buy a MacBookPro instead.

Fukui
Mar 7, 2012, 06:09 AM
Slow? You mean things would be better if you read from a spinning hard disk or from the network?

Things would be better if they sped up the flash drive speed is what I was getting at... Especially if the ram is going to be limited.... It's not like on the Mac where ssds are super fast, iPad and other smartphones are by comparisson, a bit slower, unfortunately. RAM though, is still quite fast, but then again, power consumption makes it still slower than the Mac by a huge margin... Though its slowly getting there...

the8thark
Mar 7, 2012, 06:45 AM
And you call yourself geeks; a page is 4096 bytes, not 4000.

244,276+8396 (pages) x 4,096 bytes (size of a page) = 1,034,944,512 ( 987 MB )

Technically the equation is:

(244,276 + 8396) x 4,096 = 1,034,944,512
The brackets are important.

And I do agree the article here and the original poster should have known a page is 4096 bytes. This is because 1k = 1024 bytes for memory. As we all know. A simple mistake no one till the user snowmoon noticed. Well done to him for picking up this error.

Arnold Kim the article author should have picked up this error and mentioned the correct figures in the article he wrote. Maybe I ask too much of him. I don't know. I simply don't know if he (Arnold Kim) is capable of these sort of things.

soapsuds
Mar 7, 2012, 09:28 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I think the iPad 3/HD will force developers to depend less on full screen pixel art, but if they can use lossy compression (e.g. JPEG), you can increase the resolution without the 4x multiplier, and only need to store the uncompressed version of the artwork that is currently on screen, since the CPU has enough power to decompress quickly. Also, even with more RAM, if the flash memory isn't 4X faster (which it won't be), naively scaling up all your artwork 4X will make the app huge and slow to load. Exporting lots of full screen bitmaps with transitions is very easy for designers using more traditional authoring tools, but I think this is a dead end. With the powerful GPU, there are much, much more efficient ways to render high resolution content.

tbrinkma
Mar 7, 2012, 11:02 AM
Wrong.

Test:
Sameimage.PNG

at 1024x768 - 299kb
at 2048x1536 - 664kb

You would need double the ram just to hold the graphics in memory and retain the same usability. Don't think that 1GB is really going to help that much it's just enough to account for the increase in resolution.

As an app developer if you jump to retina you're going to have a double the graphics/ram footprint.

You're completely misinterpreting what the parent said.

Think of it this way, you have X RAM available to the entire system. Of that, some is used by the OS, some is used by background processes, some is used by your application.

Of the RAM used by your application, (usually) only a small fraction of that is graphics-related in any way shape or form. (An image viewer *might* be the exception to that rule.)

As you showed in your post, the size of the image is quadrupled, but how many of those full-screen resolution images would have to be held in memory at once to fill up the 512MB available to the entire system? (Roughly 789.6.)

Quadrupling the pixel-count of image resources only quadruples a certain *portion* of total memory demands. In all but the most extreme edge cases, doubling the memory available to the system will more than compensate for that increased demand. (After all, you don't need to store every image in memory all the time, just the ones you're currently using.)

GFLPraxis
Mar 7, 2012, 11:05 AM
To prove him wrong, you've used an example which actually fills less than 1% of the ipad's total ram.

A .jpg is compressed. Looking at the total size doesn't say much.

Fukui
Mar 7, 2012, 06:07 PM
A .jpg is compressed. Looking at the total size doesn't say much.

We’ve done compression benchmarking, and with the images we are using, jpg at near lossless quality doesn’t get much better than png... that and the cocoa touch frameworks will expand it out in memory and realign the pixels from RGBA to BGR+A(premultilplied) anyways so in terms of memory usage its a little more complicated than jpg=less RAM usage, and while grabbing a well compressed jpg from flash storage may be slightly faster depending on the image, realigning and premultiplying in real time can be slower in many cases (in our usage case)... we’ll have to see how the iPad 3 handles things... but my guess is that optimized pngs are still the best bet... that and jpegs don’t support alpha... but i think as a lot of posters are saying, in the average case 1gb will probably be just fine....

komodrone
Mar 8, 2012, 01:31 AM
having no issues with my dual core computers since 2007.
don't see the point of quad core in a tablet. what apps would use those cores anyway?

----------



same issue with my 3GS. Takes ages to load an app, sometimes won't load an app or crash safari. But transitions, 3D animation, everything is still smooth. It is just blatantly lacking RAM. Apart from that is seems to have enough CPU/GPU power even in 2012.

games heavily use multicore
anyways i'm glad it's quad core

wesk702
Mar 9, 2012, 12:42 AM
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/15919543.jpg

Bernard SG
Mar 9, 2012, 12:46 AM
The New iPad will have enough RAM.
That's all we need to know.

StefSSU
Mar 9, 2012, 01:10 AM
AnandTech has just posted an analysis of the new iPad, speculating that the device has 1GB of RAM - Analysis of new Apple iPad - AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/show/5663/analysis-of-the-new-apple-ipad)

Giuly
Mar 10, 2012, 07:37 PM
Are you kidding me?

The marketed "gigabyte" is indeed 1000 megabytes but the actual gigabyte is 1024 megabytes (or 1,073,741,824 bytes)
The Gigabyte is actually 10^9 = 1 billion bytes.
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/9549/img05441a.jpg
If you ask marketing people, "everything around" 1 billion bytes is a Gigabyte anyways. What you're talking about is a Gibibyte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibibyte) (GiB, 2^30 bytes) though.

LaazyEye
Mar 10, 2012, 10:31 PM
The Gigabyte is actually 10^9 = 1 billion bytes.
Image (http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/9549/img05441a.jpg)
If you ask marketing people, "everything around" 1 billion bytes is a Gigabyte anyways. What you're talking about is a Gibibyte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibibyte) (GiB, 2^30 bytes) though.

Which is fine and dandy except computers dont use the IEC system (yet). The main reason people get confused is because they directly compare the two systems to each other. While IEC deemed a gigabyte as 1 billion bytes, a computer will still see otherwise. This is mainly why the box you posted claims that while "1GB = 1bill bytes; the formatted capacity will be less". Because a computer still sees 1 billion bytes as less than 1073741824 bytes; because computers still count in base-2 (whereas humans count in base 10)

corris
Mar 13, 2012, 09:02 AM
And you call yourself geeks; a page is 4096 bytes, not 4000.

244,276+8396 (pages) x 4,096 bytes (size of a page) = 1,034,944,512 ( 987 MB )


And you call yourself geek; it's 987MiB, not MB :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

Giuly
Mar 20, 2012, 05:33 AM
Which is fine and dandy except computers dont use the IEC system (yet). The main reason people get confused is because they directly compare the two systems to each other. While IEC deemed a gigabyte as 1 billion bytes, a computer will still see otherwise. This is mainly why the box you posted claims that while "1GB = 1bill bytes; the formatted capacity will be less". Because a computer still sees 1 billion bytes as less than 1073741824 bytes; because computers still count in base-2 (whereas humans count in base 10)
Apple adapted with Snow Leopard the GB as the measure in Finder (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=721173), but what they mean here is the overhead that the filesystem generates.