Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
An iPad 3 'Retina Display' Comparison Graphic
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I personally don't feel the need of a higher resolution screen but that's just me, I can understand the people who want it. If iPad 3 introduces a Retina Display, my solution will be not looking at an iPad 3 in person as long as possible because only then I'll realize how big pixels are on my current iPad.
I don't think we'll see a quad-core processor, by the way. A better dual-core processor makes much more sense.
I don't think we'll see a quad-core processor, by the way. A better dual-core processor makes much more sense.
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)
A more detailed graphic here:
http://david-smith.org/blog/2012/02/10/visualizing-the-ipad-3-screen/
TheNextWeb made an interesting comment that if the rumored resolution is real, you won't be able to develop for the iPad 3 - in full-res - on any current Apple monitors without scrolling.
A more detailed graphic here:
http://david-smith.org/blog/2012/02/10/visualizing-the-ipad-3-screen/
TheNextWeb made an interesting comment that if the rumored resolution is real, you won't be able to develop for the iPad 3 - in full-res - on any current Apple monitors without scrolling.
Do people honestly think this is going to happen
If it did ship with a 2048x1546 display, then it would be capable of rendering images at a higher resolution than all video game consoles currently on the market.
However, game developers already struggle to produce games that run at 1920x1080 due to the power of the consoles - are people seriously saying that they think iPad 3 will have a better CPU and GPU than PlayStation 3 / Xbox 360?
Games aside, what content is there to take advantage of that display?
a. There's more to console gaming than resolution. As someone already mentioned, shaders and polygon count matter as much, if not more.
b. Many console games actually do not run at full HD at all, they're upscaled from much lower resolutions.
c. current 7th gen consoles are 6 years old and are by no means considered "top-of-the-line" tech. That is why developers are struggling with bringing more to this gen console - because its limits have already been pushed. Sony famously claimed that the PSVita will have "PS3 level" graphics with its PowerVR-SGX543 quad-core GPU. It isn't unlikely that the next iPad would have similar, if not better, GPU.
d. The benefits of "retina" would be less beneficial for games and more beneficial for image taking/viewing/editing, crisper text and magazines/comics, etc..
Is going to happen...
there, we cancelled each other out
ok, I'll bite.
Put an iPad 3 on the wall and sit 6 feet from it. Now look at a 50" 1080P TV. Which one does look better?
Disclaimer against nerds who take things too literally: I know they are not the same size, this was meant in jest!
Bottom line is:
- Close to your face: extra res will help
- Far from you face: not so much. The only reason we would need a few more pixels would be for:
1) the extra picky 1%
2) The need to have new formats and new TV to make current one obsolete so they sell new tvs... But they would only need new connectors for that, too...
EDIT: I'm not saying that 2048x1536 is NOT good. It will obviously be amazing, if only for reading text (and it won't only be for that). I'm saying that 1080P is still pretty amazing.
Last edited:
I really don't get why people wouldn't want a Display with a higher resolution than the iPad / iPad 2.
I suppose they either have serious issues with their eyes or they never saw the difference between a 3GS and 4/4S Screen (which is tremendous). Nor do they own an iPad and actually use it for reading. The current resolution just isn't quite enough for me to be 100% satisfied.
Reading text will go so much smoother with four times the resolution than on current iPad 2s.
I suppose they either have serious issues with their eyes or they never saw the difference between a 3GS and 4/4S Screen (which is tremendous). Nor do they own an iPad and actually use it for reading. The current resolution just isn't quite enough for me to be 100% satisfied.
Reading text will go so much smoother with four times the resolution than on current iPad 2s.
Either that or he has really bad vision.
I remember after the iPhone 4 keynote, not a single person (the ones that actually did the hands-on) had anything negative to say about the display because it was so amazing and blew away everything else on the market.
----------
Coming from a person who is either extremely ignorant or has not used smartphones much. For conversation's sake, I'm going to assume the latter.
If you go to full version of wikipedia (any article) on an iPhone 3Gs and try to read text in portrait, without zooming in, it will be virtually impossible. On an iPhone 4, the same text is sharp and clear. There's your difference.
Well be very interesting to see the new iPad. The expectations is getting high with a screen like this - Wow. Well lets see how it will turn out.
I will need to upgrade my ipad wallpapers quite a bit then
I will need to upgrade my ipad wallpapers quite a bit then
crazy, ipad 3 will need octo-core graphics to handle infinity blade.
No, just a better cores- which I'm sure it'll have.
The next generation GPU rumoured to be used - PowerVR 6 - tops up at 4 cores.
The iPad 2/4S have the SGX543MP2 which is 2 cores (the MP2 bit).
Last edited:
Samsung upping ipad3 with 2560x1600 tablet later this month, the p5100. Strange there is no mention of that.
Since they're updating the screen, here's to hoping they're upgrading the front facing camera to something that will look decent on that high res. screen! Or will they hold that upgrade off until iPad 4?
Sitting here using a 2011 MacBook Air with a 1440 X 900 resolution it is hard to imagine what this will look like.
All those pixel's packed into a 9.7" display should be amazing.
All those pixel's packed into a 9.7" display should be amazing.
Do people honestly think this is going to happen
If it did ship with a 2048x1546 display, then it would be capable of rendering images at a higher resolution than all video game consoles currently on the market.
However, game developers already struggle to produce games that run at 1920x1080 due to the power of the consoles - are people seriously saying that they think iPad 3 will have a better CPU and GPU than PlayStation 3 / Xbox 360?
Games aside, what content is there to take advantage of that display?
Games are not the main reason to add the pixels -- it's to make everything sharper. E.g., the iPad is a great web browser and book reader except for one thing: text is not sharp and graphics are not sharp. A retina display will change the iPad's main weakness into a strength.
As far as games go, it's not really the number of pixels that is the bottleneck but the complexity of calculations per pixel. Here, if needed, developers can choose: denser effects or denser pixels. Depending on what Apple does with the GPU in the iPad 3, there may not be a need for such a tradeoff. E.g., almost certainly the iPad 3 will drive a 2048x1536 display with more effects than the original iPad could drive its 1024x768 display.
Who cares about games. Most books and magazine photos are printed at higher than 300 dpi just to make them look decent. Even large print books. This (assuming it exists) is for reading and photos.
Mine's 1280 x 800 so I can only barely fit the current iPad resolution on my screen!
Do people honestly think this is going to happen
If it did ship with a 2048x1546 display, then it would be capable of rendering images at a higher resolution than all video game consoles currently on the market.
However, game developers already struggle to produce games that run at 1920x1080 due to the power of the consoles - are people seriously saying that they think iPad 3 will have a better CPU and GPU than PlayStation 3 / Xbox 360?
Games aside, what content is there to take advantage of that display?
Every website in existence today. Every PDF. Every word doc. Every single book. Everything except games you young'un.
Beyond belief. There is no such thing as "full" HD. Maybe this 4K resolution TV will kill that term since obviously 4K is HD. Of course if you want to get philosophical, HD is just a marketing term itself since 4K will be "high" definition compared to 720p and 1080p.
The 3G and 4G messes are even worse. I was on AT&T's 3G network and got speeds up to about 2.5Mbps on my iPhone 4. On Verizon's 3G network, I get speeds up to about, oh, .5Mbps. I knew this going in, but it's got to be confusing as hell to average people who think simple math means 3G=3G. Now you've got the ad wizards who started calling slightly faster 3G 4G. So then the actual 4G networks have to get branded LTE, which leads to faux commercials like the one on SNL last night.
I personally would much rather have stats thrown at me rather than marketing terms. CFL light bulb manufacturers list the incandescent equivalent on their bulb. Why can't that industry just start listing lumens and watts? I buy a light bulb for lumens.
I hope the 3G download limits are raised above 20MB to allow for the higher resolution graphics needed for the new display.
Do I think that Apple might put in a higher res display. Sure. Do I think it will be this high, I don't' know. A part of me almost hopes not. Something to suppose 1080p would be awesome, especially if it comes with actual 1080p content in the iTunes store (and a price cut on what is there) and a 1080p Apple TV box. But what I want and hope for more than this is a display with better light sensors and brightness so I can actually use the dang thing outside in a reasonable level of sunlight. Given me that and I don't care if I have IMAX res etc.
----------
As much as that term annoys me, given that 720p is considered HD, I would rather have the clarity of knowing that they are talking about something above the 'just barely qualifies for the name HD' level.
That said I find it amusing that when we talk about 720p and 1080p we're talking about the vertical count. But 2k and 4k are the horizontal. If we are going to cry annoyance at calling both 720p and 1080p 'high def' and decry a line up like HD, Full HD, Super HD and Extreme HD, why are we not crying foul at flipping the reference. Shouldn't we be calling it all by the same factor and saying 720p, 1080p, 1536p and 3072p or switching them all to the horizontal count.
Last edited:
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)
Is there currently an iPad-sized quad core that's faster than a dual core? Might there ever be?
Is there currently an iPad-sized quad core that's faster than a dual core? Might there ever be?
- Status