Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Stirolak123

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 12, 2010
447
0
http://forums.toucharcade.com/showthread.php?t=77441

"Hey guys, I did a lot of number crunching.

Theoretically, having 1.28x as many pixels as the iPhone 4, it the iPad should only run ~80% as fast in terms of FPS. And, in fact, that is how it works out.

I've analyzed not only the overall tests but the low-level 3d tests such as shader usage and fill rate from http://www.glbenchmark.com/. Though the iPhone's CPU is indisputably down-clocked, the iPhone 4 and iPad both use the exact same GPU core with the same memory bandwidth and clock.

This is why Infinity Blade can have shiny armor on the iPhone 4 but not on the iPad; 20% difference can be huge when we're talking about the difference of a "shininess shader." However, the iPad can keep up with the iPhone 4 in terms of triangle throughput, etc. Which is why iPad HD games are smaller, for ex. Shadow Guardian is only ~3/4 the size on the iPad.

Hypothetically, SG uses extra textures for effects, such as specular highlights (shiny things) or bump mapping. These are areas that would slow down a scene by about less than or equal to about 20%. They don't need to be included on the iPad version because they can't be used and maintain the same framerate.

This is why you see shiny metal in Infinity Blade on the iPhone 4 and not on the iPad.

But do not lose heart, iPad owners! The hardware isn't anywhere near pushed to its limits. Unreal Engine 3 and Rage were adopted from console technology; the fundamental technologies are different when you come from a regular video card model to a deferred tile-based renderer like the ones used in iPads/Pods. If you look at the quality of Infinity Blade or Rage, and consider that they actually have a good amount of room for optimization, firstly the iPad won't be left behind much longer, and secondly the games we see actually are not the pinnacle of what is possible on the current hardware.

And iTouch 3g and iphone 3gs users rejoice; you get between 2/3 and 3 times better performance than the iPhone 4 with the same scenes, though your processor is slower!




Of course, there's a little bit more to the 20% extra performance the iPhone 4 has. It has a tiny little screen. In my opinion, though things "really shine" on the iPhone 4 Retina sometimes, mostly, having the huge screen and playing field makes up for some lost details. But that's just my opinion."
 
The cheesiest

I cannot go backwards from the retina display, performance or not. Pre-4G devices look like barf in comparison.

When are you people going to realize that "retina display" is not a real thing, it is a marketing term. It is like craft calling their macoroni and cheese "the cheesiest" anybody who uses this term, as anything more meaningful is caught up in marketing and not anything real.

As for me, the iPad has a great screen, I have never once looked at it and been disappointed. I do have the iPhone 4 and it also has a great screen. But to call any "pre 4g" barf is just ridiculous.
 
When are you people going to realize that "retina display" is not a real thing, it is a marketing term. It is like craft calling their macoroni and cheese "the cheesiest" anybody who uses this term, as anything more meaningful is caught up in marketing and not anything real.

I think a lot of people just use that word instead of just saying high res.
 
When are you people going to realize that "retina display" is not a real thing, it is a marketing term. It is like craft calling their macoroni and cheese "the cheesiest" anybody who uses this term, as anything more meaningful is caught up in marketing and not anything real.

As for me, the iPad has a great screen, I have never once looked at it and been disappointed. I do have the iPhone 4 and it also has a great screen. But to call any "pre 4g" barf is just ridiculous.

Wow, attack much? It just so happens I'm referring to my iPhone 4 and it's display. Guess what, if Apple calls it a 'retina' display then I'm entitled to call it such as well. Just because I didn't capitalise the 'r' doesn't mean I'm using it as an adjective either.

Btw, I'm as against the usage of 'retina resolution' as you are. Just make sure you know what battles you're picking. My usage of 'retina' is the point where at normal usage distance, the individual pixels of the display can't be seen.

Here's something I made to make my point in another thread.
 
Last edited:
To the point of your chart, because the iPad shares the same PPI as the 17" MBP, I would guess that means the iPad screen looks great, even though it is a "pre-4G" device, yes?

:)
 
I found the op's statement well written and supported with good information.
 
Last edited:
When are you people going to realize that "retina display" is not a real thing, it is a marketing term. It is like craft calling their macoroni and cheese "the cheesiest" anybody who uses this term, as anything more meaningful is caught up in marketing and not anything real.

As for me, the iPad has a great screen, I have never once looked at it and been disappointed. I do have the iPhone 4 and it also has a great screen. But to call any "pre 4g" barf is just ridiculous.

Wait, you mean that the display isn't made of retinas?:confused:

Its actually quite easy to go from a 4 to a 3GS.

Sure it's easy, but I wouldn't want to.
 
Btw, I'm as against the usage of 'retina resolution' as you are. Just make sure you know what battles you're picking. My usage of 'retina' is the point where at normal usage distance, the individual pixels of the display can't be seen.

How close are people holding the iPad to their faces if, during normal use, they can see the pixels:confused: I usually hold mine around 40-50cm from my eyes, at which point it looks like the iPhone4 display, which I tend to hold at around 15-20cm frommy eyes during use.
 
Sure it's easy, but I wouldn't want to.

While I didn't want to initially, I certainly wasn't going to pay that much for a bad antenna design**. So I'm back to happily using my old jailbroken 3GS. Now I hardly notice the lower res screen.


** I'm not looking to get into that old argument. All I know is that I could choke the data stream on any 4 I held.
 
iPad does not have inferior hardware except ram, but nothing can be called inferior. Games work great on iPad.
 
http://forums.toucharcade.com/showthread.php?t=77441

"Hey guys, I did a lot of number crunching.

Theoretically, having 1.28x as many pixels as the iPhone 4, it the iPad should only run ~80% as fast in terms of FPS. And, in fact, that is how it works out.

I've analyzed not only the overall tests but the low-level 3d tests such as shader usage and fill rate from http://www.glbenchmark.com/. Though the iPhone's CPU is indisputably down-clocked, the iPhone 4 and iPad both use the exact same GPU core with the same memory bandwidth and clock.

This is why Infinity Blade can have shiny armor on the iPhone 4 but not on the iPad; 20% difference can be huge when we're talking about the difference of a "shininess shader." However, the iPad can keep up with the iPhone 4 in terms of triangle throughput, etc. Which is why iPad HD games are smaller, for ex. Shadow Guardian is only ~3/4 the size on the iPad.

Hypothetically, SG uses extra textures for effects, such as specular highlights (shiny things) or bump mapping. These are areas that would slow down a scene by about less than or equal to about 20%. They don't need to be included on the iPad version because they can't be used and maintain the same framerate.

This is why you see shiny metal in Infinity Blade on the iPhone 4 and not on the iPad.

But do not lose heart, iPad owners! The hardware isn't anywhere near pushed to its limits. Unreal Engine 3 and Rage were adopted from console technology; the fundamental technologies are different when you come from a regular video card model to a deferred tile-based renderer like the ones used in iPads/Pods. If you look at the quality of Infinity Blade or Rage, and consider that they actually have a good amount of room for optimization, firstly the iPad won't be left behind much longer, and secondly the games we see actually are not the pinnacle of what is possible on the current hardware.

And iTouch 3g and iphone 3gs users rejoice; you get between 2/3 and 3 times better performance than the iPhone 4 with the same scenes, though your processor is slower!




Of course, there's a little bit more to the 20% extra performance the iPhone 4 has. It has a tiny little screen. In my opinion, though things "really shine" on the iPhone 4 Retina sometimes, mostly, having the huge screen and playing field makes up for some lost details. But that's just my opinion."

You know, number crunching tech specs is a pretty boring game. Just sayin'
 
How close are people holding the iPad to their faces if, during normal use, they can see the pixels:confused: I usually hold mine around 40-50cm from my eyes, at which point it looks like the iPhone4 display, which I tend to hold at around 15-20cm frommy eyes during use.
Frequently less than 30cm, e.g. when I'm lying in bed or on the sofa reading.
 
iPhone 4 has a greater pixel density than iPad and more RAM but I still find games more enjoyable on the iPad due to the larger screen.

There are certainly a lot of assumptions made in the analysis. Is there data to back up the claims?
 
While I didn't want to initially, I certainly wasn't going to pay that much for a bad antenna design**. So I'm back to happily using my old jailbroken 3GS. Now I hardly notice the lower res screen.


** I'm not looking to get into that old argument. All I know is that I could choke the data stream on any 4 I held.

Well, my reception is just as good- if not better- than my 3GS.

/just sayin'
 
I thought SJ upgraded the iPhone/iPod display so developers would upgrade their apps to a higher resolution. That way, the iPhone/iPod apps would look better on the iPad on 2x.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.