I consider myself a geek, and even I understand why this happened. No reason to get mad when the reason is physics.
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.
A9X in 9.7-Inch iPad Pro is Underclocked Compared to 12.9-inch iPad Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I consider myself a geek, and even I understand why this happened. No reason to get mad when the reason is physics.
iPad Air 3 would have had 2GB of RAM anyway, but a smaller iPad Pro should have had more. The underclocked A9X chip is understandable.
- No such thing as artificial clock speed. You raise clock, you lower battery life, need bigger battery (maybe even bigger casing) for same battery life, in the end it affects the weight.
- If only water wasn't so wet.
- Just because a device doesn't get airflow doesn't mean it doesn't get cooled (nice thing about using aluminum). The mass of the devices itself absorbs a lot of the heat. If Apple made it same speed people would complain on how it get so hot because the same amount of heat was spread through less mass. Bigger batteries also produce heat while being charged and discharged. Really you can't win because someone who didn't do their homework will tell you that you did it wrong.
It was obvious.
Last edited:
I for one am pleased Apple released the big iPad Pro first, otherwise my wife would have persuaded me to buy the smaller iPad Pro. To keep the peace I would have probably done so, and then hugely regretted not being able to view the huge screen that makes such a difference to my work and enjoyment. This was coming from a series 3 iPad.
Bigger would be a pain, smaller would be frustrating in so many areas. Love the choice we get. I guess it will take few updates before I think about upgrading.
As far as the difference in speed. Would it make a difference? Screen size probably needs more power to drive it.
Bigger would be a pain, smaller would be frustrating in so many areas. Love the choice we get. I guess it will take few updates before I think about upgrading.
As far as the difference in speed. Would it make a difference? Screen size probably needs more power to drive it.
Last edited:
With the two iPads released in this order, some might get the impression that Apple is 'crippling' the 9.7" iPad Pro. But if the two iPads were released in an inverse order, the reports would be that the 12.9" iPad Pro has a slightly faster clocked A9X processor and nobody would think the 9.7" iPad Pro were intentionally 'crippled'. And really, the difference is 4%, hardly something Apple could or would use to make the 12.9" iPad Pro more attractive.
Good God. The new iPad pro has 3.1 M pixels compared to 5.6 M on the larger one and is underclocked by a tiny amount. Anything that has to do with GPU work will be way smoother and faster on the smaller model. When a difference is even possible to notice of course, but considering Apple makes Macbook Pros that can't even handle OS X's transparency effects I wouldn't be surprised if the extra GPU power/pixel helps a lot down the road. The small underclock would maybe diminish performance on the new model by a tiny amount for uniquely CPU bound tasks, but that's it. Overall the newer one is more future proof.
Where would be the cut-off size? Up to 6" still ok? Up to 7" still ok? Anything over 7.5" banned?
[doublepost=1458671185][/doublepost]
That's not quite to scale.
Ok, then, you are geek in a good way.
Seriously, the controlling factor here was probably battery life. Apple is always going to be trading off specifications to get to the product they want to ship, and somebody is always going to say they made the wrong tradeoffs; as in, Apple should have made this iPad thicker or heavier instead of under-clocking the processor a tiny bit. Sure physics matters but then so do the real-world considerations of designing and building products. Some geeks are always going to be complaining about the latter.
Ok, then, you are geek in a good way.
Seriously, the controlling factor here was probably battery life. Apple is always going to be trading off specifications to get to the product they want to ship, and somebody is always going to say they made the wrong tradeoffs; as in, Apple should have made this iPad thicker or heavier instead of under-clocking the processor a tiny bit. Sure physics matters but then so do the real-world considerations of designing and building products. Some geeks are always going to be complaining about the latter.
Yeah, battery life and design are also issues. In a way, those are physics issues as well.
Some of the people here would complain if it was thicker and heavier because of more battery and/or if the tablet got hotter. Some people here just don't want to be happy.
[doublepost=1458671881][/doublepost]
iWould love to see you run a multi billion dollar company.
Unless you renew all your products at the same time whenever a newer technology becomes available, there will always be hardware differences. And even if you did so, you then couldn't continue to sell an older model for a lower price (and I really wonder how people would consider a situation where, eg, the iPad Air 2 wasn't sold at $399 to be so much better). You can also put it another way: If you want to offer products over a range of price points, they have to have different specs. You can restrict that to obvious things like screen size or storage capacity but there is significant value in also having different price points for a given screen size (and storage capacity). Some people want the latest and are ready to pay for it and some people are happy to somewhat lesser specs if that saves them money.
I agree. This is a very common practice for microprocessors, System-on-Chip, and other electronic parts. It could be for heat, but it seems more likely to be binning to me.
Gee, reading all these specs about the new iPad Pro 9.7, and it really seems this is getting even less "pro" then Apple might have wanted us to think.
So. the iPad "Pro" 9.7 is really a mild update of the iPad Air 2 to justify continuing to sell a $600+ tablet because after a year the iPad Air 2 is simply cheaper to build.
Apple has a LONG history of crippling features in a "cheaper" product to try and upsell people to their more expensive products. So making the iPad Pro Air Edition less attractive on specs means a lot of people might bite the bullet and just pay a few hundred more for the iPad Pro Bigger Edition.
Also, is it just me of is Apple's brand naming just getting really bad and confusing. I mean the iPhone SE doesn't even have a number associated to it.
So. the iPad "Pro" 9.7 is really a mild update of the iPad Air 2 to justify continuing to sell a $600+ tablet because after a year the iPad Air 2 is simply cheaper to build.
Apple has a LONG history of crippling features in a "cheaper" product to try and upsell people to their more expensive products. So making the iPad Pro Air Edition less attractive on specs means a lot of people might bite the bullet and just pay a few hundred more for the iPad Pro Bigger Edition.
Also, is it just me of is Apple's brand naming just getting really bad and confusing. I mean the iPhone SE doesn't even have a number associated to it.
Plus the use of the word "underclocked" is inflammatory and misleading. The processor in the iPad Pro 12" inch is likely underclocked too and for the same reasons you mentioned plus a likely desire to hit high yields. The real question in my mind is how does the SE perform battery wise. I could see apps draining the battery pretty fast if all of the chips capabilities are used.
This is understandable. What isn't is the 2GB of RAM. Just left a rant on the other post. BLAH! At least my mind is made up now and I can keep my trusty Air 2. I have no issue with clock speed, especially when it's this small of a difference. But half the RAM will just cripple this thing when it comes to any sort of "Pro" apps. Who is going to dev high-end apps for something that limited? As it was 4GB is pathetic compared to my 2012 rMBP which came with 16GB. I have a feeling it's going to be a long time until I'll be doing much content creation on an iPad. For now I'll just stick to editing low-res proxies of RAW files in Lightroom Mobile. You can't use an iPad to import and edit RAW files. You can't have a bunch of layers and large canvas sizes suitable for print. There is no good way to manage files between projects. It's such a cluster for professionals! I'm not saying that won't fix it at some point, but this is not what I need.
Why? Seriously why hold back machine development for no good reason? The 12" iPad Pro will likely get a big update in the fall, should that machine be held back simple to keep the specs the same as the old one? Seriously using your logic the whole iOS product line would become stagnant.
Baloney! This is an example of Apple giving consumers what they want and improving each model release in significant ways. I really have to wonder what sort of Luddite would want to see hardware become hostage to this resistance to change. Personally I want every new device release to be an improvement on past machines.
Beyond all of that I really doubt that you will be seeing honest cross over in interests for the two platforms. It is a lot like the people buying a Mac Book versus those buying a Mac Book Pro. Different customers entirely and frankly neither one wants their product held hostage to developments on the other.
I think it's more likely I meant the existing Pro product should have a silent update with the tech introduced in the newer Pro product, so that the line stays consistent
Isn't that an insult to geeks? Most geeks I know have dozens of machines and understand the strengths and weaknesses of each. Most of the responses seen here are more of the type that is best described as people ignorant of industry and the development process.
