As well, higher resolution screens for phones can hide behind the subsidies wireless carriers pay. Tablets won't get the same luxury. I'm really curious if any Android manufacturers are going to go head-to-head against Apple with a high resolution tablet. Plus, the GPU will likely have to be updated to a more expensive chip.
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
What you describe is more of an Apple-specific problem. They always have only one tablet (o phone) model. They can't afford to go with very high specs because they target wide market. Android manufacturers do not have this problem. They produce variety of devices suitable for different parts of the market. This is one reason why Apple products are always underspecced (small RAM, outdated CPUs, no Gorilla Glass etc.)
That's not really true. Apple was the first one to move to the Cortex A8 architecture when others were stuck in slower ARM11, and both iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4S had the fastest GPU in their respective generation by far.
In fact Apple's A5 chip is the largest chip used in any of the last gen products by far and presumably the most expensive one as well. This is because the powerful GPU required a lot of chip space. As result, despite all the different models, there's not a single Android phone that's faster than iPhone 4S or iPad 2 in graphics performance, and while underclocked the CPU is more than competitive enough.
Apple doesn't market their specs all that hard but other than the stingy RAM amount, their mobile products have been pretty decent as far as spec go - and sometimes even world-beating as in the case of the A5's GPU - ut don't let the fact stop you from clinging to your prejudice.
Not true:
We also learnt from Steve Jobs biography that they do use Gorilla Glass, it's just not publicised as such (probably because it allows Apple to change glass suppliers easily)
"Wendell Weeks [Corning's CEO] is quoted saying "We produced a glass that had never been made." And a prized possession that he has today is the memento framed on display, it is a message from Steve Jobs that reads "We couldn't have done it without you" ... sent on the day when the original iPhone was launched."
This benchmark is about GPU not CPU. Apple CPU's are all severely handicapped at 800MHz - 1GHz. They do have great GPUs.
The consensus on Gorilla Glass is that while some early iPhone models might have used it all latest models use something else.
Clock speed is mostly irrelevant, compare raw CPU benchmarks such as Geekbench 2 (higher is better):
Samsung Galaxy Nexus Dual core ~ Score 400 - 460 (not overclocked, 1.2Ghz)
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?utf8=✓&q=galaxy+nexus
iPhone 4S Dual Core ~ Score 600 - 630
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?utf8=✓&q=iphone+4s
Not handicapped at all.
Where may I find this consensus?
Last edited:
Gorilla Glass or not, it works great
I have dropped my iPhone 4s countless times now. Granted the first drop from head height onto concrete spidered the back glass. But the front glass is scratch and crack free. So if it isn't Gorilla Glass brand, it does a hell of a job.
Also I don't know about only early iPhones having Gorilla Glass. Seems it was an advertised feature, but I could be wrong about that.
I have dropped my iPhone 4s countless times now. Granted the first drop from head height onto concrete spidered the back glass. But the front glass is scratch and crack free. So if it isn't Gorilla Glass brand, it does a hell of a job.
Also I don't know about only early iPhones having Gorilla Glass. Seems it was an advertised feature, but I could be wrong about that.
I'm just stating the facts. I'll look for other links to demonstrate this.
And can you show me that all the articles have been like this one? Where's your proof?
On the A5 architecture
"This advantage is explained by the faster memory access and floating point performance of the A5 processor"
Seems true to me from what I know about electronics engineering. having everything on a single die, or in the same package improves performance.
Light is just pretty slow these days so you get faster throughput by going wider and closer, rather than just a faster clock.
"This advantage is explained by the faster memory access and floating point performance of the A5 processor"
Seems true to me from what I know about electronics engineering. having everything on a single die, or in the same package improves performance.
Light is just pretty slow these days so you get faster throughput by going wider and closer, rather than just a faster clock.
You should hit the books. Read a couple of books on CPU architecture and compilers so your posts won't be so hilarious.
Gorilla Glass
Just last December an UBS analyst seemed convinced that not only is Apple still using Gorilla Glass but it actually "bought around 80 percent of the glass company's Gorilla Glass output through early December"
http://www.macnn.com/articles/11/12/01/corning.product.indicator.of.tablet.market
Now analysts aren't always right, but don't think there's any consensus to the opposite either.
Just last December an UBS analyst seemed convinced that not only is Apple still using Gorilla Glass but it actually "bought around 80 percent of the glass company's Gorilla Glass output through early December"
http://www.macnn.com/articles/11/12/01/corning.product.indicator.of.tablet.market
Now analysts aren't always right, but don't think there's any consensus to the opposite either.
From AnandTech:
And this is for Samsung Galaxy Nexus with TI CPU. Samsung's Exynos (in Galaxy S2) is even faster.
I have an allergy most of the time for marketing speak and full hd just hits all the right buttons for me, "dynamic contrasts" for monitors (usually in the 6,000,000/1 range, lol) also do it to me.
How is that 'handicapped'? What is your opinion on the GPU benchmarks? How do the competitors rate there?
Geekbench shows combined score for both CPU and GPU. iPhone has great GPU and average CPU.
----------
Great GPU which is mostly irrelevant. CPU is more important (for things like web browsing, time to start the application etc.).
That's all to do with Javascript interpreter speeds, not raw CPU or GPU.
The web browser in ICS has a faster Javascript virtual machine than the one on iOS. Before Android 4 ICS, the iOS 5 browser was much faster. That's all.
You can see here how bad the pre-ICS browser performs, even on the Galaxy S2:
Edit: Actually you can see it already in your chart, as even there dual core Galaxy S2 shows under the single core iPhone 4.
----------
No, it's isn't. Geekbench is CPU and RAM only.
Not that hard to see if you simply clicked on one of the links I provided. The test are:
Processor integer performance, Processor floating point performance, Memory performance, Memory bandwidth performance.
No GPU there affecting the results.
So, what's the problem with accepting that the A5 is both a good CPU and GPU? Have you used it? Seems plenty fast for me, numbers or no numbers in the end is all that matters.
Last edited:
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)
Lol dude what do you think the ps3 and 360 have in them? The hardware in those is so many generations old it is not even close.
The ps3 came out almost five years ago? That is a ridiculously long time for technology. The ps3 came out before the original iPhone.
neiltc13 said: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?
Lol dude what do you think the ps3 and 360 have in them? The hardware in those is so many generations old it is not even close.
The ps3 came out almost five years ago? That is a ridiculously long time for technology. The ps3 came out before the original iPhone.
Samsung is launching WQXGA (2560×1600) resolution Tab into the mix using ARM A15 architecture. And no, Samsung makes it's own displays, so it won't matter irrespective of what Apple does.
done
With a user name like 'iPhysicist'? Pictures or it didn't happen....
EDIT: On second thought - no pictures please...
And with all the Processor Muscle, the scrolling of my Internet Browser in my Galaxy Note feels like crap compared to my iPad 1.
Another Benchmark I am very interesting in recently, is how fast I can remove my Battery of my Note. So I can restart that damn thing when it has frozen AGAIN.
Triple-HD screen and other resolution considerations
A HVGA (480px × 320px) iPhone had a pixel density of 136 px/in, the DVGA (960px × 640px) iPhone has 326 px/in, the XGA (1024px × 768px) iPad has 132 px/in and hypothetic iPad 3 would have about 264 px/in with QXGA, but 248 px/in with THD display. For 300 px/in or even 326 px/in at the same physical size the iPad would have to feature something better than a 2320px × 1740px or 2528px × 1896px display, respectively i.e. maybe 2560px × 1920px.
By the way, iPhone and iPod have an aspect ratio of 1.50, the iPad (and legacy video) has 1.33, US paper has 1.29 (Letter) or 1.65 (Legal), international paper is 1.41, and current video and movies are 1.77 to about 2.40. Since tablets are not primarily intended for watching videos, they dont have to use a 16:9 aspect ratio, they should be closer to traditional stock paper and books, i.e. 1.35±0.15 = 6:5 through 3:2.
PS: THD, for Triple HD, is not an established term, but the 4:3 format has triple the pixels of 16:9 720p images. HVGA Half VGA, DVGA Double VGA and, to a lesser extend, QDVGA Quad DVGA are being used, but these terms are not endorsed by any standardization body either.
Assuming they want to keep the aspect ratio of the previous iPad models (4:3), Apple could also opt to use a 1920px × 1440px THD resolution, easily fitting four iOS 3:2 DVGA screens: 2·960px × 2·640px = 1920px × 1280px. Alas, that wouldnt save them much processing power: 3.1Mpx QXGA vs. 2.8Mpx THD vs. 2.5Mpx QDVGA, compared to 0.8MPx XGA.![]()
A HVGA (480px × 320px) iPhone had a pixel density of 136 px/in, the DVGA (960px × 640px) iPhone has 326 px/in, the XGA (1024px × 768px) iPad has 132 px/in and hypothetic iPad 3 would have about 264 px/in with QXGA, but 248 px/in with THD display. For 300 px/in or even 326 px/in at the same physical size the iPad would have to feature something better than a 2320px × 1740px or 2528px × 1896px display, respectively i.e. maybe 2560px × 1920px.
By the way, iPhone and iPod have an aspect ratio of 1.50, the iPad (and legacy video) has 1.33, US paper has 1.29 (Letter) or 1.65 (Legal), international paper is 1.41, and current video and movies are 1.77 to about 2.40. Since tablets are not primarily intended for watching videos, they dont have to use a 16:9 aspect ratio, they should be closer to traditional stock paper and books, i.e. 1.35±0.15 = 6:5 through 3:2.
PS: THD, for Triple HD, is not an established term, but the 4:3 format has triple the pixels of 16:9 720p images. HVGA Half VGA, DVGA Double VGA and, to a lesser extend, QDVGA Quad DVGA are being used, but these terms are not endorsed by any standardization body either.
That would be totally sweet if it shipped for iPad3! I just wonder with resolutions this fine if Apple will stick with these resolutions for a number of years or keep upping every couple years. I guess by then there might be better screen tech than IPS - IAO. It seems like these resolutions are pretty great for the foreseeable future, then again, I'm not an Apple engineer.
So my 23-inch ACD has 1920 x 1200 pixels for approximately 9,645 pixels per square inch.
My HTC Sensation 4G has 540 x 960 pixels on a much smaller display. The pixel density is 65,828 pixels per square inch.
Do I see pixelation on my ACD? No.
Do I sit up close with a magnifier? No.
Any further improvement in pixel density would not be a reason for me to buy a device with a so-called retina display.
My HTC Sensation 4G has 540 x 960 pixels on a much smaller display. The pixel density is 65,828 pixels per square inch.
Do I see pixelation on my ACD? No.
Do I sit up close with a magnifier? No.
Any further improvement in pixel density would not be a reason for me to buy a device with a so-called retina display.
- Status