Benchmarks on Third-Generation iPad Reveal 1 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM

[Misaki]

Quad core CPUs on these devices are absolutely useless. Heck, I have one of the original quad core intel CPUs on my PC and my cpu gadget illustrates it's almost always idle.

The only time it goes above 50% is whenever I am compressing (burning) videos. ...

Most of the horsepower in a desktop is wasted, which is why the demand for CPU's with smaller TDP and better power-saving ability, particularly on desktops and servers.

If I go sample all the systems I have at arms reach...
All the desktops are at 5%, and some of the servers. The busiest one is a Linux machine even though it has only 80% of the traffic of the 5% BSD servers. The CPU hasn't been a bottleneck for anything, and all these machines are Kentsfield/Clovertown cores.

Unfortunately there are certain combinations of workloads you can't combine and get 100% efficiency. I'd love to have all my systems use their spare CPU to do video crunching or math, but it would seriously impair their performance (at the data center) or needlessly consume power (at home or at the data center.)

Until such time Intel manages to create 20 watt Xeon chips, there won't be a need to upgrade the servers anytime soon. It's wasteful enough having to rent 42U's and only use 4U of space because the data center only has 15A per 42U.

 

[Puevlo]

So essentially people are paying for nothing more than a software update. The Retina display should be included in firmware updates for existing devices.

 

[Mr Rogers]

Why all the fuss

I'm not sure why the speed geeks are foaming at the mouth at the new iPad update - which is incremental expect for the retina display.

Not having owned a iPad and not being at all impressed by the iPad 1 & 2's display when compared to a iPod Touch, I'm only now in the market to get a iPad - it will be used for games and educational stuff for my 5 year old daughter.

The improved display, increased RAM and 10 hour battery life are all important to me - yes it would be nice to have a bit more snappy CPU - if only 20% faster than the iPad 2 - basically, I want to purchase an iPad which I can put AppleCare on and use for 2 years - I can then either give it away or sell it and invest in the latest model.

Now, I currently run a top-end 2011 iMac and certainly will not upgrade to the 2012 model which again will have an incremental upgrade - this will not be the case in 2013, in which case I may upgrade again - for those of us without a iPad, the latest model seems a reasonable investment, for those who own the iPad 2, probably best to hold on to it for another 12 months.

 

[SBlue1]

i don't really mind the same processor. i am a little worried though if it will be enough for the power games in two or three years since i won't upgrade in a while.

what concerns me way more is the starting storage space of just 16 gig and no way to upgrade with a sd-card later. my first smart phone had a limited storage as well and after i installed 30 or so apps i run out of space and the phone stoped making fun using it. i don't want to pay $500 and after uploadig some music and a movie or two not have enough space to download a big app.

i would pay $600 at most for the middle model, but that one is still just 32 gigs. i was so hoping for a storage upgrade...

 

[Abazigal]

I guess the thing is - what else can be done to further improve the tablet, assuming you want to preserve that long battery life and sleek form factor? You aren't going to find desktop-like specs on it anytime soon, and boosting hardware specs only go so far considering what the majority of buyers use it for.

However, I agree that the upgrade is timely, if only to give people an alternative to the multitudes of other tablets flooding the market.

 

[diamond.g]

Haha, I'm sure that it's just left out of the test for some reason.

Ah right, it's possible either way at this point but the off screen tests at 720p (which isn't limited by v-sync) are a pretty good example.

Yeah, but since the resolution is the same the workload between the two is the same. So why isn't the new iPad twice as fast. Something is odd about that. I think it could be that we are seeing the new iPad being CPU bound.

 

[blackcrayon]

Don't forget the fact that enterprises / businesses arena is still dominated by MS & Win8 will integrate nicely with MS' server products and the fact that Office 15 will run on Win8 tablets, and not a watered down version either like iWork.

Note that the ARM Windows tablets, as it stands now, will *not* integrate with Microsoft's server products. And it seems the ARM tablets are the iPad's real competition right now. Sure there will be x86 Win tablets, but do people really want thick/heavy or low battery life tablets? Or if they do, are they the same people that would have bought an iPad? I'm not sure.

 

[locust76]

So essentially people are paying for nothing more than a software update. The Retina display should be included in firmware updates for existing devices.

Wait, what? Quad core GPU? More memory? LTE? Retina display =/= software or firmware.

 

[perealb]

Wait, what? Quad core GPU? More memory? LTE? Retina display =/= software or firmware.

Yeah. Mr. Puevlo really doesn't know what he's talking about. Most people don't.

 

[D.T.]

Not having owned a iPad and not being at all impressed by the iPad 1 & 2's display when compared to a iPod Touch, I'm only now in the market to get a iPad - it will be used for games and educational stuff for my 5 year old daughter.

FWIW, our just-about-to-be-4-year-old has been using my iPad 1st gen pretty regularly for about a year and really enjoys it. The display, performance (and even capacity, it’s only a 16GB model) is plenty adequate, and with the release of the 3rd gen, 1st gen model prices should really take a nose dive.

She’s reasonably careful, but it has picked up some scratches on the display, not too noticeable, but my point: if a fairly young child is going to be the primary user, you might be better off with a more “disposable” price.

We also use a NGP case which gives is some decent bump protection and wraps around the front enough to give it a protection when glass down.

Yeah. Mr. Puevlo really doesn't know what he's talking about. Most people don't.

Did he really suggest the display could be upgrade via the OS? Good lord.

 

[bawbac]

I guess the thing is - what else can be done to further improve the tablet, assuming you want to preserve that long battery life and sleek form factor? .

1. SD slot for expanded memory/storage or just to read/load files
2. LED flash for camera
3. Built-in HDMI connector for video/audio out
4. USB slot (I can see that this may degrade battery life if gadgets are connected)

 

[x-evil-x]

1. SD slot for expanded memory/storage or just to read/load files
2. LED flash for camera
3. Built-in HDMI connector for video/audio out
4. USB slot (I can see that this may degrade battery life if gadgets are connected)

The only thing i see apple doing is led flash. all the other stuff there are adapters for and probably won't ever be on the iPad ever.

 

[jclardy]

Nonsense again. That is talking about applications and web sites that target mobile phones. The resolution of websites in general has been influenced by laptops and desktops displays that already have had higher resolutions than the one from the new iPad for a long time.

Here is another forum post, this time with images from Apple's own website.

I am not saying that layouts will not work or anything like that. I am saying that a normal website with images (Every website) will have its images pixel doubled at 100% zoom. So in comparison to the non-image portions of the website (Text, CSS) the images will look crappier unless the site provides hi-dpi versions of every image.

Normal desktops with high resolution monitors just display websites smaller (Apple.com on a 27" iMac will have a ton of whitespace vs the same on a 11" MBA display.) The iPad does not work the same way because it scales the content frame to fit the display so you don't have to zoom in all the time.

 

[perealb]

Here is another forum post, this time with images from Apple's own website.

I am not saying that layouts will not work or anything like that. I am saying that a normal website with images (Every website) will have its images pixel doubled at 100% zoom. So in comparison to the non-image portions of the website (Text, CSS) the images will look crappier unless the site provides hi-dpi versions of every image.

Normal desktops with high resolution monitors just display websites smaller (Apple.com on a 27" iMac will have a ton of whitespace vs the same on a 11" MBA display.) The iPad does not work the same way because it scales the content frame to fit the display so you don't have to zoom in all the time.

Well, I understand what you're saying but the web doesn't revolve around the iPad. What you are saying already occurs with desktops but the browsers do a god job rendering when you zoom in and not all pictures shown in a site are shown at their original size. Besides that, there are several objects in a webpage that are escalable, so characters, frames, applets, lines, boxes, etc are shown in adaptable resolution - just like when you zoom in a pdf. There are size standards when you make a website (usually 1024 pixels for the width) so, for the majority of people, it won't look too small or too big. Just because the iPad works the way it does, web developers are not going to rush and start replacing images with bigger resolution versions so it shows perfectly on an iPad. At one point, this will happen, like it happened in the past because display resolutions were very small - not because of the new iPad! The new iPad resolution is not anything new. We have had that kind of resolution for a long time in desktops. I have a high resolution monitor but I don't think because of that, I will start demanding web developers to upgrade their images - I have my browser set to zoom in to 125%. Most websites on the iPad 2 are shown zoomed out. On the new iPad it will most likely show zoomed in - not a big deal.

 

[KurtangleTN]

I like how the Geekbench score is still less than a Quicksilver G4. Tablets have a long way to go.

 

[MythicFrost]

Yeah, but since the resolution is the same the workload between the two is the same. So why isn't the new iPad twice as fast. Something is odd about that. I think it could be that we are seeing the new iPad being CPU bound.

It's likely bottlenecked by something, possibly the CPU as you say. Otherwise, it could just not be scaling as well at a low resolution, at 2048x1536 the MP2 would probably perform only half as well as the MP4.

 

[bawbac]

 

[cube]

Well, actually it is double. Resolution is typically given in linear DPI or linear pixel counts (i.e. 1024x768), not by total pixel count. The total pixel count is quadruple, but the resolution (both DPI and linear pixel count) is double.

The total pixel count of a monitor is called resolution.

 

[Snowy_River]

The total pixel count of a monitor is called resolution.

Really? When? I've never heard that. Not saying its not true, but I have honesty never heard that. Anytime I've asked about the resolution of a monitor, whether it was an older CRT where you'd ask about the maximum possible resolution, or a desktop flat screen, or a laptop display, the answer has always been in terms of "1024x768" or "1440x900", i.e. linear dimensions, and I have never, EVER heard "oh, the resolution is 786,432 pixels".

So where have you heard this?

 

[diamond.g]

so now that the new version supports the retina display, are the results any different?

 

[cube]

Really? When? I've never heard that. Not saying its not true, but I have honesty never heard that. Anytime I've asked about the resolution of a monitor, whether it was an older CRT where you'd ask about the maximum possible resolution, or a desktop flat screen, or a laptop display, the answer has always been in terms of "1024x768" or "1440x900", i.e. linear dimensions, and I have never, EVER heard "oh, the resolution is 786,432 pixels".

So where have you heard this?

That's what I meant, the number of pixels in both directions is called resolution for a monitor.

 

[Snowy_River]

Well, actually it is double. Resolution is typically given in linear DPI or linear pixel counts (i.e. 1024x768), not by total pixel count. The total pixel count is quadruple, but the resolution (both DPI and linear pixel count) is double.

That's what I meant, the number of pixels in both directions is called resolution for a monitor.

And yet, the quote that you objected to I specifically referred to linear pixel counts (i.e. 1024x768). Total pixel count on a 1024x768 display is 786,432 pixels. The iPad going from 1024x768 to 2048x1536, made the total pixel count go to 3,145,728 pixels. Thus, the (linear) resolution doubled (in both dimensions), while the total pixel count quadrupled.

 

[cube]

And yet, the quote that you objected to I specifically referred to linear pixel counts (i.e. 1024x768). Total pixel count on a 1024x768 display is 786,432 pixels. The iPad going from 1024x768 to 2048x1536, made the total pixel count go to 3,145,728 pixels. Thus, the (linear) resolution doubled (in both dimensions), while the total pixel count quadrupled.

The resolution quadrupled. It doubled in 2 dimensions.

 

[blackcrayon]

The resolution quadrupled. It doubled in 2 dimensions.

Nope.

And if it doubled only in one dimension (1024 x 1536) then the resolution was increased by 50%

 

[Snowy_River]

The resolution quadrupled. It doubled in 2 dimensions.

Wow. I begin to feel like I'm bashing my head against a wall. No. The total number of pixels quadrupled. You, yourself, admitted that the total number of pixels is never used when talking about the the resolution of a display. So why are you insisting that the resolution quadrupled when any number relating to the resolution that you look at has simply doubled?

I'll say it one more time, with feeling. Resolution is either a linear pixel count or dpi. While it is true that the resolution of the new iPad has doubled in both dimensions, a consequence of keeping the same aspect ratio, and the dpi resolution has doubled, a consequence of keeping the same physical size, ONLY THE TOTAL PIXEL COUNT HAS QUADRUPLED, NO ASPECT OF THE RESOLUTION HAS DONE ANYTHING OTHER THAN DOUBLE.