iPad 2: GPU Benchmarked with Impressive Gains

[PatrickCocoa]

The thing is too though is it does not take a linear increase in gpu processing to power more pixels. If there are 23% more pixels it doesn't take 23% more gpu/cpu to push them, it might take like 10% more.

Really? What's your background (that was intended to be a non-snarky legitimate request for information)?

It seems to me if you have 1,200 pixels you need to change the color on, it would take you 20% longer than changing the color on 1,000 pixels.

+1.

It's amazing how many on here were bitching about the same screen resolution as the first sanitry towel. Yet now that a crap screen helps out perform a Xoom, Motorola are the stupid ones for offering a better screen?

Congratulations! It's been about 9 months since I last heard the "sanitry towel" reference, although back then it was spelled correctly. Thanks for bringing back an old, familiar, warm memory.

The imaginatively named "Wayne" in 2012 should be an order of magnitude faster than Tegra 2. They're certainly not sitting on their laurels.

When you say "order of magnitude" are you in base 10 or base 2?

OK, so I'm nitpicking a bit but your definition of OS and file system is very different than mine, since the iPad has both of those.

I have an iPad 1 and an iMac and have used OS X since it came out, and Mac OS before that (bought my first Mac - Mac 512Ke - in 1985).

As an Apple fan, I can say that iOS has no user-accessible file system. iOS was designed this way, specifically to keep the user experience simple. The lack of a user-accessible file system in iOS is a feature, not a bug.

This lack of a user-accessible file system is one of the biggest hurdles to many people's understanding of the iPad. Most people's workflow and thought processes are file-centric: "I'll move these picture files from my camera to a folder, then open Photoshop and open that file in that folder and modify it, then save that file, then upload that file to Facebook, then attach that file to an e-mail."

But the iPad is app-centric. You can't (by design) create a file in one app and use it in another app. iOS has deliberately removed that capability. So many (most) people, particularly tech-savvy people who are used to working with files, cannot see any situation in which an iPad would be useful.

I endured a year on the iMac.

Think how the poor iMac felt.

 

[RoboCop001]

Do you mean soccer, or do you mean real football?

lol Oh boy....

 

[cmaier]

Really? What's your background (that was intended to be a non-snarky legitimate request for information)?

It seems to me if you have 1,200 pixels you need to change the color on, it would take you 20% longer than changing the color on 1,000 pixels.

Nope. First, you aren't saturating the fill pipelines in either case. Second, rasterization takes a lot less time than all the other steps in the graphics pipeline, most of which are not affected at all by such a slight increase in viewport dimensions.

 

[GnillGnoll]

And yet my point is still valid. We are not talking about 1080 vs. 480 or less. The difference in resolution is not that large.

Do you really think reading the text on these two will be significantly different?

I think it will be noticeable. Certainly enough so to take it beyond "gimmick" status, which is where this discussion started. Of course whether this advantage alone is enough to sway anyone is a different matter.

 

[SandynJosh]

It's going to get very interesting later this year and into the next, as NVIDIA are planning on their Kal-El revision (quad-core, twelve GPU cores) bringing as much as 5x the performance of the Tegra 2. I think there are videos floating about of this new tablet design running Xbox 360 games (only think - at least, they were intensive). The imaginatively named "Wayne" in 2012 should be an order of magnitude faster than Tegra 2. They're certainly not sitting on their laurels. By then we're looking at tablets which are more powerful than many desktop systems.

It's certainly a race to increase speed, but this time around it can not be done using brute force as power consumption is also an important consideration.

I didn't do a search, but Apple bought into the low-power CPU/GPU design business a long while before they were able to implement into the iPhone and iPad. That's a whole lot of lead time some of the competitors didn't spend wisely.

Additionally, the iOS software has had time to become highly optimized for the hardware Apple is using it along with. Contrast that with the Android platform where hardware and OS are being generated independently of each other.

Love a bit of healthy competition! I think Apple and Android fans alike can look forward to cheaper, faster, and even more feature-packed tablets in the coming years.

While I agree with your entire post, I want to remind you that this time around it's not just hardware or price that will make the difference in user satisfaction. Apple didn't leave much oxygen at price levels below their selling prices and more importantly, Apple tablets will gain much by the tight integration of hardware and software design AND by the ecosystem that is built up around the device.

Apple has the better ecosystem in numbers of apps, and the continuously improving system of blocking malware apps from the app store. Apple also has developed a mature UI for apps that extend across its iPhones, iPods and iPads. This summer they will be further extending that to the iMacs and MacBooks via OSX Lion.

Personally, I see HP as possibly being the best candidate for limited success along side Apple. They have the ability to integrate their hardware and OS software for peak performance and battery life as they control both. The OS lends itself to easier third-party app development, which could mean a better ecosystem in a shorter time. However, this is all projection as HP hasn't a single product shipping at this time.

Finally, Apple has "first-mover advantage" and they also seem to have a well laid-out plan to use that advantage to veer the market away from the competition's grasp at any moment they choose.

As an Apple fan, I can say that iOS has no user-accessible file system. iOS was designed this way, specifically to keep the user experience simple. The lack of a user-accessible file system in iOS is a feature, not a bug.

This lack of a user-accessible file system is one of the biggest hurdles to many people's understanding of the iPad. Most people's workflow and thought processes are file-centric: "I'll move these picture files from my camera to a folder, then open Photoshop and open that file in that folder and modify it, then save that file, then upload that file to Facebook, then attach that file to an e-mail."

But the iPad is app-centric. You can't (by design) create a file in one app and use it in another app. iOS has deliberately removed that capability. So many (most) people, particularly tech-savvy people who are used to working with files, cannot see any situation in which an iPad would be useful.

You very well articulated what a leap the iOS is in simplicity of use. It's the prime reason that the iPad is so natural for children or the elderly to use immediately.

For those of us that have trained out minds to think in terms of files, we have a bit of unlearning to do, however the high sales of iPads to the tech-savvy as well as the tyros indicated that it is well designed for how the mind operates and adapts.

 

[Zcar]

these tests are not at a level playing field. The ipad 2 is running at 1024x768 and the xoom is running at 1280x1024. So, the xoom is has about 60% more pixels to render.

Edit: xoom is actually 1280x800, so it's only a ~25% increase in pixels. Still a factor but apple's chip seems faster even when adding that in.

Doing the math, the iPad 2 is pushing 34.6 million pixels/second (44 frames/s * (1024 * 768) pixels/frame) and the Xoom 12.1 million. The iPad pushes about 2.86 times more pixels/s than the Xoom.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

I think it will be noticeable. Certainly enough so to take it beyond "gimmick" status, which is where this discussion started. Of course whether this advantage alone is enough to sway anyone is a different matter.

I think we are just looking at it from different perspectives. I meant gimmicky in that the two particular resolutions on these small screens are close enough that to use the superior resolution as a selling point is gimmicky. But I see it as gimmicky in this particular case. Certainly a major difference in resolution would be a significant decision making factor.

Meanwhile the xoom has other problems:

The Xoom under performs at web browsing tests.

 

[DeeEss]

Amazing results. That puts the Motorola to SHAME.

If I were the competition I'd just give up now.

 

[Luis Ortega]

Amazing results. That puts the Motorola to SHAME.
If I were the competition I'd just give up now.

I'm sure that apple would like for the competition to just vanish, but they're in for a rude awakening as the competition heats up.

The xoom will continue to evolve and improve, whereas the ipad will remain the same until you fork out for the ipad3/4/5/etc.

Apple's tactic of planned obsolescence will look less and less intelligent as the competition begins to offer better functionality and greater future proofing.

The end result will be a redux of the mac / pc battle, with macs becoming another niche system and pcs dominating the market.

It's a shame that Apple is so myopic.

Apple's original iPad was no slouch in the Web performance department. It has always delivered solid results -- minus Flash content, of course -- and iOS 4.3 gave it a nice kick in the pants, with improved JavaScript performance. The iPad 2 runs the exact same software, so how big a role does its fresher hardware play with respect to performance? We can't leave out the Motorola Xoom, which offers the latest Android browser from Google. Here's what we experienced.

Benchmarks
Motorola's Xoom tablet, at 1.5lbs, is the first tablet to run Android 3.0 Honeycomb at launch.
We ran all three devices against a series of Web browser performance benchmarks, including Google V8, Sunspider, and Peacekeeper, using the same Wi-Fi network connection.
For the Google V8 (version 6) test, the iPad 2 scored 536, the iPad scored 384, and the Xoom rated 534. With Sunspider 0.9.1, the iPad 2 scored 2068.8ms; the iPad scored 3281.0ms; and the Xoom scored 2140.3ms. On the Peacekeeper tests, the iPad 2 scored 781; the iPad scored 512; and the Xoom scored 889.

Are these benchmarks worth getting worked up about? I suppose if you're a geek they might be exciting, but it's a bit like trying to imagine what it would be like to reach 88 miles per hour and trigger the Flux Capacitor. What do these little numbers really mean?

Real-World Browsing
In my book, pitting the browsers of the iPad/iPad 2 and Xoom head to head in real-world browsing is the kind of test worth running. So we did that. We tested the iPad 2, iPad, and Xoom side by side using a host of Web sites. Before loading each page in the tablet's browser, we cached it on a desktop. All three devices were using the same Wi-Fi connection to perform the tests.
We then loaded: InformationWeek.com, Informationweek.com/video, Darkreading.com, Lightreading.com, Facebook,com, Twitter.com, CBSNews.com. Revision3.com, TMZ.com, ESPN.com, and PG.com. These sites have a diverse range of technology requirements, including hardcore graphics, JavaScript, HTML5, and H.264 tests.

In every single test, the iPad 2 and the Xoom clearly bested the original iPad. In direct comparisons, the iPad 2 and Xoom loaded sites, on average, about 30% faster than the original iPad. Not that the original iPad was pokey, but the other two tablets are definitely faster.

The results for the Xoom and iPad 2 are much harder to differentiate. In terms of raw speed, they split the line pretty much down the middle. (Remember, the Xoom doesn't yet support Flash, so that didn't play a role in our testing.) I can't say that either tablet handily beat the other, though each offers a number of individual user interface elements that may make a difference.

The Xoom has superior tab control, with what I'd call "normal" tabs that run across the top of the browser and can be easily pressed for fast tab switching. Switching tabs on the iPad 2 is a bit more cumbersome. It requires you to press a software button, which loads a new window where users pick the tab they want to load. The Xoom supports at least a dozen open tabs at a time, while the iPad 2 supports only nine. I also like the visual bookmarks (shows a thumbnail image of each site) available on the Xoom. Bookmarks on the iPad 2 are a boring old text list. However, the iPad lets you stick a bookmark bar at the top of the Web page, which makes it easy to jump to a number of your favorite sites in a hurry.

Bottom Line
The iPad 2 and Xoom clearly beat the original iPad in every sense. Calling a clear winner between the iPad 2 and the Xoom is tough, and, based on our benchmark results and real-world performance tests, comes down to user experience preferences. You're simply going to like one better than the other.
http://www.informationweek.com/news...jhtml?articleID=229301039&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_All

 

[MacMan86]

I'm sure that apple would like for the competition to just vanish, but they're in for a rude awakening as the competition heats up.

The xoom will continue to evolve and improve, whereas the ipad will remain the same until you fork out for the ipad3/4/5/etc.

Apple's tactic of planned obsolescence will look less and less intelligent as the competition begins to offer better functionality and greater future proofing.

The end result will be a redux of the mac / pc battle, with macs becoming another niche system and pcs dominating the market.

It's a shame that Apple is so myopic.

I love how you see Motorola's move to get the Xoom out the door as fast as possible, missing much of its originally promised functionality, with the promise to add the features via software updates and mail-in upgrades as future proofing.

I don't think you got the memo that said products are supposed to ship with all their intended features. Sending them away for an undefined length of time to have these features factory-installed is not the way things are done.

And anyway, the iPad 2 won't remain the same. iOS 5 will be out in a few months adding who knows what to the device. I'll take that over hanging on for a supposed software update to bring SD card functionality (no ETA given) along with Android updates that are delivered 'some time' (if at all) after Google releases them to the manufacturers.

 

[Luis Ortega]

I love how you see Motorola's move to get the Xoom out the door as fast as possible, missing much of its originally promised functionality, with the promise to add the features via software updates and mail-in upgrades as future proofing.

And yet it still performs on a par with the finished ipad2.
When it adds more functionality it will leave the ipad2 in the dust.

 

[MacMan86]

And yet it still performs on a par with the finished ipad2.
When it adds more functionality it will leave the ipad2 in the dust.

Except you said 'when'. You're comparing something that is physically available with a list of mythical promises - completely pointless. 'When' could be around the time of iPad 3 for all we know.

And what is this functionality that is going to come along and amaze people?
Flash? For a lot of people, Flash is increasingly becoming a non-issue. It's getting less and less relevant a technology by the day.
SD card reader? If it means a lot to someone, they can already buy the iPad camera kit
4G? I see you're in the UK too - I wouldn't hold your breath for any sort of 4G anytime soon, let alone extensive coverage. UK carriers are talking about it being years away not months http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/37946/when-is-4g-coming-to-uk

Anything I've missed?

 

[moderately]

And yet it still performs on a par with the finished ipad2.
When it adds more functionality it will leave the ipad2 in the dust.

I don't think "on par" means what you think it does. If xoom is on par with iPad2 according to these benchmarks then iPad1 is on par with the xoom.

 

[lilo777]

Look at the big picture

I think people can not see the forest for the trees in this case. Apple does have a good chip. Occasionally they do. But this does not resolve the main problem why customers are generally not wise choosing Apple over competition. Apple does not have any exclusivity rights on CPU/GPU in A5. Other companies (Qualcom, Marvel, TI, Broadcom etc.) will come up with the same and better performing chips in a month or so. There will be ARM chips with 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 etc. GPU cores. Android users will be able to choose a tablet for their needs: AlienWare for gaming, Sony for style and mobility, 7" for mobility, 12" for gaming etc. And iOS users will be stuck with one model regardless of their actual preferences. Well, there is something Android users will never have - the lines at product launch day

 

[cmaier]

I think people can not see the forest for the trees in this case. Apple does have a good chip. Occasionally they do. But this does not resolve the main problem why customers are generally not wise choosing Apple over competition. Apple does not have any exclusivity rights on CPU/GPU in A5.

Of course they do. http://www.patentgenius.com/assignee/IntrinsityInc.html.

They also have better designers (ex DEC and AMD guys, among others) than qualcomm, TI, Samsung, and the rest. They may have the same architecture as everyone else, but performance per watt and performance per dollar is heavily influenced by logical, circuit, and physical design. And as time goes on Apple will customize more and more of the design in ways that their competition won't. (Among other things, competitive ARM chips are designed to run in many devices by many manufacturers - Apple can tailor the chips to its own needs - even for a single product if they wish).

 

[lilo777]

Of course they do. http://www.patentgenius.com/assignee/IntrinsityInc.html.

They also have better designers (ex DEC and AMD guys, among others) than qualcomm, TI, Samsung, and the rest. They may have the same architecture as everyone else, but performance per watt and performance per dollar is heavily influenced by logical, circuit, and physical design. And as time goes on Apple will customize more and more of the design in ways that their competition won't. (Among other things, competitive ARM chips are designed to run in many devices by many manufacturers - Apple can tailor the chips to its own needs - even for a single product if they wish).

As far as I remember most of those (or at least the more experienced ones) DEC and AMD guys left Apple after Apple acquired them. Hardware design is not my area of expertise but in general a few patents is not really a big deal in chip design (everybody has some patents and, say, NVIDIA probably has more GPU-related patents than Apple does). Apple customizing their chips? Did not they go this way before with Power PC? We know how this ended up. "Generic" Intel chips defeated them handily. In this case too, I believe Intel will tramp them all in a year or two No amount of circuit trickery can defeat being one generation behind in technology.

 

[cmaier]

As far as I remember most of those (or at least the more experienced ones) DEC and AMD guys left Apple after Apple acquired them.

No. I think you are thinking of one of the PA Semi guys (probably Dubberpuhl). They have plenty more, including lots of folks who used to work with me and who did not arrive at Apple via. PA Semi.

Hardware design is not my area of expertise but in general a few patents is not really a big deal in chip design (everybody has some patents and, say, NVIDIA probably has more GPU-related patents than Apple does).

If hardware design is not your area of expertise, why do you feel confident in making that statement? And what makes you think that "GPU-related patents" are of consequence? They would only apply to the architecture of the GPU (which Apple licenses), not the design of the GPU.

Apple customizing their chips? Did not they go this way before with Power PC?

No, they did not. The powerpc chip designs were performed by IBM, Motorola (and later Freescale), and Exponential (never used).

We know how this ended up. "Generic" Intel chips defeated them handily.

Completely different situation. With PowerPC Apple embraced a niche architecture/ecosystem. With ARM they are embracing the entrenched and most popular mobile architecture, and are improving the design in ways that other companies are unlikely to be able to match.

In this case too, I believe Intel will tramp them all in a year or two No amount of circuit trickery can defeat being one generation behind in technology.

Huh? Intel is nowhere close to competing with ARM in performance per watt. Their cutting-edge fabs with their high leakage current devices are of no use to them in the mobile space. Their 2-year design cycles also aren't of any use to them.

 

[Luis Ortega]

Except you said 'when'. You're comparing something that is physically available with a list of mythical promises - completely pointless. 'When' could be around the time of iPad 3 for all we know.
And what is this functionality that is going to come along and amaze people?
Flash? For a lot of people, Flash is increasingly becoming a non-issue. It's getting less and less relevant a technology by the day.
SD card reader? If it means a lot to someone, they can already buy the iPad camera kit
4G? I see you're in the UK too - I wouldn't hold your breath for any sort of 4G anytime soon, let alone extensive coverage. UK carriers are talking about it being years away not months http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/37946/when-is-4g-coming-to-uk
Anything I've missed?

Lots.
When will happen quickly. That's the beauty of competition.
With the ipad, when will mean buying a new ipad.
And the point that you missed completely is that, even without the when, the xoom is already on a par with the ipad2 and leagues ahead of the ipad1.

I'm not tied to apple with an umbilical cord, so I will compare all of the competition. But so far, all tablets are nothing more than entertainment gimmicks with limited functionality.
One day, they will fulfill their promise of being a capable and productive mobile computer with fun entertainment features.
Until then, a good laptop and a good smartphone are a much better combination to invest in.

We have had an ipad around the house for a few weeks now, since the school where I work has given the teachers one to test in a pilot program.
After the first couple of days, it just sat there as everyone in the house preferred to use laptops, game consoles or hd televisions to work and relax with rather than the ipad.
And an ipad without 3g is completely useless as a real mobile device.

 

[MacMan86]

Lots.
When will happen quickly. That's the beauty of competition.
With the ipad, when will mean buying a new ipad.
And the point that you missed completely is that, even without the when, the xoom is already on a par with the ipad2 and leagues ahead of the ipad1.

I'm not tied to apple with an umbilical cord, so I will compare all of the competition. But so far, all tablets are nothing more than entertainment gimmicks with limited functionality.
One day, they will fulfill their promise of being a capable and productive mobile computer with fun entertainment features.
Until then, a good laptop and a good smartphone are a much better combination to invest in.

We have had an ipad around the house for a few weeks now, since the school where I work has given the teachers one to test in a pilot program.
After the first couple of days, it just sat there as everyone in the house preferred to use laptops, game consoles or hd televisions to work and relax with rather than the ipad.
And an ipad without 3g is completely useless as a real mobile device.

Lots.

You're really going to have to give some examples here if you want to be taken seriously. Beyond what I've said above, Motorola has given no plans to add other functionality. Why would they? They'll have the Xoom 2 to market before long as well, no different to the idea of an iPad 3. Motorola don't want you to buy one tablet for 3 years no more than Apple does. Everyone's in the business of you selling you stuff.

The Xoom is not on par with the iPad 2 performance-wise, this is what the whole article is about. No amount of 'additional functionality' is going to change the Tegra 2 GPU inside the thing - it's never going to perform 8 times faster.

Just because you don't find the iPad useful doesn't mean millions of others don't. My iPad doesn't sit still long enough to gather dust I can assure you.

 

[Luis Ortega]

The Xoom is not on par with the iPad 2 performance-wise, this is what the whole article is about.

You obviously didn't read the article I posted.
http://www.informationweek.com/news...jhtml?articleID=229301039&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_All

 

[MacMan86]

You obviously didn't read the article I posted.
http://www.informationweek.com/news...jhtml?articleID=229301039&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_All

Well you're wrong there because I did read your article. The article I was referring to was the article that sparked this thread, regarding GPU performance

What I'm not sure you realise is that article talks only about one aspect of the two devices: web browsing.

Web browsing is one app - to base all opinions on web browsing, ignoring every other use of the tablet (content creation, productivity, gaming….) is pointless.

I fail to see how you can't understand that the two devices being on par when it comes to web browsing does not automatically make them 'on par' overall.

 

[Luis Ortega]

What I'm not sure you realise is that article talks only about one aspect of the two devices: web browsing.

Web browsing is one app - to base all opinions on web browsing, ignoring every other use of the tablet (content creation, productivity, gaming….) is pointless.

I fail to see how you can't understand that the two devices being on par when it comes to web browsing does not automatically make them 'on par' overall.

Yeah, sure, like content creation, productivity or gaming are even remotely useful on any current tablets.
For that, people use devices that are designed for the purpose.
The main use of a tablet is for web surfing, and even here, without 3g, a tablet is useless as a mobile device.

 

[MacMan86]

Yeah, sure, like content creation, productivity or gaming are even remotely useful on any current tablets.
For that, people use devices that are designed for the purpose.
The main use of a tablet is for web surfing, and even here, without 3g, a tablet is useless as a mobile device.

Despite the fact that the majority of iPads sold are Wi-Fi only? Despite the fact that many potential Xoom owners are holding off for the Wi-Fi only model?

I think you should have a look at the videos of Infinity Blade on an iPad 2 to see whats is possible on current tablets (well iPad 2 anyway…)

a tablet is useless as a mobile device.

You missed out the words "in my opinion".
For me, an iPad is a better than my phone at almost everything, hence it's a good mobile device. My laptop is great but it's too big and bulky to be a truly 'mobile device' - for me (and many others), the iPad wins

The main use of a tablet is for web surfing

I don't think someone who doesn't use their iPad is qualified to talk about what the main use of such a device is...

 

[Luis Ortega]

Despite the fact that the majority of iPads sold are Wi-Fi only? Despite the fact that many potential Xoom owners are holding off for the Wi-Fi only model?

So what?
There's a sucker born every minute.
As a living room device, the ipad is slow, limited and ultimately very boring.
As a mobile device, without 3g, it is practically useless.

 

[MacMan86]

So what?
There's a sucker born every minute.
As a living room device, the ipad is slow, limited and ultimately very boring.
As a mobile device, without 3g, it is practically useless.

It's lovely that you have your opinions. Thankfully, everyone else thinks for themselves and they make up their own minds, often coming to different conclusions to you.

I find it very telling you've ignored my previous points about the Xoom.

Precisely why you think you're better than the people who buy iPads is a mystery. If they don't like it, they can return it. Most don't, so they're happily tapping away on their tablets. Meanwhile, you're on here, sounding increasingly bitter. Seems to me that any victory you could hope to achieve would be a very hollow one.