i read wrong, i fixed it lol. i originally thought they said qualcomm for cpu not the chipset, my bad
EDIT: i think the guy shardey posted from made the same mistake i did
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.
iPad 2 Screen Likely to Have 2048x1536 resolution
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i read wrong, i fixed it lol. i originally thought they said qualcomm for cpu not the chipset, my bad
EDIT: i think the guy shardey posted from made the same mistake i did
An emulation layer is possible, but in Lion aren't they trying to get away from layers with the whole command-central-unification-of-all-views-etc?
Also, if Mac's start running iOS apps, that detracts from the number of iOS devices they sell .. if i can run all the iOS apps i want on my MacBook Pro then why would i buy an iPad? No, it seems to me they make more money by keeping things separate and thats really the primary goal of a business ...
i read wrong, i fixed it lol. i originally thought they said qualcomm for cpu not the chipset, my bad
Heh, no problem, we're all friends here.
I linked Tegra because you did not know what Tegra was... seeing as you had no idea what the word Tegra meant when I mentioned it.
So yeah, my argument still stands. Now, as chrmjenkins says, a core can be defined as a manufacturer defines.
However, as of now, the GPU in the iPad and iPhone is single cored.
Example, HD 5970, it has two cores even though each core is made of 1600 individual streaming processors or cores.
Misdirection or propaganda -- release some possible feature of the iPad2 and all the iPad-competitors start getting sweaty and divert their efforts to produce a similar/competing product. Whilst all these competitors are wasting time & money on perfecting their offerings, Apple releases iPad2 with screen res that is only x1.5 rather than x2. Every iPad hater and most iPad owners decide to buy iPad2 -- Apple takes 110% of tablet market.
I am pretty skeptical of this, but then again, if you had told me a few years ago that I would today have an iPod with a 960x640 screen resolution, I likely wouldn't have believed that either. 2048x1536 would open up a lot of development frontiers with the sheer amount of information that can be shown on a single screen, and would instantly obsolete pretty much every other tablet released or near release.
Where did I show any confusion as to what tegra is? My brother has a Zune HD which uses the Tegra chipset. I plan on getting an Atrix which has the Tegra2 chipset.
But what about the proper channels, bottleneck, and other ambiguous claims you've made? What part of your argument stands exactly?
And as chrmjenkins stated it's all relative, so I don't see how you define it as single core.
/facepalm. Oh god.
This is the internet after all.
There's no way that's going to happen. I don't think you guys have any idea how expensive that would be not to mention that not even the newest mobile GPU will be able to run graphically intensive games at anything more than a slideshow frame rate at that insane resolution.
Seriously, that the Macrumors editors posts this garbage now is just appaling. Apple never said that "Retina" required 300 dpi. Viewing distance is a factor. 48 ppi can be a "retina" display at a great enough distance, all of this according to Apple.
Correct the sumary, please.
It just makes sense to do this. The screen is one of the single most important things about Tablets.
I love the display on my iPhone, it makes reading a pleasure.
Just wait until Apple can hold up an iPad display against any other tablet on the market.
Every other tablet, screen to screen, will look generations out of date in comparison.
I love the display on my iPhone, it makes reading a pleasure.
Just wait until Apple can hold up an iPad display against any other tablet on the market.
Every other tablet, screen to screen, will look generations out of date in comparison.
Apple likes to use expensive parts initially, with the idea that they get cheaper over time, but they continue to charge the same. Apple can drive the price of those screens down. We need res ind, though.
b
b
Just a few thoughts on this. I don't think it is anywhere near as technically difficult to handle (in terms of GPU, screen cost, battery life, etc.) as some people here are making it out to be. This would certainly be a very progressive move and it would surprise me, but if anyone can pull it off in the near future, it is Apple. There is always the option of new technology to make it easier.
As for games, sure, some games available today wouldn't be able to handle this type of graphics (at least without appropriate boosts in CPU/GPU/RAM, which we don't really have a reason to discount just yet). They would still be able to run at the present resolution, though, without new problems.
And given the presence of these graphics in Apple software, I expect that means Apple has been at least testing this. I would expect it means they have hoped to accomplish it with the next iPad, even. But there's still the possibility that they may have decided against it during testing, or delayed it until the third revision of the iPad.
I hope they do it. It would make reading so much more enjoyable.
As for games, sure, some games available today wouldn't be able to handle this type of graphics (at least without appropriate boosts in CPU/GPU/RAM, which we don't really have a reason to discount just yet). They would still be able to run at the present resolution, though, without new problems.
And given the presence of these graphics in Apple software, I expect that means Apple has been at least testing this. I would expect it means they have hoped to accomplish it with the next iPad, even. But there's still the possibility that they may have decided against it during testing, or delayed it until the third revision of the iPad.
I hope they do it. It would make reading so much more enjoyable.
And I care why?
C'mon, memory bus? You can't figure that out? What other ambiguous claims? Everyone knows a display that caliber already requires a powerful GPU which clearly the iPad currently does not have.
So why do you argue with me then?
/facepalm. Oh god.
A bigger one is mine at seeing your inane comments
True, and you are the one who started this who thing.
Mwahahahaha, I was having to defend this possibility the whole time against all the naysayers! I knewww it!
Apple wants iPad to be magical
Apple wants iPad to be magical
All Macs ship with either a Magic Mouse, or a trackpad equivalent to Magic Trackpad. What "fact" are you talking about?
Apple never said that "Retina" required 300 dpi./QUOTE]
My thoughts exactly. Had it been Microsoft, it would be called "Super High Resolution Display" and no one would be misinterpreting it as a standard similar to FullHD1080p or 4K (for example).
But since it is Apple people are saying "for a display to be retina". How is that an adjective?
I think this is Jimmy's point. If the memory bus is the bottleneck like you pointed out, adding more cores does not solve the issue. You're just saturating the bus that much faster with more cores making your bottleneck even worse.
I did catch that too in your post, it didn't make sense. He is right that your initial post was all over the place and lacked focus and logic.
But since it is Apple people are saying "for a display to be retina". How is that an adjective?
There's nothing wrong with Apple calling it a Retina display. However, people are confusing what Apple really meant even though it was explained clearly by Steve. 300 dpi is a hard requirement. 300 dpi at 12" distance was. At 18" distance, it's lower dpi. The Math is out there, someone bothered to measure it and write up on it.