ipad3 had 512 mb same as ipad2. With A7X itself it should be a huge noticeable difference
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 iPad 5 Spec's Leaked: 2Gb of Ram Confirmed
- Thread starter lewisd25
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ipad3 had 512 mb same as ipad2. With A7X itself it should be a huge noticeable difference
The reason Apple may go with A7 in mini and A7X in big is due to the pricing. Because the A7 is about as powerful (gpu wise, from what I've read) as the A6X (and much more CPU power) it will sufficiently run the retina resolution as good as if not better than the current 4th gen iPad.
Also seeing as the mini iPad has a much smaller battery vs the large one, the extra gpu power from the A7X might result in the mini having a much lower battery compared to the big. Then by keeping the chip different it allows them to keep the iPad 5 as THE iPad, with the mini as a smaller version of it.
iPad 3 had 1GB of ram (first iOS device to do so I believe). I think the jump between iPad 3 and 5 will be about the same as going from the iPhone 4S to 5S. The iPad 3 was spec wise worse than the iPad 2 (due to it's much increase resolution yet not massive increase in gpu) so it's going to be big
.If the iPad Mini 2 and the iPad 5 have the same resolution then the Mini 'needs' the A7X just as much as the iPad 5 does.
It's not as if the iPad 5 serves a different core user base than the iPad Mini, like the Macbook Air vs the Macbook Pro. The iPad and iPad Mini both serve the same user base with form factor being the only difference, and that form factor difference doesn't impact what the user does with it in a significant way.
I think Apple will address pricing a different way. I expect they will reintroduce an updated non-Retina mini next year with a price tag lower than $329.
The battery will be the biggest issue but this is a well known problem when discussing a retina Mini, regardless of the CPU because the screen power draw is a much bigger problem.
My hope as well. I can't remember though: has apple increased prices on spec bumps (even significant spec bumps)? All the keynotes running through my head include "and it's still just..."
I have no clue if it exists, but clearly other people are anticipating it. I'm merely pointing out that if the resolutions of the iPad 5 and the iPad Mini 2 are the same then they have the same need in terms of GPU.
Still rocking the iPad 2. But my wife and son use it so much that I just use the iPhone 5 and MBP instead. Maybe I'll still get the iPad 5 just for myself to get some iPad time.
I hope they do multiple user accounts based on Touch ID login, but I'm guessing not. Would be a great way to control what the kids are doing.
I hope they do multiple user accounts based on Touch ID login, but I'm guessing not. Would be a great way to control what the kids are doing.
But that's not entirely accurate. They certainly both have the same *minimum* requirement but this is where it gets interesting. Up to now Apple have been putting monstrous GPU's into the Retina iPad (along with some other design changes, primarily increasing memory bandwidth) because, quite simply, they needed to.
Rogue changes that. The 6430 in the A7 has a theoretical performance somewhere in the ballpark of the A6X and the CPU is actually significantly faster. True, it's only a 64 bit memory interface not 128 but at the same time it's using faster memory so that might not be a huge deal in the real world. An A7 should, again in theory, be up to the task of running a Retina iPad while needing considerably less power than an A6X ever did.
That being the case you're looking more at an equivalent to the Retina Macbook Pro range. The 6430 is the 'good enough' option as found on the 13" rMBP with an A7X equipped with a 6630 being the step up ala 15" rMBP. More importantly, perhaps, the iPad would have additional battery capacity over the Mini which would give Apple the headroom to push out a significantly faster SoC. That deals with the pricing difference between the two very nicely and sets up a really simple marketing structure with the iPad being the 'pro' in the range.
Contrary to the crap some apple sites like to spew, ram uses very little battery at all (less than 1% of the total power draw). In fact having a large cache of ram allows apps to not have to reload all the time which actually saves battery.
read somewhere that it will come with retina display too. hmmm time to sell my mini ???
Apple confirmed @ the keynote that the A7 has the same graphical power as the iPad 4 (A6X) therefore it is capable of driving the retina display. Therefore the mini doesn't need an A7X to drive it's native resolution since the A7 has already been confirmed as capable.
When do you guys believe Apple will start updating the quality of the screens, retina is nice and all, but I think it is starting to fall behind. Retina was amazing when it came out, nothing compared, but that is different now. It came out 4 generations ago. A lot of the new Samsung devices screens look crystal clear and have a higher density of pixels than Apple products. I also think the colors are a little more vibrant as well.
But the rMBP 13 and the rMBP 15 have different target markets. The 15 is targeted at desktop replacement, hence the dGPU. The market for laptops is mature and full of minutia.
Tablets on the other hand are not. In fact the Mini has the exact same specs as the last non-Retina iPad (2). This makes sense because it is targeted at the same market and has the same resolution.
This.
I find tales of the iPad 3's apparent slowness and decrepitude greatly exaggerated. I have a 3 and a Mini, and I find the 3 a far more pleasant experience than the Mini (beyond the obvious screen difference) for probably ram related reasons. Sure, transitions are maybe a little smoother on a Mini, but the lack of ram in the Mini, meaning lots of tab refreshing and apps being flushed quickly, makes the 3 a far more capable iPad imo. And yes, I'm running both with iOS 7. Equally, I've little doubt an iPad 4 is much, much quicker than a 3, but that doesn't make the 3 the relative dinosaur that so many people make it out to be.
/will be first in line for an iPad 5 regardless
I'm with you... the iPad 4 was everything I wanted... except the size and weight.
Wait a minute. If you are referring to Ming-Chi Kuo's supposed report, I find it sketchy for these simple reasons:
- Technically like one of the users "Mystic Frost" pointed out on another thread, the next step in resolution is 3072x2304 with a scaling of 3 from 1024x768 (for app compatibility). That would first of all place it at essentially at 50% of more pixels straight away.
- Secondly for a company claiming that Retina display is the more or less the optimum display for the average joe, I really wouldn't think they would really try to kick up the display ( not possible to standardize it at 326 without changing resolution).
-Battery life is always been the concern, even now there is considerable doubt about whether Apple will be able to maintain battery life of 10 hours, with such a thin enclosure and battery. I think they should work on improving the battery life instead of kicking up the resolution.
Kuo has been fairly accurate ( if you ignore the fact that he keeps updating his report every few weeks citing things like pressure from competitors, sudden change of plans, sudden breakthroughs in technology, etc.) He started by claiming last year itself that ipad 5 would launch in Spring, then it became late spring, then summer, then finally moved into autumn, before he said it would launch in last quarter.
I say read his reports with some caution.
No it wouldn't. Don't forget that it's a square function so increasing the horizontal and vertical pixel count from twice the original iPad (as the iPad 4 currently has) to three times the original iPad gives 1.5^2 times the number of pixels which is 2.25 times the pixel count of an iPad 4 (and 3), i.e. a 125% increase.
The only way I can see a more modest increase in pixel count being true is if Apple do something along the lines of the iPhone 4 to iPhone 5 change and keep the same horizontal (when viewed in portrait mode) resolution and stretch the screen a bit more vertically to move it closer to a 16:9 aspect ratio in recognition of the fact that watching video is a very common use for iPads.
I somehow doubt Apple would go all the way to 16:9 because it would make the screen and device too big but any stretch would help reduce top and bottom bars a bit when viewing 16:9 content and they're already almost certainly shrinking the side bezels for the iPad 5 so a bit of shrinking on the top and bottom ones in 2014 plus maybe a modest increase in the height of the device might allow a worthwhile move towards 16:9.
The home button is becoming an issue for Apple because it limits how much the bottom bezel can be reduced. I wonder how a TouchID scanner would perform in a more oblong shaped home button such as the ones found on the Samsung S4. That would give a bit more space for the screen.
While 2 GB of RAM is welcome, hopefully by the time the 5G iPad finally reaches retail (my guess: November 1, 2013), Apple will include an update to iOS 7.0 (7.1?) that will address a lot of the issues iPhone 5S users are experiencing with the blue screen of death even under iOS 7.0.2.
In the iPad 6, according to the new report.
Although the retina screen is fine for me. Fine? It's actually a great screen IMHO.
S
There are a number of ways to improve screen quality without changing resolution. Brightness, sharpness, color calibration, etc. Or simply maintaining quality but on less power.
With the size reduction, I'm hoping that Apple is doing some of that in iPad 5.
Not waiting for 6, or waiting for Godot, whichever comes first.
With the size reduction, I'm hoping that Apple is doing some of that in iPad 5.
Not waiting for 6, or waiting for Godot, whichever comes first.