Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPad Tech Specs: Cortex A8, 256MB Ram, PowerVR SGX 535

pinchez said:
The iPad really is a stark reminder of the Apple "brand" tax we pay. I understand the magic is in the OS and Apple have squeezed every ounce of performace out of iPad and if it works well then job done, but the cost is simply horrendus
Click to expand...

Nobody else in the world could offer a comparable tablet device like the iPad that does what it does in the way that it does for $500. Nobody.

This is something people don't seem to understand. Between the screen, touch interface, components and UI, there is no company or combination of companies in existence that could offer a comparable product for that Price point and not do so without losing a significant amount of money.
 
Seriously, it gets the job done, it's fast, and the battery life is spectacular; why get worked up over tidbits.
 
That is a really good question and I don't really know.

However I can guess! I'm going to guess that they are clocking the chip a lot faster. On iPhone it didn't run very fast, maybe 100MHz. Also it appears that Apple might have implemented a wider path to memory for faster operation. So while it may be more or less the same core it is likely running much faster.

On top of that we don't know what is connected to the ARM core. There could be an ARM SIMD unit or an Apple designed vector unit. Everything sofar indicates solid processor performance so maybe this or a FP unit are in the mix to help the GPU.

In anyevent until Apple gets a case of honesty we won't know exactly what is going on in A4. It is not impossible though to expect 3 to 5 times better performance. Or simply wait for benchmarkers to firm up their numbers.

Dave
MythicFrost said:
Could anyone possibly tell me why Apple chose to use the same graphics chip? If they had of used a better one that would have allowed for even more graphically beautiful games right?

Is there any difference between the 3GS chip and this one? Surely this can't be right? Even the 3GS is due for an update -- why would they use that old graphics chip?
Click to expand...
 
lol why dont I find this surprising?

Im sorry people who bought the iPad :( But im sure you guys are fairly well-off anyway so i wont feel too bad for you.


Just because steven jobs says netbooks are rubbish, netbooks are rubbish? lol ... ridiculous logic im afraid.
 
marksman said:
Nobody else in the world could offer a comparable tablet device like the iPad that does what it does in the way that it does for $500. Nobody.

This is something people don't seem to understand. Between the screen, touch interface, components and UI, there is no company or combination of companies in existence that could offer a comparable product for that Price point and not do so without losing a significant amount of money.
Click to expand...
$499 already does include a healthy margin.
 
masteroflondon said:
Specs mean so little by themselves, it depends how well you use them. My TiVo has, I believe, 16MB RAM and a 54MHz cpu. But it can encode TV whilst decoding and playing an earlier recording. This is about the same as my first pc, and that was running the newly released Windows 3.1. I'd not relish the thought of encoding stuff on that!

But because TiVO is focussed on it's task, and carefully designed for it, it performs flawlessly.

I think the iPad is the same. Carefully designed from the ground up. Everything, the OS and the hardware, all designed together with a clear set of goals. Surely what matters is how fast it is in use, and everything I ever heard was that it's fast.
Click to expand...

Thats because your 54mhz cpu isn't doing the decoding. Its has dedicated hardware to do that. Put a card into your old pc and it will do the same.
 
No Camera?
No GPS?
No Multi-tasking?
No Flash?
No USB?
No Card Reader?
256mb of Ram?

How is this thing selling at all?
 
MacintoshMan said:
No Camera?
No GPS?
No Multi-tasking?
No Flash?
No USB?
No Card Reader?
256mb of Ram?

How is this thing selling at all?
Click to expand...

lmao thats just what im thinking.

I think that all these figures of it being a huge success are massively, massively exaggerated and usually created by hardcore, irrational Apple lovers.

Im sure this will fail, it has to, its crap.
 
pinchez said:
The iPad really is a stark reminder of the Apple "brand" tax we pay. I understand the magic is in the OS and Apple have squeezed every ounce of performace out of iPad and if it works well then job done, but the cost is simply horrendus

I read a post ealier today where someone decribed the iPad as an "iTunes vending machine" and i have to agree. They just put something small and not too complex out so dev's can churn out cheap and cheerful apps so we can buy them up one after the other.
Click to expand...

I suppose you people will always be around to happily nip at Apple's heels.

The price is NOT horrendous, unless you've somehow lost the concept of working for a living.

Anyone who can't scrape together $500 in a few weeks or months time for a great device like this is most likely out of its target market anyway, so why bother complaining? Just wait for the copycat junk to follow.
 
Eidorian said:
The lack of a feature is a feature.

Or at least a reason to get you to buy the next one.
Click to expand...

I think Apple should come up with another 'Air' product...


Apple Air

just apple packaged air, no features at all.

People would still buy it, may be even put it in their signatures
 
shznit said:
the level of ignorance on this forum is ridiculous. the people defending the 256MB ram are missing the point by a mile. Apple didn't limit the ram to 256 because the iPad doesn't need it, they did it to make it cheaper to make. More ram chips require additional traces, more complex circuit boards, etc... Apple is all about profit margin, even though an additional 256MB ram wouldn't be more than a few $ per unit, it adds up to a lot of money after a few million units. And you get the side bonus of getting people hooked on a crippled device and then selling them an upgrade in a year. Steve will say how they have "enhanced the experience" bla bla and most of you will drink the coolaid and believe it.

those who say the iPad doesn't need more need to actually buy one and open 4+ tabs in safari then watch the first one reload when you switch to it when the browser runs out of memory trying to keep all the tabs open. Not a big deal to some of you, but when a company claims that the iPad offers a superior browsing experience and can't even keep 5 tabs open at once someone has to call ********. Never mind multitasking, the thing doesn't even have enough memory to run it's own browser properly! I bought my iPad yesterday and I like it enough to get around the limitations (at worst I'll give it to my mom) but I'm not in denial of the truth just because I spent $500 and because it has an Apple logo on it like some of you. If they really are including some kind of multitasking in 4.0 it will be very ugly without virtual memory.
Click to expand...
That's also happened on every iPod Touch, and iPhone I've ever used. Even my 3GS.
 
Originally Posted by Simplicated
It is 512 MB and comes with an SD card slot.

Oh wait... That's second generation.


Originally Posted by Skuman
It also comes with a USB port and a camera.

Oh wait... That's third generation.

---

Yep. It's just kicking the can down the road. It's not like Apple in all sincerity tried to pack as much into this device as they could and then went "oh, shoot, we forgt the camera; we'll just get it in the next gen". They purposely held back so they:

* Wouldn' canabilize existing products (hello, camera-less iPod Touch!)

and

* Get suckers to keep on buying replacement iPads every year, thus making Apple a BOATLOAD of money!

If you stacked your yearly iPads on top of each other based on oldest gen on the bottom (iPad year 1; iPad year 2 more RAM this time; iPad year 3 multi-tasking this time; iPad year 3 a camera this time; iPad year 4 USB ports this time, etc.), by the time you get to this product being 10 years old, you'll have a pile tall enough to reach your ceilng.

All because Steve Jobs is a MASTER at dangling carrots in front of the donkey's nose. Get you addicted to Crack-le (Apple Crack) in escalating doses.

lmfao And you WONDER why he's so rich??!! :D
 
DanielSw said:
I suppose you people will always be around to happily nip at Apple's heels.

The price is NOT horrendous, unless you've somehow lost the concept of working for a living.

Anyone who can't scrape together $500 in a few weeks or months time for a great device like this is most likely out of its target market anyway, so why bother complaining? Just wait for the copycat junk to follow.
Click to expand...
Why do people always assume that if someone is not willing to pay a certain price for something that they can't afford it? I refuse to pay $10 for a mango, doesn't mean that I don't have $10 to spare.
 
wizard said:
However I can guess! I'm going to guess that they are clocking the chip a lot faster. On iPhone it didn't run very fast, maybe 100MHz. Also it appears that Apple might have implemented a wider path to memory for faster operation. So while it may be more or less the same core it is likely running much faster.

On top of that we don't know what is connected to the ARM core. There could be an ARM SIMD unit or an Apple designed vector unit. Everything sofar indicates solid processor performance so maybe this or a FP unit are in the mix to help the GPU.

In anyevent until Apple gets a case of honesty we won't know exactly what is going on in A4. It is not impossible though to expect 3 to 5 times better performance. Or simply wait for benchmarkers to firm up their numbers.

Dave
Click to expand...
The K4X2G643GE RAM part number does seem to indicate a 64-bit memory bus compared to 32-bit on the iPhone and other smartphones. This should particularly be valuable for the GPU.

The previous iPhone 3GS already used a Cortex A8 with a SIMD unit to support the NEON instruction set. Designing their own SIMD execution units seem like quite a bit of work when I don't think most people even fully utilize NEON yet since it's still fairly new. The first and second gen iPhones also had a vector processing unit, although that one might have been more tightly coupled with and in support of the GPU rather than for general programs.
 
marksman said:
Nobody else in the world could offer a comparable tablet device like the iPad that does what it does in the way that it does for $500. Nobody.

This is something people don't seem to understand. Between the screen, touch interface, components and UI, there is no company or combination of companies in existence that could offer a comparable product for that Price point and not do so without losing a significant amount of money.
Click to expand...

Yes, we get it. It's magic. It's a magical product. Apple said it, so it must be true.
 
2010-02-10_Apple%20iPad.jpg

RAM costs are estimated around $11.90 for 4GBits which is 512MB. Since the iPad really only has 2GB it costs Apple $5.95, so for a saving of 5 dollars and 95 cent, they could of made it really ******* good.

This just shows you how tight :apple: are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back