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

iPad Pro iPad Ultra Specs - possibly

M

Mac... nificent

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Nov 20, 2012
943
498
First off, take this with a grain of salt.

It is possible that someone jumped the gun and posted this info before they were supposed to, but again - take it with a grain of salt...

I was looking to see if any new information about the new 16" iPad Ultra had come out, and I came across this - from India.

Price marked is around $1550.00 which sounds about right.

The specs posted appear to be the same as the 12.9 with a bigger battery and a OLED screen. I would have thought that it would have a bigger processor.

Do the specs sound legit to you?

Link - Apple iPad Ultra

Screenshot 2023-05-16 at 7.20.10 PM.png
 
Totally fake, OLED is not coming before next year according to more serious rumors, and it will have the M3 by then.
Also 128GB storage and 16GB is comical... 256GB would be the minimum and 512 more likely with 16GB RAM (which is want other rumors have mentioned).
And even the price is far from sounding right.... A 12.9" pro with 16GB RAM costs $1799, a 16" model with OLED, even with just 256GB storage would cost at least as much and very likely more, probably $1999 with a base storage of 512GB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghost31, Student of Life and blwest78
I believe the OLED part. It makes sense to use this new higher-end model to be the first to have that feature.

However I would have thought that it would have the M3 though. And if it's being designed for the creative crowd then it would need at least 256 GB of storage as the base model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blwest78
floral said:
The processor doesn't feel right. Everything else looks to be something Apple would do...

but still, the M2 chip is rubbing me the wrong way. For a 16" iPad, surely they'd be able to stuff an M2 Pro (or more likely M3 Pro) in there.
Click to expand...
But why a pro model "M Series" chip? the iPad already doesn't el the full capability of the standard model. Even with Resolve and FCP the standard "M" chips will be fine no one is using the iPad pros currently to benefit the price increase of the "pro" chips to be installed.
 
cthompson94 said:
But why a pro model "M Series" chip? the iPad already doesn't el the full capability of the standard model. Even with Resolve and FCP the standard "M" chips will be fine no one is using the iPad pros currently to benefit the price increase of the "pro" chips to be installed.
Click to expand...
a pro chip might make sense from a marketing point of view for at $2000 device, but that's not the point, it will definitely not be M2 as OLED is coming next year and M3 is coming with it... M2 is just a stopgap in the meantime
That does not mean an iPad ultra is coming early 2024 like the pro iPads. I think we may still be over a year (or even 2) away from it... But releasing it this year with M2 makes zero sense (and no reliable leaker is backing that up)
 
What evidence do we have for the contrary? Really nothing more substantial than leakers and those are not reliable. For instance, a low volume product such as an 16 inch iPad Pro Ultra would not register in terms of number of panels produced.

I could believe that a 16 inch miniLED iPad Ultra could be released in September with these specs as it already are used in the MBP.
 
floral said:
but still, the M2 chip is rubbing me the wrong way. For a 16" iPad, surely they'd be able to stuff an M2 Pro (or more likely M3 Pro) in there.
Click to expand...
Well said. I think the Ultra and one model of laptop (possibly the bigger 15" Macbook Air) will be the first to get the M3. I was very disappointed in the M2. It was more like M 1.1 :)
 
The major red flag is the 16”. All rumors/leaks have lead to a 14.2” iPad Pro.

As far as the SoC. I can see Apple putting the M3 alongside the M3 Macbooks in Oct.

If Apple is truly desperate, then I can see Apple doing the M2 Pro chip at WWDC. (massive Copium for iPad Ultra at WWDC).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digitalguy
floral said:
The processor doesn't feel right. Everything else looks to be something Apple would do...

but still, the M2 chip is rubbing me the wrong way. For a 16" iPad, surely they'd be able to stuff an M2 Pro (or more likely M3 Pro) in there.
Click to expand...
Yup. Especially since we already have the M2 iPad Pro. (Unless Apple pulls the same page as the 15” MBA at WWDC with M2 as well).

There are two ways Apple goes

Option 1: The 14.2” iPad Pro is just a screen size bump with an OS tailored to larger screen.

Option 2: The 14.2” iPad Pro is the ultimate version of iPadOS with extreme power and MacOS like features.
 
hovscorpion12 said:
The major red flag is the 16”. All rumors/leaks have lead to a 14.2” iPad Pro.
Click to expand...
I thought I read from one of the Apple magazines that Apple said it was going to nix the 14" in favor of the 16" because the 14" was too much like the 12.9 (13").
 
Mac... nificent said:
I thought I read from one of the Apple magazines that Apple said it was going to nix the 14" in favor of the 16" because the 14" was too much like the 12.9 (13").
Click to expand...
👀👀. I’ll have to search for this. If Apple is going 16”. #InstantBuy

Edit: Although having a 14.1” could balance out.

11”, 12.9”, 14.2” and 16”
 
At first, I thought that a 16" iPad Pro would be like lugging around luggage, but then I looked at the 16" MBP screen and it's not much bigger than the 12.9 because the bezel is so small.
 
floral said:
The processor doesn't feel right. Everything else looks to be something Apple would do...

but still, the M2 chip is rubbing me the wrong way. For a 16" iPad, surely they'd be able to stuff an M2 Pro (or more likely M3 Pro) in there.
Click to expand...
That chip runs too hot for an iPad, you'd never see a benefit because it would throttle.
 
darngooddesign said:
IMO it's a lot larger.
View attachment 2203355
Click to expand...
Yes but the 2017 footprint is 30x22 cm while the 16 inch mbp is 35.6x22.8. 2018 and onwards iPads are 28x21.5 Means another aspect ratio. It would be a nice logic and fcp ipad.

People are likely overestimating the impact of the M3 chip. Sure 20% improvement on paper and perhaps slightly lower power draw. In real world usage, I doubt it will feel snappier than a M1.

edit: I am quite sure a 16 inch would primarily be used in landscape so a wider aspect ratio would not hurt.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: flobach
iPadified said:
Yes but the 2017 footprint is 30x22 cm while the 16 inch mbp is 35.6x22.8. 2018 and onwards iPads are 28x21.5 Means another aspect ratio. It would be a nice logic and fcp ipad.

People are likely overestimating the impact of the M3 chip. Sure 20% improvement on paper and perhaps slightly lower power draw. In real world usage, I doubt it will feel snappier than a M1.

edit: I am quite sure a 16 inch would primarily be used in landscape so a wider aspect ratio would not hurt.
Click to expand...
For normal tasks the difference wouldn't be noticeable, but for things like video editing, the M2 is already way faster than the M1 in Davinci Resolve for instance (up to twice as fast because of some additional engines).
M3 with a move to 3nm and possibly to the Arm V9 architecture could be 30% faster or more (efficiency will depend on how high Apple clocks it, M1 could be much more efficient than A12X but Apple clocked it much higher to increase power so in the end their efficiency is similar).
Personally I hope the aspect ratio is not less square than that of the 11" pro, which is wider than the 12.9, as I would be using a 16" in portrait mode too for PDFs and sheet music.
One thing is for sure, I would not expect a 16" iPad to be under $2000 (and the keyboard at $450). However I am afraid that Apple could come with a 14" first (at $1800 for instance with a keyboard at $400), pushing those of us who would love a larger iPad to buy that, and only after a year or 2 release the 16"....
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: rappr, hovscorpion12 and iPadified
floral said:
Oh. I didn't know it ran "hot". I just thought there was more of it o_o
Click to expand...
To be fair, hot is kind fo a vague term so the M2-Pro runs hotter than the M2 when using the extra Pro capabilities.

The MacBook Air doesn't have fans, the MBPs have two; and even though the M2 Air doesn't have vents it can still passively vent heat through the keyboard openings. The iPad's screen also generates heat. The M2 chip runs hotter than the M1 chip because its the same ship but overclocked with more cores. You could argue that your aren't doing anything on the iPad which would generate that much heat, which is generally true, so there isn't that much of a reason for an M2 Pro iPad; I think Apple will wait for the M3 which is a different chip design which is supposed to be more powerful and run cooler than the same M2.

Think about it this way, even if the M2-Pro only ran hot when using its extra power, you would hardly be able tot take advantage of the extra power because that heat would cause it to throttle back down to regular M2 performance levels. It might even slow down more because once the heat is inside the sealed body, it would take more time of low activity for it to radiate away.

Regardless of what happens to the iPads and iPadOS, I suspect at some point we will get a MacPad which will probably be larger.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hovscorpion12
darngooddesign said:
The MacBook Air doesn't have fans, the MBPs have two; and even though the Air doesn't have vents it can still passively vent heat through the keyboard openings. The M2 chip runs hotter than the M1 chip because its the same ship but overclocked with more cores.

Think about it this way, even if the M2-Pro only ran hot when using its extra power, you would hardly be able tot take advantage of the extra power because that heat would cause it to throttle back down to regular M2 performance levels.
Click to expand...
...Oh...
 
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