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.
More Claims of a 2048x1536 Resolution iPad 3 Display
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If these do release with that res, I will finally get an iPad, and it will be for work. And IT will comply. 
Hello you display-hungry schematic, why don't you take a seat over there... Just have to gut the cameras, and disable the BT / WIFI and it's happening.
As for games - I'd imagine they'd just scale any intensive renders, just like how they do for the IP4/S.
All the people who say no... Remember the same people who said no about the IP4 retina specs? They've gone quiet.... here's to hoping.
Hello you display-hungry schematic, why don't you take a seat over there... Just have to gut the cameras, and disable the BT / WIFI and it's happening.
As for games - I'd imagine they'd just scale any intensive renders, just like how they do for the IP4/S.
All the people who say no... Remember the same people who said no about the IP4 retina specs? They've gone quiet.... here's to hoping.
I understand that shipping native resolution artwork with your app would be the best thing to do but I don't see why this would result in OS fragmentation?
The developers that provide native-res artwork likely have an app where it is worth investing resources in making sure every single (sub-)pixel on the screen is being used. For many apps, this might not be needed, given that iOS does a fairly good job of upscaling the artwork and text and vector drawings are anyway rendered with native screen resolution. As long as the screen remains the same size, there is no change in aspect ratios, layout etc. You just get more detail and smoother curves.
So no down-vote as I like the point you raised but still curious to learn how you see screen-resolution (not size!) lead to fragmentation? I do agree that it results in more work for developers..
Nice. I look forward to this
You and me both! I already have a 'stash' for my iPad fund! I hope they release it in March!
I know iPads are widely used for games, BUT for me and many others the main thing is photos, video, apps, e-mail reading browsing and not so much games. All those features will benefit A LOT from retina display. I still remember how much easier it was to read big web pages on the iPhone 4 screen compared to the iPhone 3G I went from. Also, photos would benefit extremely from this. The resolution is the same as my 30" LCD-screen I use at home. That is nothing but extreme!
Speculation!
We can hope so but that display will require one hell of a GPU and memory system. I would not be surprised to see a modest CPU update so that they can spend more transistors on The GPU and memory subsystems.
We can hope so but that display will require one hell of a GPU and memory system. I would not be surprised to see a modest CPU update so that they can spend more transistors on The GPU and memory subsystems.
Maybe it will be used mainly for text apps, with games tending to run pixel-doubled at 1024x768. That could be OK, I guess. Otherwise, I dont see how the thing could have the graphics power (including RAM) to drive 4x the pixels without slowing down or killing battery life! Id love to be wrong of course
Dont worryMacs are moving to quad-res displays as well. The evidence is in Lion. But it will be a longer journey: iOS is a newer OS, and in some ways more nimble with less legacy support to worry about. In addition, iOS only needs two sizes of screen; and with quad-res displays being hard to come by currently, it seems too soon to convert all the different Mac displays.
Also, MacBooks wont be lame" because the competitions laptops wont have retina displays yet either
Yes! But now imagine an iMacs GPU, with all that heat and power consumption, crammed into an iPad. If it sounds too good to be true, I fear it is (for now).
I think it's stupid to assume (or even suspect) that the size of the display will be the only change in the new iPad, knowing Apple's track record with its "great products" strategy. They're not going to release a retina iPad which has crappy battery life.
So the battery life will be what, an hour?
Or will they add battery to compensate... & make it weigh 7 pounds...
I just want it to have rounder edges. The sharp edges of the 2 make holding it for any length of time fairly uncomfortable.
Or will they add battery to compensate... & make it weigh 7 pounds...
I just want it to have rounder edges. The sharp edges of the 2 make holding it for any length of time fairly uncomfortable.
720 will look great. Compare watching a DVD on an old analog TV, then the same DVD on a new digital flatscreen. Same resolution, but no comparison in image quality.
While I agree, I think Apple is simply doing this to secure enough panels because one supplier alone won't be able to handle the quantity Apple is seeking.
I understand you are exaggerating, but did you notice 8 times as worse battery life when the iPhone came with retina display? I don't understand your thinking. The rumors are pointing on a bigger iPad than the iPad 2, but still smaller than the first one, which is OK for me. I guess battery life will be less, but it's the same amount of light even though there are more pixels, ain't I right about that? I am 100% positive Apple wouldn't sacrifice battery life if they couldn't make it acceptable. That's why there's no LTE/4G in iPhone 4S.
A serious issue, A6 will have to be impressive to drive this display.
Even then that might not be enough. I could see Apple dedicating transistors to a frame buffer on die. That would be close to 10 MB right there. It wouldn't be all of ones video memory needs but it is frequently used memory that needs to be fast.
As to the Macs, the new IVY Bridge chips should support high res screens much better, which is important on integrated graphics only machines.
Well even today's iPad is a long ways from an iMacs GPU. So if they can double performance at the same power level it won't be to bad. Doubling performance might be less than desirable but it would still be a usable machine.
Most likely a 28 nm class SoC will be required. That is a lot of extra transistors and I could see Apple allocating the largely to the GPU. That is lots of GPU hardware and a focus on memory subsystems, event the expense of the ARM cores. Thankfully 28nm means that they should be able to come close to doubling performance at about the same power.Maybe it will be used mainly for text apps, with games tending to run pixel-doubled at 1024x768. That could be OK, I guess. Otherwise, I dont see how the thing could have the graphics power (including RAM) to drive 4x the pixels without slowing down or killing battery life! Id love to be wrong of course
Even then that might not be enough. I could see Apple dedicating transistors to a frame buffer on die. That would be close to 10 MB right there. It wouldn't be all of ones video memory needs but it is frequently used memory that needs to be fast.
IOS has been resolution independent longer, this is a factor. Also the larger screens are difficult to make. IPad will get the screens first because it is the path of least resistance.
As to the Macs, the new IVY Bridge chips should support high res screens much better, which is important on integrated graphics only machines.
Actually a retina display might be a step backwards on some machines. It will take a lot of GPU power to drive those screens.Also, MacBooks wont be lame" because the competitions laptops wont have retina displays yet either
Well even today's iPad is a long ways from an iMacs GPU. So if they can double performance at the same power level it won't be to bad. Doubling performance might be less than desirable but it would still be a usable machine.
Dont expect Apple to be making Desktop or Laptop Computers much longer. The Innovation is in Post-PC devices.
For me it comes down to battery life and price. Can they match that of the iPad 2? If not they will not get my tablet money in 2012.
Buying.
My iPad 2 has become my constant companion and more or less my main personal computer. This is a device that I will go through the hassle of upgrading every year--it's the best gadget I have ever owned. Already have 2 buyers who want my iPad 2 when I sell it.
My iPad 2 has become my constant companion and more or less my main personal computer. This is a device that I will go through the hassle of upgrading every year--it's the best gadget I have ever owned. Already have 2 buyers who want my iPad 2 when I sell it.
While I respect what you feel your needs are, these types of ultimatums are unproductive. I would sacrifice both price and battery life for something that blew me away in other respects. The type of thinking that limits possibility is very much the opposite of Apple: "I won't buy it if it doesn't have a floppy drive", "I won't buy it if it doesn't have optical media", "I won't buy it if it is not a new design".
In the end, I think Apple does a good job of helping us not stay mired in our old thinking of what we want or need, but giving us what truly changes the way we live and work.
No doubt Apple has had a 2x resolution-iPad in the labs for a while. The question is, will some (typical) manufacturing/technical/etc. complication arise that ruins the plans and forces them to continue at 768x1024?
...Hope Not!
...Hope Not!
You are aware that Apple are already pushing technology to its limits to do this aren't you?
While we all wait until such a time that it becomes both financially and technically viable for 'retina' type screens to go into laptops, we can all spend our time productively.. For example, learning how to write properly.