Now I know why no Quad Core CPU in iPad 3

[redman042]

I think we all realize now that the LAST thing Apple could afford to do with the design of the iPad 3 was increase power consumption further. They've already stuffed a huge battery in there which takes nearly twice as long to charge, adds weight, and even makes the back a little warm. This is all to power that display and LTE radio. Adding a quad core would have made it worse.

And of course obviously it's an issue of profit margin too. And the dual core is still nice and fast on the iPad 3.

But now that I've had a solid day with this thing, I realize that Apple rode the ragged edge on acceptable power consumption to make this design work. Not that I mind, the retina display is oh so worth it.

 

[WLS]

Yes people are complaining now about the warm/hot spot on their iPad which is above the CPU. I have WIFI only so I don't thinnk it is from LTE. People wanted a retina display and they got it, I don't see how Apple could have done much more and kept the same price point. Next year for the A6

 

[erawsd]

Eh, I still don't see much of an advantage to quad cores in a Tablet. Most aren't doing any hardcore image/video processing and multitasking is minimal.

 

[LanEvo]

Eh, I still don't see much of an advantage to quad cores in a Tablet. Most aren't doing any hardcore image/video processing and multitasking is minimal.

Even Asus is abandoning the quad core tegra 3 for a dual core Snap Dragon in their next high end tablet.

Yea, quad-core is just RAW POWER!! where tablets do not really need that, in laptop and such yes, but tablets not so much. Which is why they went for the quad-core graphics. Either way, it would have been nice to have the quad-core. Next year should be the quad-core era, when they can bump the size down to 32nm or maybe even 25nm of the chips.

 

[newdeal]

...

Next year will be quad core, and igzo screen so thinner and lighter again. The retina dispaly really does nothing for me to be honest

 

[linkgx1]

Cost is an issue and I think they want to wait for next year to put one in. That way it looks like a big upgrade.

 

[xraydoc]

Next year will be quad core, and igzo screen so thinner and lighter again. The retina dispaly really does nothing for me to be honest

The only reason I upgraded from the iPad 2 was for the screen. I love it.

 

[tips]

More than quad-core, I was hoping for a Siri in the latest ipad.
I do not own a iphone 4s, but I heard its lot more fun talking/listening and its kind of good for kids 2-10 to pass time. This helps watch screen less but still get the entertainment factor needed for kids especially.

Waiting to order online the latest ipad.

 

[noteple]

Incremental upgrades. One step at a time.

Just enough of a technology bump to get folks to buy it.

Not too much of a bump so the price and margins can stay in the sweet spot.

 

[redman042]

The only reason I upgraded from the iPad 2 was for the screen. I love it.

The fact that knowledgeable technical people seriously doubted Apple could scale up retina display technology to the iPad size while maintaining speed and battery life is a testament to what they pulled off here.

 

[ktmracer350]

The fact that knowledgeable technical people seriously doubted Apple could scale up retina display technology to the iPad size while maintaining speed and battery life is a testament to what they pulled off here.

Along with keeping the same price point as the previous two releases is also pretty sweet.

 

[MykullMyerz]

The only reason I upgraded from the iPad 2 was for the screen. I love it.

I agree with this. I'm usually a perennial upgrader when it comes to mobile devices but the inclusion of the retina display this cycle made me upgrade from the iPad 2 and I am so glad I did. This display is indescribable; it's definitely one of those things you have to see to believe.

 

[taedouni]

Honestly there is no need for a quad core CPU in the new iPad. There are no applications that will push the iPad .

 

[whtrbt7]

A quad core processor doesn't mean that power drain would necessarily be higher. The reason why it wasn't included was due to the fact that it currently isn't needed. The quad-core graphics chip was however needed to drive the Retina display. The unfortunate part of this since the Retina display is trying to drive 4x the pixels, we experience heat dissipation from the heat-sink strapped to the A5X. If it weren't for the Retina display, we would have had an iPad almost exactly like the iPad 2.

 

[scriptlol]

Its amazing that we are to the point where the battery is the limiting factor in these devices instead of memory/speed/storage/etc. People always assume that the ipad is just packed full of circuit boards to do all the amazing things it does and when I send them the ifixit links, they are always blown away to find that most of the innards are battery and that the logic board is just a very small part of it.

I think by the iPad 5, the device will be very nearly perfect, and hopefully we will see some breakthroughs in battery tech.

 

[spacepower7]

Honestly there is no need for a quad core CPU in the new iPad. There are no applications that will push the iPad .

From the reviews that I read, the one quad-core Android tablet still has more lag than the iPad 1, in regards to UI, Web and email. The main things I do with a tablet. The important thing is what you CAN do with a tablet, ie the apps, bc not everyone plays games and needs the highest scores on synthetic benchmarks.

Really, who wants to deal with a launcher app and a task manager, not 99% of the world. Many computer users think Windows XP is complex, they don't want a tablet with the same complexity. That's the one thing MS could do correctly but might not.

 

[PPFee]

Yea, quad-core is just RAW POWER!! where tablets do not really need that, in laptop and such yes, but tablets not so much. Which is why they went for the quad-core graphics. Either way, it would have been nice to have the quad-core. Next year should be the quad-core era, when they can bump the size down to 32nm or maybe even 25nm of the chips.

It is my understanding as well that there isn't a single tablet OS out there that can properly take advantage of quad core cpu's, both in respect to power management and just using the available HP effectively. That being said, ill wait for iOS to be optimized properly before demanding quad core.

 

[richpjr]

Technology progresses so as batteries get more powerful and CPUs get more efficient, they'll make their way into future generations.

 

[onthecouchagain]

Honestly, the thing that Apple left out that I'm sour about is the front HD camera. Especially on such a high quality screen. :T

 

[MacAttacka]

I think we all realize now that the LAST thing Apple could afford to do with the design of the iPad 3 was increase power consumption further. They've already stuffed a huge battery in there which takes nearly twice as long to charge, adds weight, and even makes the back a little warm. This is all to power that display and LTE radio. Adding a quad core would have made it worse.

And of course obviously it's an issue of profit margin too. And the dual core is still nice and fast on the iPad 3.

But now that I've had a solid day with this thing, I realize that Apple rode the ragged edge on acceptable power consumption to make this design work. Not that I mind, the retina display is oh so worth it.

If the quad core was built on a much smaller process with better power management features (ie 3 cores are switched off most of the time or a tegra 3 style junior core) then it would probably have a longer battery life. More cores does not necessarily = more drain

 

[thekev]

Eh, I still don't see much of an advantage to quad cores in a Tablet. Most aren't doing any hardcore image/video processing and multitasking is minimal.

It's unclear just noting your post, but you know that each of these ARM cores is still slower than each individual core seen in something like a macbook pro. If it was the only hardware element holding back application development on the ipad, I think they'd go for it.

Incremental upgrades. One step at a time.

Just enough of a technology bump to get folks to buy it.

Not too much of a bump so the price and margins can stay in the sweet spot.

This is a fairly common practice. Prices on other commodity items may not have shifted as much. In desktop displays it's pretty common for a design to last for 3-4 years. I doubt they'll change this one much for at least a couple cycles aside from smaller fixes to alleviate inconsistencies in manufacturing. People really don't need to purchase the latest one to own an ipad. I kind of wonder how many of them will be new purchases. Then of course there are a lot of people who buy one or two devices annually and redistribute the old model to family members.

Honestly there is no need for a quad core CPU in the new iPad. There are no applications that will push the iPad .

Well this is a thing where the hardware really needs to be there first. It may also be an issue of ram. The storage system of the ipad uses much slower NAND. I doubt it's appropriate as swap space as you would see under OSX.

 

[falconman515]

The only reason I upgraded from the iPad 2 was for the screen. I love it.

+2 .... If you get WiFi only version the display should really be the Only reason to upgarde!

But SOOOOOOOoooooo Worth it! I would Never Go Back

 

[jjp007]

LOVE THE RETINA DISPLAY!! The camera is pretty sweet too I'm happy.

 

[Nemomnis]

Eh, I still don't see much of an advantage to quad cores in a Tablet. Most aren't doing any hardcore image/video processing and multitasking is minimal.

That is the point. I barely understand how people will make total use of the 4x GPU...

 

[jmpnop]

I think we all realize now that the LAST thing Apple could afford to do with the design of the iPad 3 was increase power consumption further. They've already stuffed a huge battery in there which takes nearly twice as long to charge, adds weight, and even makes the back a little warm. This is all to power that display and LTE radio. Adding a quad core would have made it worse.

And of course obviously it's an issue of profit margin too. And the dual core is still nice and fast on the iPad 3.

But now that I've had a solid day with this thing, I realize that Apple rode the ragged edge on acceptable power consumption to make this design work. Not that I mind, the retina display is oh so worth it.

You're just justifying Apple's moves. Its plain marketing, nothing more. The next iPad will have quad-core CPU along with better front and rear cameras, etc. Look at the original iPad and the iPad 2. The original iPad had 256MB which clearly wasn't sufficient. Most people upgraded to the iPad 2. The iPad 2 had crap cameras, now there's a descent one in the new iPad. Thats just the way marketing works, stop defending it.