Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iPad' started by Stealthipad, Feb 20, 2012.
They even referr to MR (at least)
I fear the ability of this chip being able to handle the higher resolution, but I also trust Apple to come through!
Can't say I'm too disappointed.
I'm not convinced that quad vs dual core processors would make a significant difference in context of typical iPad usage.
If they don't do a high-resolution display, then I'd be disappointed. dual vs quad core? Meh.
Makes complete sense to me.
You'd rarely get any benefit from quad core, aside from a (very) few high-end games. Other than that, it's largely a waste of power on a tablet, for now at least.
On the other hand, if they've put in the retina display (itself the very opposite of a disappointment, I'd buy it for that alone) then they need lots of GPU power to drive it at full quality. Those few high-end games that would benefit from quad-core? They'd benefit massively from more GPU power too, so you didn't even lose out there.
I reckon more GPU power (possibly double), dual core CPU like the iPad 2 but faster (it could be 30% faster quite easily).
As much as I love tech and quad core does sound better than dual core, I am just not so sure how much we need a quad core processor in an iPad.
I would like to see LTE, retina display and a better camera for augmented reality apps.
My take on it was that that was a pre-production test chip. The makeshift cover on the chip would seem to indicate that. The final version would be the one to be concerned about. I also refer to all the rumors (especially that diagnostic dump that showed 4 cores) that point to a quad core chip being the final product. It most likely will be a Cortex A9 and not the A15. I would expect the Cortex A9 still will benefit from the 28nm fab process which will allow lower power and faster speed.
The GPU is the part that will be updated the most to handle the Retina display.
That dump didn't show 4 CPU cores at all. It showed 4 NAND flash devices - that's simply the flash storage. No mention of the CPU at all other than that part number.
I think it might have been real though, because what it did show was 1GB of memory - the iPad 2/iphone 4S have 512MB.
A9 sounds more likely to me too - A15 and possibly quad core next year.
I was mainly disappointed by the fact that it features 16GB of storage, a sign they haven't upgraded the standard size for the iPad3 to 32GB.
I also think this will be a dual core CPU, but hopefully it'll be an A15 (probably too early).
It's a pair of 16GB chips - 32GB total. Not that it means anything, it might not represent the 'base model' and like other people have pointed out, it's probably a test board rather than anything final.
I do think they need to move to 32GB now though. It must be cheap enough.
You can't just dismiss a quad-core chip as "tablets don't need it." In an OS optimized for multiple cores, the more the better, IF other parts don't take a hit like battery life. I trust Apple that whatever CPU / GPU they put in the iPad 3, it will be plenty fast and efficient - they have a damn good record so far, save for iPad 1 and the lack of memory there.
i'm pretty concerned about this news. it suggests that the processor won't be getting a major bump, and i already find the ipad a little slow. i suppose an increase in memory would help alleviate some of the lag, though. i guess we will just have to wait and see. assuming it has a retina-like display, it will still be far better than any android option on the market, even if it doesn't have quad cores.
It's not really a case of needing it or not - you could just as easily say it doesn't need 16 cores but would benefit from it. It's simply that if you have less stuff in that A5X package, it'll take less power and the battery will last longer. Everything apple put in it has to give the maximum punch for that reason, and they don't want to go overboard because it'll hit the battery life.
Dual core is a big benefit, because if you're say playing a game and the CPU is busy, when the email app is checking mail it's not interrupting the game to do it. Quad core would offer the same benefit if you've got 2 cores fully busy, but that's very rare. The other benefit of quad core is if you're doing some heavy processing. The only big thing that comes to mind there is music software - that would benefit from more CPU power. Video apps should be using the GPU for effects etc., and the video encoder/decoder hardware for the rest. Photo processing apps too. Web pages might load slightly faster, but they're already pretty quick and a clock speed increase would speed it up plenty anyway.
So, not much benefit. If they spent the extra space on extra GPU cores, on the other hand? It would drive a retina display for your current apps. Photo/video apps would get a massive speed boost. Games too.
Oh, and on the OS being optimised for more cores - it already is, but I don't think it really needs it. The apps need it more, and the OS makes it easy enough for developers to use multiple cores if they want to. If they're following apple's guidelines the apps will benefit from quad cores automatically - I know mine would at least.
Apple knows what they are doing. They will give us another good product no matter the specs.
What we can all be sure of is all the moaning that will go on here when the ipad 3 is announced next month.
A5 is already a good chip, so even if the iPad 3 comes with this A5X, the least we could expect is a dual core chip but at a higher clock speed. I think Apple should wait on quad core until next year, when the completely overhaul the iPad.
Being worried about this is exactly what's wrong with the spec-checklist focused Android crowd. Say it with me folks. It. Just. Doesn't. Matter.
Apple has proven time and again that the underlying specs are far less important than the overall user experience. iOS devices work and work well. The more android devices I have the misfortune of playing with, the more clear this becomes (note I've yet to play with any ICS devices).
Said another way...do you seriously think Apple would release the iPad 3 with a chip incapable of providing a wonderful user experience? Seriously !?!
If the retina is double the pixels does this equate to needing double the ram or not? I just hope that if it is 1GB of ram it is enough for now and future games and apps. With higher pixel pictures and txt taking up more room and probably needing more ram i just hope the ram is only just adequate to force us to upgrade again!?
(us as in me anyways as the iPad 1 runs out of memory in some apps that have photos as memory is used up and then the app crashes)
as long as the graphics get better i don't really care about the processor, it would definitely be cool to have a quad core but wouldn't really influence my buying decision.
Disappointment is what follows any event. You can't expect Apple to build what you want.
oh my god, i already sold my dang ipad 2 !!! it better gets retina the new one
But, but, but... Angury Bordz needz teh qwadcorez!
My main concern is that it WORKS!
Even if it was the same device, and the only thing new was the screen resolution, I'm SO on this!
The screen is everything.*
* Well not everything, but you know what I mean.