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

Retina iPad Mini Has 1.3 GHz A7 Processor With 5X the Performance of the Original Mini

So if it's not Microsoft v Apple OS fighting, Samsung v Apple fighting; Android v iOS fighting we now have to fill up the forums with petty iPad Air v iPad Mini Retina fighting.....

Amazing how petty these forums get .... #FIRSTWORLDPROBLEMS
 
lincolntran said:
Your example only works when the iPad fails to perform. It is performing well at every app that designed for it.
Click to expand...

How many Safari tabs can you keep open without having to reload the closed ones? 3? 4? Now, that's one of the major issues of having 1GB of RAM only.

Are you coming from the android or windows camp where stuff are grossly unoptimized and required so much RAM to run?
Click to expand...

Again: among other things, Safari is REALLY suffering from the (compared to the alternatives) low RAM. Don't tell me you simply love having to wait for the killed pages' reloading.
 
lincolntran said:
Your example only works when the iPad fails to perform. It is performing well at every app that designed for it.

Are you coming from the android or windows camp where stuff are grossly unoptimized and required so much RAM to run?
Click to expand...

If you are talking about Windows Phone, then sir, you are certainly wrong. Windows Phone is so efficient, 512MB is more than enough. Howver, iPad Mini with 512MB on iOS 7 is certianly not enough. I am constantly running out of memory. One example is Safari constantly maximizing the memory and page constantly refreshing itself.

If you taking about Android, it is true or not true in same time. Android on Nexus line up runs beatifully with 2GB of memory, never runing out of memory in my case. Samsung TouchWIze however, it huge memory hog....

If you comparing iOS with Windows on desktop, then you sir, comparing wrong animes.
 
MacRumors said:
It is unclear why the mini is clocked at 1.3Ghz instead of 1.4Ghz like the iPad Air, but in terms of real world usage, users are unlikely to notice the small speed differences. It is possible that Apple chose the lower clock speed in the iPad mini to improve overall battery life or to reduce heat within the smaller chassis.
Click to expand...


Really? Seems pretty clear to me. You even acknowledge it. You want the same battery life with a SIGNIFICANTLY smaller battery. How do you achieve that? Reduce power consumption. How do you reduce power consumption in an otherwise identical hardware configuration? Reduce the speed and therefore power requirement of the CPU. What other option did they have other than making the unit bigger to accommodate a similar sized battery? Smaller screen size might make a marginal power difference (smaller area to keep as bright, still same number of pixels).
 
I just went over to the Apple store and compared the Retina to the non-retina....lordy what a difference.

The Mini Retina is going to sell like crazy if they can make enough.
 
monkor said:
"5X Better Performance Than Original Mini"

Well yeah, the original Mini was nerf'd spec wise.

(Note for all the idiots: I am not saying the iPad Mini was a piece of crap, merely that the specs were pretty paltry at release time.)
Click to expand...

Hence why it was $70 cheaper!!!
 
GREEN4U said:
Ordered 16gb Mini w Retina wifi white early this morning. This is my first iPad ever. Goes to show you how picky I am so indeed this is the best iPad ever. Those of you who ordered it too, have good taste.

Those of you who ordered the Air. Should've waited for black friday. $470 at Target + $100 gift card. No sale on the Mini though. Cause the Mini's the best. :D
Click to expand...

I got a 32gb LTE iPad Air... no sales on that model either... :( But I like it better than my Mini... the font was too small when web browsing. I was always blowing up text and scrolling to read... same with when reading PDF scripts... not as convenient and it's not a retina issue I do the same on my iPhone.

I love how much lighter the larger iPad is now though. Games are more immersive too. I want the little one just to watch movies on the go... but that seems like a waste of money to only have for 1 purpose.

You should have spent the extra $100 and gotten the 32gb... up until 2012 it was ok to have 16gb... but with iOS7 taking up 4gb or so, 16gb has become VERY limiting. It's like 2 high end games 1 HD movie and a handful or apps and you're out of storage...
 
Last edited:
Hmm just as i predicted .. The Mini has a slightly underclocked chip it's identical to the one in 5S to compensate smaller battery. Considering it shares the same resolution as the Air, I dont know how it will affect the overall performance, though.

PS: I'm happy the forums up and running again. Yay!!
 
gnasher729 said:
Half the people want the Mini because it's smaller.
Half the people want the Air because it's bigger.

And they all think the other half is stupid. :mad:
Click to expand...

I hope we'll face the same situation next year with iPhones. iPhone "Phablet" (I hate this term) and iPhone "mini".

Cause I really don't see the point of bigger screens. And so do many others. Would be a much smarter move then iPhone 5S(ame) and 5C(heap... oh, wait)
 
MacRumorUser said:
So if it's not Microsoft v Apple OS fighting, Samsung v Apple fighting; Android v iOS fighting we now have to fill up the forums with petty iPad Air v iPad Mini Retina fighting.....

Amazing how petty these forums get .... #FIRSTWORLDPROBLEMS
Click to expand...

Well everyone gets stuck with dick measuring once in a while, it's human nature LOL
 
Ik and Cubasis stated A5x had 48 polyphony voices,
so new mini/air/iphone 5S have 48 x 5 ,240 voices
or with A6 stated by Ik at 64 put A7 "just" at 128?
 
Last edited:
Sydryx said:
1GB (975 MB) according to the full benchmark. I was thinking it'd only have 512 MB to help differentiate it from the Air. Glad to see I was wrong.
Click to expand...

This is what i was waiting,
I will buy next Air with A8 or a quad(?) A7x(?),
hopefully for then i will gain more than 1 G only.
 
Sad people with issues fighting over rMini being better than Air, Enjoy your product, why aren't you playing with your rMini or Air? Enjoy your purchase both great devices no need to belittle each other.

It will be the same people who said they hated big screens coming on here next year glorifying the 5.5" or 4.7" iPhone after proclaiming they hated big screens.

The bickering is silly cos Apple is winning, unless you have stock, chill out. Rant over lol
 
I first read the article heading as "...5x the performance of the original Mac Mini" and was a bit disappointed later on :)

But then again: It scores roughly double compared to the 2006 mid-level dual core MacMini1,1 (749, 1379), and roughly 10% better than the 2006 high-end dual core Mac Mini1,1 (~1240, 2260). That's actually rather impressive.

It also scores around 20% higher than the 2007 MacBook3,1 which is currently my main working machine :eek:.
 
crenz said:
I first read the article heading as "...5x the performance of the original Mac Mini" and was a bit disappointed later on :)

But then again: It scores roughly double compared to the 2006 mid-level dual core MacMini1,1 (749, 1379), and roughly 10% better than the 2006 high-end dual core Mac Mini1,1 (~1240, 2260). That's actually rather impressive.

It also scores around 20% higher than the 2007 MacBook3,1 which is currently my main working machine :eek:.
Click to expand...

So how speedier is compared to my old 2007 merom macbook pro?
 
Last edited:
Ordered the mini 32 t-mobile this morning for the wife. The 200mb/month free cell data is more than she needs on the rare occasion she will want to read and respond to emails when out and about. I'm still undecided on what new model I will pick up next year, currently rocking the 3rd gen and will decide, based on the wife's, if it's mini or air for me.
 
crenz said:
I first read the article heading as "...5x the performance of the original Mac Mini" and was a bit disappointed later on :)

But then again: It scores roughly double compared to the 2006 mid-level dual core MacMini1,1 (749, 1379), and roughly 10% better than the 2006 high-end dual core Mac Mini1,1 (~1240, 2260). That's actually rather impressive.

It also scores around 20% higher than the 2007 MacBook3,1 which is currently my main working machine :eek:.
Click to expand...

The Mac Mini started with various G4 processors, and the first Intel processor was a 1.5 GHz Core Solo. 5 times faster than the first G4s is quite possible.

iSayuSay said:
Hmm just as i predicted .. The Mini has a slightly underclocked chip it's identical to the one in 5S to compensate smaller battery. Considering it shares the same resolution as the Air, I dont know how it will affect the overall performance, though.
Click to expand...

I think it's not the battery, it's all about heat. The Air has a lot more surface to get rid of heat.
 
Early adopter

I own an original iPad and an original iPad mini. They have been great and I have no regrets - but it amazing what seems to me to work speedy is now old and antiquated. What are the speeds like on the iPad Air when the original mini still seems fast to me? Today I was booting up my work windows laptop (they went low spec wise) and I kept waiting and thinking - this is ridiculous is this age - I just want my instant-on iPad. Spoiled already - I cannot imagine what things will be like if I ever upgrade and become accostomed to these blistering speeds!
 
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