By the way, I know a lot of folks frequently comment that the dual-core A9X is only 15-20% faster than the tri-core A8X. However, the fact that the dual-core A9X is 15-20% faster than tri-core A8X in multithreaded tasks means single core performance of A9X is up to roughly 70% faster than A8X. In day to day use, faster clockrate and better IPC is going to "feel" faster than having more cores. Just look at Intel dual-core vs AMD tri-core of old.If the A10X chip like the A10 fusion, then it won't really be true "quad-core". It'll probably be 40% faster than the A9X, just like the A10 fusion is over the A9.
Ditto here. Given I don't plan on video encoding, etc on the iPad, I'd take a much faster dual-core over true quad-core any day.
[doublepost=1482026245][/doublepost]
True but I'm already getting a $1000 iPad (for 256 GB). What's another $130?Strictly wifi-only for me...cheaper, too!![]()
Besides, given how much I use the iPad day in and day out, it's probably the best value for money that I get (next to Netflix).