iPad 2 news, new?

[Deleted member 651465]

Because single core ARM chips suck. The Apple A4 sucks. But it's a better performer than single core Snapdragons (ars did a comparison). Then you look at the Playbook vs iPad comparison and you see how much more snappy the PlayBook is using the dual core ARM. I've yet to find a smartphone that doesn't leave me thinking "this needs another core".

Again, you must be the only person with these views?

The A4 chip is certainly no slouch. If anything, 99% of reviews state how snappy it is. The lack of RAM is not enough to effect the performance of the iPad, so that's testament to how well the CPU carries the device IMO.

Not sure what you're getting at with the Playbook comparison. When did that launch? Bare in mind the iPad was announced in January this year, so plenty of time for competitors to launch updated products. No doubt it is faster

Have you even used an iPhone 4? I've never once thought "this is slow".. as I did with my 3G.

 

[Brian8bit]

Of course I've tried the iPhone. Every model since it was launched. So you've never thought "this is slow", I on the other hand have never thought "this performs to my expectations and more". Doesn't matter if it's iOS, Android or Windows, none of them performed how I wanted. And that's down to the CPU more than anything. Except Windows phones. 6.5 was dire.

And my point about the PlayBook was the very noticeable difference between using a single core and a dual core in performance on mobile devices. Be it tablets or phones.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

You expect too much.

It doesn't lag, has a decent amount of horsepower for a phone (enough to play games) and enough memory to cope with a pretty UI. This isn't just relevant for the iPhone either. There are Android phones that are noticeably better than the dumb phones of yesteryear, and they do a lot more to boot.

I'd like to ask what is noticeable, when using the PlayBook? I've almost never seen a direct correlation between the number of cores and noticeable performance. Yes, going from a single core CPU to a 16 core XEON is better, but how much better when you go from 1 to 2... I'm not sure there are any when the underlying device is fast enough on 1. You also have the bottleneck of apps that aren't coded for dual cores etc etc

I submit that the tablets (talking about Atom) that arrived on the scene were too underpowered for their own good, and now that they're getting around to putting decent horsepower in them, it feels a world better, and you're translation that experience to all mobile devices.

I honestly think you want an Intel Extreme in a phone?

 

[Brian8bit]

I honestly think you want an Intel Extreme in a phone?

You think too much. I just want a dual core phone. Like I stated in my first post. If I sucked at the tit of Jobs, I might come to the conclusion that the A4 is perfectly fine for a mobile phone. But I don't. And it's not for me. Nor are any other single core ARM chips in any smartphone I've used.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

You think too much. I just want a dual core phone. Like I stated in my first post. If I sucked at the tit of Jobs, I might come to the conclusion that the A4 is perfectly fine for a mobile phone. But I don't. And it's not for me. Nor are any other single core ARM chips in any smartphone I've used.

You want a dual core now, but then you'll want a quad core... and so on. Sounds like you are a tech-spec obsessor.

These devices are meant to be low power, and so they are fine as they are. No doubt the next ARM A9 or whatever will improve on that power consumption, maybe even improving and adding a second core but the fact of the matter there is no one out there that thinks the A4 is slow or underpowered for the uses it occupies (right now).

I suppose you assume I suckle at the tit of Jobs, but you are honestly asking too much. Almost wanting a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[Brian8bit]

Of course I'd want a quad core. Who wouldn't? Other than the same types of people who scoffed when they said people needed multiple cores for computers.

 

[iraiguana]

I think you are confusing/ignoring the problem of power here. Everyone would want a C2D in their phone and for it to last a week without recharging.

The problem is it couldn't with the current tech available even ignoring the obvious size and heat problems the batteries just can't hold enough charge.

Current smart phones average a day and a bit of heavy use a max of two. A dual core would surely reduce this useful time of the device significantly. The reason the tablets can get away with it is they carry a battery at least twice that of a phone!

Until the chips are lower power and the batteries are improved I am afraid this will not happen.

 

[oli356]

Isn't the iPad the only tablet with a good battery though..? Compared to the play whatever and galaxy tab


Typed on my iPad

 

[Brian8bit]

You should read into Qualcomms dual core snapdragons and their power saving features.

 

[cu3ed]

Hardware does not equal end user experience.

 

[Spyhop]

Stating the obvious

Hardware does not equal end user experience.

...but it helps!

 

[Brian8bit]

Hardware does not equal end user experience.

You're right. I completely forgot about the magic and fairy dust.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

You're right. I completely forgot about the magic and fairy dust.

I think he was referring to the software too?

Let me break my point down, as I'm bored of this now: There is nothing wrong with the current hardware (for it's current usage). Yes, dual cores would yield a performance boost but to say you can't use a device because it doesn't have a dual core is tantamount to trolling.

Until the benefits of extra power can match the current battery performance then Apple/Google/Insert company here won't put them in.

 

[Brian8bit]

Let me break my point down, as I'm bored of this now: There is a problem with current hardware (for it's current usage). Yes, dual core would yield a performance boost despite the fact I never said I couldn't use a device because it doesn't have a dual core. I said single core sucks. And I maintain that single core sucks. Not that it was unusable, only that it does not perform how I want it to perform. The same way you maintain that single core is adequate. Hurray for differing opinions.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

Let me break my point down, as I'm bored of this now: There is a problem with current hardware (for it's current usage). Yes, dual core would yield a performance boost despite the fact I never said I couldn't use a device because it doesn't have a dual core.

This previous quote begs to differ..

I won't be picking up an iPad or an iPhone until they come with dual core ARM.

You are entitled to an opinion, but at least give me some reasoning or back up with statements or links.

I said single core sucks. And I maintain that single core sucks. Not that it was unusable, only that it does not perform how I want it to perform. The same way you maintain that single core is adequate. Hurray for differing opinions.

Single cores do not "suck" though. Further, It is not only my opinion that the single core A4 performs well for the usage of the iPad. In fact, I challenge you to find a reliable source that says it needs another core or that it feels sluggish.

In our testing, the A4 SOC seemed to deal with whatever we threw at it handily. From opening and rendering webpages to playing the most graphically intensive games (including scaled iPhone versions, of course), it didn't miss a beat. The photo app was particularly impressive, allowing for fast scrolling through high resolution pictures without a hiccup, and handling rotation and zooming with no resistance or hesitation. Applications themselves opened quickly -- not instantly. Of course, as many detractors have noted (Engadget included), there's no true multitasking here, so seeing a system with this much power perform admirably one app at a time wasn't a huge surprise, especially since we'd experienced the same thing on an earlier version at the January event (more on this in a moment). Still, it seems like the A4 has power to spare, and that's a good thing if the third party apps we used on the iPad were any indication of where things are headed -- more graphically intensive and packing far more functionality.

Read more: http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/03/apple-ipad-review/

• The iPad takes all the clever, canny user-interface features that make the iPhone so useful, and implements them in an ideal-sized device for couch-bound computing.
• The screen is ample enough to display email, web pages and video with aplomb, yet isn't so large as to make the iPad an unwieldy anchor in one's book bag.
• We love the speedy ARM processor. You can feel its power when loading apps and web pages, and its very architecture affords the iPad hours and hours of battery life. And battery life is especially relevant, given the worlds of opportunity that iPad apps open up.

Read more: http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc...le-ipad-681021/review?artc_pg=6#ixzz16J9sJqmg

One of the most compelling and exciting points during Steve Jobs' announcement of the iPad was that the device would be utilizing the A4 custom processor. Divining anything about this processor has been a mixture of science and witchcraft, but we thought we had it all figured out. With the actual release, we've found that the iPad is noticeably (both intuitively and quantitatively) faster than its iPhone cousins. Performing real benchmarks on mobile devices are difficult, especially running similar benchmarks across different platforms. Probably the most reliable of these are browser-based benchmarks, but these too come with caveats. They are highly susceptible to influence by different operating systems (the iPad is running version 3.2 and the 3GS running 3.1.3) and different browser versions, which can sometimes bring dramatic increases in the nascent area of JavaScript VM optimization.

All that being said, we can tell you that right now the iPad is significantly faster than any smartphone we've tested. It's our opinion this is largely due to the 1GHz clockspeed of the new processor, Apple's A4, but we'll talk about this issue a little later. In our battery of Web-based benchmarks, the iPad consistently outperformed all mobile comers, in some cases by quite a wide margin. First we’ll look at the benchmarks, and then we’ll talk about why the iPad is so much faster than the competition.

Read more: http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2010/04/ipad-review.ars/17

 

[Brian8bit]

This previous quote begs to differ..

No it doesn't. I never said I couldn't use a device with a single core. Only that the devices with a single core I have used have left me wanting another core.

Single cores do not "suck" though. Further, It is not only my opinion that the single core A4 performs well for the usage of the iPad. In fact, I challenge you to find a reliable source that says it needs another core or that it feels sluggish.

Yes, they do suck. They've always sucked. And like I said before, the only people who're happy with them are looking back nostalgically or don't know any better. Of course the A4 is going to be the best of a bad bunch (I've already said it outperforms single core Qualcomm chips), but it still sucks compared to the dual core qualcomms and that's thanks to the extra core in the snapdragon.

We're going in ****ing circles here. You think it's fine. I don't. But I bet when they announce a dual core iPhone you'll be one of the first proclaiming "I always said they needed a dual core in there" and rabbiting on about how Apple are always innovating. It's like you've taken my attack on the single core ARM processors personally. Jeez.

 

[Brian8bit]

Oh look. Blogs renowned for being up the ass of Apple.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

No it doesn't. I never said I couldn't use a device with a single core. Only that the devices with a single core I have used have left me wanting another core.

This smacks of tech-spec snobbery. Sorry.

Yes, they do suck. They've always sucked. And like I said before, the only people who're happy with them are looking back nostalgically.

I don't even know what you're going on about now. We were supposed to jump to dual cores were we? If they were ready, they'd be in devices, outperforming the iPad right now (with comparable battery life).

Of course the A4 is going to be the best of a bad bunch (I've already said it outperforms single core Qualcomm chips), but it still sucks compared to the dual core qualcomms and that's thanks to the extra core in the snapdragon.

Which was developed first? Faster CPU in outperforming slower CPU shock horror. Again, the point is the single core A4 is fine for the usage (at the moment). I'd love the new snapdragon in an iPad, but I honestly can't see how it would be worlds faster than the A4 for the current use.

We're going in ****ing circles here. You think it's fine. I don't. But I bet when they announce a dual core iPhone you'll be one of the first proclaiming "I always said they needed a dual core in there" and rabbiting on about how Apple are always innovating. It's like you've taken my attack on the single core ARM processors personally. Jeez.

I haven't taken anything personally.

All this stems because you are proclaiming you can't touch any device without a dual core, for fear it's too slow or unusable. No evidence or articles to support your point though.

Don't get me wrong, If they release a dual core variant and it's noticeably quicker then I'll hold my hands up. However, I'd expect a performance boost on the next model given the iPad has been out/announced for the best part of a year. Dual cores would not give you that noticeable boost though.

 

[Brian8bit]

This smacks of tech-spec snobbery. Sorry.

Get over it.

I don't even know what you're going on about now. We were supposed to jump to dual cores were we? If they were ready, they'd be in devices, outperforming the iPad.

Like the PlayBook I mentioned already. Youtube it.

Which was developed first? Faster CPU in outperforming slower CPU shock horror. Again, the point is the single core A4 is fine for the usage (at the moment).

Not for me. Deal with it.

All this stems because you are proclaiming you can't touch any device without a dual core, for fear it's too slow or unusable. No evidence or articles to support your point though.

Maybe if I was a pseudo journalist on a tech blog renowned for being asshats my opinion would carry more weight, but hey-ho.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

Get over it.

Nice.

Like the PlayBook I mentioned already. Youtube it.

The device that isn't even out yet? I have. It uses the same Cortex A9-based, dual-core 1GHz CPU that will probably end up in the iPad in 2011.

Oh, and notice how they haven't published the battery details. Apple publishes 10hrs, and most reviews are finding that to hold water.

Not for me. Deal with it.

I get that, but really you've invented a problem that doesn't exist and now have crazy discrimination for all single core products because of it

Maybe if I was a pseudo journalist on a tech blog renowned for being asshats my opinion would carry more weight, but hey-ho.

Instead of picking fault with the sources I posted, why not post your own?

Here's a post from PCMag, any others you're happy aren't biased?

The iPad runs iPhone OS 3.2, and is currently the only device that runs this version of the operating system. Basically, it's an iPad-optimized version of the current iPhone OS, tweaked for the iPad's larger screen and new apps. So just like an iPhone, the iPad lacks the ability to run multiple tasks at one time.

The mysterious, in-house-designed 1GHz A4 chip gets little official comment from Apple, other than being described as "fast" and "power efficient." The A4's main application processor is thought to be of a similar architecture to the Cortex-A8 processor used in the iPhone 3GS ($199, 16GB, ), Palm Pre ($299.99, ) and Motorola Droid ($199.99, )—just faster. The HTC HD2 ($199.99, ) and LG Expo ($199.99, ) smartphones also use 1-GHz, Cortex-A8-class processors, as does the Lenovo Skylight U1 tablet.

The iPad's graphics capabilities come from a PowerVR SGX GPU, similar to the one found in the iPhone 3GS and iPod Touch. If the iPad is using the same PowerVR SGX 535 as in the 3GS, it can render about 28 million polygons/second, which is more powerful than the Qualcomm Snapdragon found in devices like the HTC HD2, but is well behind the muscle of Samsung's latest handheld graphics hardware. Since Apple hasn't released the exact model of the iPad's PowerVR SGX, it may be of a newer vintage than the 535. The screen does seem to respond almost instantly; so whatever it is that powers the A4 chip (it's rumored to be designed by former AMD and ATI chip design veterans), offers an impeccable touch-screen experience.

Read more: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2362040,00.asp