Is Apple betting the farm on the new iPad (iPad3 or iPadHD or ?)?

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by afv011

Yes, but it will finish its task faster as well. Again, more raw power does NOT equal more energy (battery usage) over the long term. The PDF I linked to in my previous post is a very good read, it explains all this in detail.

My point is that we should not categorically say that CPU with more cores will use less power because like I explained on my previous post, and fjtorres also pointed on his, it will depend of many factors, like the software and Os itself.

You are right, for high intensive apps., the work will finish faster.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by jocampo

My point is that we should not categorically say that CPU with more cores will use less power because like I explained on my previous post, and fjtorres also pointed on his, it will depend of many factors, like the software and Os itself.

You are right, for high intensive apps., the work will finish faster.

So, what about people who categorically say that more cores imply shorter battery life, without providing any backing-up? I didn't see you jumping up at Harry when he said so.

I stated that CPUs with more cores CAN (notice the verb) use less power than CPUs with less cores, and provided a link to back up my statement.

[tubemonkey]

No mention of RAM, so I bet it stays at 512MB.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I'm sure the Apple fans will point out the 4 core GPU will make for killer games to fight it out with the PS Vita and Nintendo 3DS but since I do my gaming on Xbox I have no interest on any of the above.

The New iPad is clearly more interested in gamers than people who appreciate Quad core CPUs.

Apple needed the better GPU to drive the higher display resolution. Being better suited for games is just a side effect.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by jocampo

My point is that we should not categorically say that CPU with more cores will use less power because like I explained on my previous post, and fjtorres also pointed on his, it will depend of many factors, like the software and Os itself.

You are right, for high intensive apps., the work will finish faster.

And the iOS appstore is *loaded* with *low* power apps designed to work on older iPhones and iPods.

Also, let's not forget that modern GPUs aren't just for graphics; they can be used as vector processors to handle highly-parallel apps (like photo-editing, media encoding/decoding, etc). Which, BTW, are the same kind of apps that benefit from multi-core processors. In addition: we don't yet know the clock rate, do we? or the speed of the RAM or the amount of cache or any of the other items that determine the throughput of a modern computer.

One advantage Apple (even more than Amazon) enjoys is that they know *exactly* what Apps run on their hardware and how popular they are. So if they think they can get by for a year with a dual core CPU, odds are they can get away with it.
They're still apple, after all.

Anyway, hype and mystique aside, iPads customers care more about the *content* and the apps than the Specs. Anymore than FIRE buyers need mile-long spec sheets.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...col;subStories

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

Apple needed the better GPU to drive the higher display resolution. Being better suited for games is just a side effect.

Could be.
But I'm thinking that Apple took a look at the WiiU demos and decided they could do that much beat it to market.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

The only real question I really have is how many times a year can Apple dip into its customers pockets? I have seen it time and time again. I have relatives that do it. I myself have given an Ipod Touch as a requested gift.

1~2 years per product class appear to be the norm.

Originally Posted by SeaKing

Or another question is really where in heck do all the old Apple products go? There must be giant piles of old Apple products somewhere like old tires stacked up in mounds on the earth that can be seen from the space station.

Compared to other manufacturers, Apple products actually have relatively high resale value. If you do upgrade every year, you can generally cover half the cost of the new version by selling your older one. For iPhones, you could make enough from selling the 2-generation old models to cover the entire subsidized price or close to it (of course, you're on the hook for the monthly voice and data plans for 2 years).

Originally Posted by SeaKing

If they can hardly wait for the next new thing, does that mean that the thing they have isn't really all that good? Or does it mean something more?

I reckon not that many people upgrade every year. For folks who upgrade, someone else in the family probably inherits the older model. For me, yes, the iPad 2 wasn't ideal primarily because I wanted it to have retina display (there were rumors of it prior to release). Unfortunately, there was one app I wanted that was iPad-only at the time (it's now been updated to support the iPhone and iPod Touch, but remains an iOS exclusive), otherwise, I wouldn't have bought an iPad 2.

P.S.
No Mercedes or Porsche here. I reckon the lack of monthly $1,000 car payments is what allows me to buy all my tech stuff (which isn't just limited to Apple).

[geenp]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

See? That can stick.

I'm sure the Apple fans will point out the 4 core GPU will make for killer games to fight it out with the PS Vita and Nintendo 3DS but since I do my gaming on Xbox I have no interest on any of the above.

The New iPad is clearly more interested in gamers than people who appreciate Quad core CPUs.

iOS has it's UI drawn with OpenGL so everything you see is powered by the GPU. Android does the same thing but to a lesser extent. I'm not saying one way is better than the other but it means that increasing the GPU power will increase the performance of the device and not just in games. Other parts of OS and software are also, and can in future, be GPU accelerated.

Have you seen the benchmarks of the Tegra 3? It is outperformed by Qualcomm's dual- core Snapdragon and not significantly faster than the previous Apple A5. Where graphics performance is concerned, it is still slower than the A5. So 4 cores isn't everything, having good software optimisation and having each individual core perform well count for more.

The actual devices aside, I don't believe Tegra 3 is going anywhere significant. Tegra 2 was the first dual-core SoC to market and was quickly overtaken by everything else. There were almost no Tegra 2 devices towards the end of the last generation's product cycles. NVidia is probably doing the same thing again, be the first to out with 4 cores (or 4+1) and ride the early adoption wave but without LTE support they will run out of steam soon. As it is, the latest Snapdragon is already stealing many design wins.

[The Terminator]

From what I can see, looks like the Transformer Prime is still the most powerful.

[tomsem]

I would point out that while iPadNew matches the price points of its predecessor, the 16GB models will likely have inadequate storage to meet the requirements of most people.

That is because apps designed for it will be larger (bitmap resources are 4x larger), 1080p video is roughly 2x bigger than 720p, 5MP pictures are 5x bigger than 1MP pictures, etc. Not to mention that media-laden .ibook's can be 1-2GB each (maybe even more when updated to target iPadNew).

So the price is 'the same' only if you take the marketing message at face value. Yes: better performance, better display, better camera, 'same low price', but most people should regard the entry point as $599, not really $499. But offering a more realistically configured 32/64/128 spread of models starting at $599 would have dampened that message, and above all, profit margins must be met, etc., so the tradeoff was to keep memory configuration the same with the established price points.

For reference, my 32GB iPod Touch is nearly half full (4GB system, 8GB apps, 3GB content). I could probably easily chop out 3 or 4GB of that, but still that would leave me with only 4 or 5 GB free space, if all I did was to move this to a new iPad. So much as I would like to get one for $499, I'm pretty sure that would not work for me.

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by tomsem

I would point out that while iPadNew matches the price points of its predecessor, the 16GB models will likely have inadequate storage to meet the requirements of most people.

That is because apps designed for it will be larger (bitmap resources are 4x larger), 1080p video is roughly 2x bigger than 720p, 5MP pictures are 5x bigger than 1MP pictures, etc. Not to mention that media-laden .ibook's can be 1-2GB each (maybe even more when updated to target iPadNew).

.

And that's why Android has SD card support for movies, it also works okay for apps, but the whole app doesn't go onto the SD card.

[injapan]

Originally Posted by afv011

Wrong. Quad-core CPUs can use LESS power than dual-cores. The Tegra-3 (quad-core) uses less power than the Tegra-2 (dual-core).

It is a common misconception that more cores equals more power. For starters, technology advances (you move from 40nm to 32nm, to 22nm), each step bringing you improved power management. Then you have other advances, like the 5th companion core on the Tegra-3 which handles background stuff, using less power than any of the cores in the Tegra-2. Also, you have improved core management at the kernel level.

And, even if quad-cores use more power than a dual-core when at full throttle, they also accomplish the task in less time, so the amount of energy, everything else being equal, would be similar (energy being power times time).

Edit: add background info


Quad-cores

very interesting! I will buy my 1st iPad next week

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

---- the iPad 2 wasn't ideal primarily because I wanted it to have retina display (there were rumors of it prior to release). Unfortunately, there was one app I wanted that was iPad-only at the time (it's now been updated to support the iPhone and iPod Touch, but remains an iOS exclusive), otherwise, I wouldn't have bought an iPad 2.

----:

First two things.
1. What was the "one app" you wanted so much?

2. It is my belief that the Apple product buying cycle is much shorter than most other manufacturers. I think the rush to buy the next "upgrades" show this. Witness the excitement about getting a new color.

A lot of my comments come about from having talked with Apple owners over the years, and questioning them on why they buy Apples which are usually more expensive than other products. Granted that was mostly about computers and not iPods, iPhones and iPads.

Those Apple computer owners were a diverse lot. My doctor, at least 2 children, 1 wife, my sister and her husband, cousins, friends, co-workers, etc. They all feel that Apple gives them something special that makes the extra cost worth it, and yet they can't explain what it is very well, if you are familiar with what they want to do.

I can't speak so definitively for the hand held devices. I think there was initially some new ground broken with those, but that ground has been made up. One of my boys will say categorically that an HTC phone is better than the iPhone, and he can defend that position. I don't know. I use a "used" Verizon feature phone on the prepaid PagePlus cellular network. 4 cents a minute. That is good enough for me and a lot of people that I know including people that I have clued about the Service. People say well you can't get information on that phone. Then I tell them, I send a text to Google or to another info type place and find out anything I need to know.

One thing I haven't commented on though I have seen it elsewhere on the Computer boards is about the new 5MP camera, with auto focus, etc.
It is almost beyond belief that having the ability to use a camera with the shape and size of a dinner plate is a really good thing.
Even my little feature phone will take a 1.3MP picture and that seems sufficient.
Then they say the camera has geotagging. If the iPad has a GPS chip that might work but if not, then the WiFi one won't be too handy.

[HappyMartin]

I never find myself waiting for the ipad to do anything but perhaps I am not doing much. touch an app and its open. Pinch and its closed. I read magazines, browse the net, look at manuals, write a few emails, take a few notes and look up contact details and keep lists. I can see where power is important on the tower where I create stuff but on the ipad it doesn't seem to be an issue.

I wont upgrade to the 3. With incremental improvements you have the choice of sitting every 2nd one out without really missing anything. I dont think Apple are the worst at forcing upgrades by a long shot. Over 10 years ago I bought a mac mini for image processing. When the MP race rendered ir redundant I hooked up about 12 hard drives to it via USB and firewire and used it as a file server. Then I upgraded to a NAS server and the thing ended up in a drawer for a few years before being dusted off, loaded up with itunes, connected to airport and with an ipod touch now does service as a music server in my house. It has never been opened and never gives any trouble. I think it even did a year or 2 as an admin accounts machine. Good value I would call that.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tomsem

I would point out that while iPadNew matches the price points of its predecessor, the 16GB models will likely have inadequate storage to meet the requirements of most people.

That is because apps designed for it will be larger (bitmap resources are 4x larger), 1080p video is roughly 2x bigger than 720p, 5MP pictures are 5x bigger than 1MP pictures, etc. Not to mention that media-laden .ibook's can be 1-2GB each (maybe even more when updated to target iPadNew).

It depends what you use the iPad for, of course. Many people will, I'm sure, use it primarily for e-mail, web-browsing, and reading documents. They will benefit from the better text rendering of the higher-resolution screen, and will probably find 16GB storage entirely adequate.