This device is a concession in some key ways. First of all, that line about combining a toaster and a refrigerator is officially moot. Second, Apple has always made it seem as if people would not want to interact with a touch screen on a laptop. Once they attach that keyboard, which lacks a touchpad, users will be forced to interact with a touchscreen in a very similar setup. My guess is that a future version of the iPad Pro will run OSX, and a touch-compatible OSX will come sooner or later.
iPad Pro vs SP4
- Thread starter starstreak
- Start date
Annoter point is the iPadPro weight. Holding it will become quickly uneasy. It's the same for the SP3, except the kikstand allows to use as tablet on my legs or in the bed.
jrioux
Active Member
Most authors of articles on the new iPad Pro are in awe of the speed and power of the machine's new A9X processor. Some speculate that the iPad Pro will blow away all three of the SP3 processors.
Apparently none read last month's AppleInsider article (Rumor: Apple's upcoming A9-series chips benchmarked, show 20-30% jump over A8). It reported that the A9X achieved GeekBench single-core and multi-core scores of 2109 & 5101. The iPad Air 2's A8X scored 1808 & 4526. The Pro's scores are only 17% and 13% faster, NOT 80% as claimed by Apple.
For comparisons, the Surface Pro 3 had GeekBench scores as high as 2953 & 5701 with the i5 CPU, and 3225 & 6133 with the i7 CPU. The iPad Pro will probably blow away the new MacBook with its anemic M chips, but won't stay up with the two faster SP3 chips.
My conclusion is supported by Apple's own graph of the historical increases in iPad CPU performance. Based on their own graph, the iPad Pro is NOT 80% faster than the iPad Air 2. To me, it looks more like 20% faster, which is consistent with the numbers reported by AppleInsider (17% and 13% higher).
Microsoft should think carefully before dropping slower chips into the SP4.
Apparently none read last month's AppleInsider article (Rumor: Apple's upcoming A9-series chips benchmarked, show 20-30% jump over A8). It reported that the A9X achieved GeekBench single-core and multi-core scores of 2109 & 5101. The iPad Air 2's A8X scored 1808 & 4526. The Pro's scores are only 17% and 13% faster, NOT 80% as claimed by Apple.
For comparisons, the Surface Pro 3 had GeekBench scores as high as 2953 & 5701 with the i5 CPU, and 3225 & 6133 with the i7 CPU. The iPad Pro will probably blow away the new MacBook with its anemic M chips, but won't stay up with the two faster SP3 chips.
My conclusion is supported by Apple's own graph of the historical increases in iPad CPU performance. Based on their own graph, the iPad Pro is NOT 80% faster than the iPad Air 2. To me, it looks more like 20% faster, which is consistent with the numbers reported by AppleInsider (17% and 13% higher).
Microsoft should think carefully before dropping slower chips into the SP4.
I genuinely don't know how these benchmarks work, but surely it's apples to oranges. Or does geekbench somehow calculate things as if it were app per app? what i mean is that just because say an ipad and SP3 scored the same, wouldn't that just be because the ipad is running the software on a stripped out refined mobile system, wheras the sp3 would be running the software through big and bloaty windows.
daniielrp
Active Member
Considering that entire article is speculation - "Rumour" "A graph that purports" I wouldn't make any assumptions based on that yet.
The OS doesn't impact it too much although for accurate readings you should be in airplane mode etc. like calculating pi these tests are very CPU focused.
However you have a point about comparing apples and oranges but still; when in an Apple race for desktop champion, you get smoked by an Orange it doesn't look good.
Geek bench does have a reputation for reading comparatively a little low on Intel CPU's which translates to: a tie between an A9X and an Intel CPU = a win for Intel because in the real world of general computing it will out perform it. Ideally, in the purest sense you only want to compare like to like with benchmarks in the same system or test environment i.e. A9X to A8X is valid, i5 4300 to i5 5300 is valid, A9X to Snapdragon 820 or Exynos 7420 is slightly less valid but useful as they are based on the same ARM architectures and the further you get from like the less meaningful it becomes. If you compare a Snapdragon 810 in a Samsung tablet to a Snapdragon 810 in a Sony tablet you might still get different results but those would show differences in memory or other motherboard and system firmware tuning.
All that to say... it's not completely valid but it's not completely invalid as in a race to the moon we're not giving style points for how you get there. The better you understand everything involved the more meaningful it becomes with the requisite grain of salt because most don't run a single benchmark or calculate pi as their sole use case but if you wanted a system that calculated pi err ran geek bench the fastest your decision is made.
CrippsCorner
Well-Known Member
You do realise I was cussing it, right?
jrioux
Active Member
As I clearly said, the graph was from APPLE and not the rumor mill. And, my point was that Apple's own graph supported the rumored speed increase and NOT Apple's claim that the A9X is 80% faster than the A8X.
But, yes, we will have to wait and see for the final numbers...
jrioux
Active Member
Why, of course, my dear Doctor!
CrippsCorner
Well-Known Member
15 seconds charge gives 30 minutes of usage... I don't see it being an issue really. In fact I'd argue that was even easier than pulling out extra batteries as you put.
These two devices should not be compared as for different use cases. Besides, ipad pro may not run faster than sp3, let alone to sp4, i guess. Based on my experience, whenever using the ipad pro keyboard you should shift your fingers from keyboard and screen time after time. Meanwhile, this keyboard is designed for desktop environment not on-knee or else.
Pad is pad, SP is sp [emoji57]
Pad is pad, SP is sp [emoji57]
