NVIDIA to Apple: Show us the benchmarks on the new iPad

Today during Apple's press event where it revealed "the new iPad", the company showed off a graph where it claimed the graphics performance of the A5 processor "used in the iPad 2 and iPhone 4" was twice that of NVIDIA's recently launched Tegra 3 processor. Furthermore, Apple claims that the new iPad's A5X processor has four times the performance of the Tegra 3.

Those statements are pretty bold and NVIDIA apparently wants Apple to back up those claims. ZDNet.com reports that an NVIDIA spokesperson said:

We don’t have the benchmark information. We have to understand what the application was that was used. Was it one or a variety of applications? What drivers were used? There are so many issues to get into with benchmark.

It's doubtful that Apple will ever reveal how it tested the graphical performance of the new iPad against an Tegra 3 device. However, NVIDIA says it was "certainly flattering" to be mentioned during today's press event. NVIDIA plans to purchase the new iPad like everyone else on March 16 to see if Apple's claims are true. Our question: If it does turn out that Apple's graphic processor claims are accurate, will NVIDIA also admit to defeat?

Image via Apple

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

iPhoto finally comes to iOS devices

Next Story

TechSpot: Intel Ivy Bridge - everything you need to know

73 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

The graph does rather small of the same **** that they pulled with the OSX 'percentage' install base compared to Windows 7. Show us the ACTUAL numbers please.

Laslow said,
Reminds me of this.

http://i.imgur.com/NwWU1.gif

Nice. It actually doesn't say X-Fi gives better quality it say that even with MP3 as source with X-Fi you get better experience than with raw studio quality (Whatever that means) material. Which is marketing BS, but they don't lie per se.

it's probably 4x faster on one instruction... like when Apple use to say that G5 chips where so much faster then Intel chips *with integer addition test

I know bad example, but it's still how Apple does it, find one test that is faster and boom our chip rules your chip!

I'm pretty sure the number came from the marketing teams who said, oh look we're pushing 4X as many pixels as the largest resolution Android tablet, so that means we're 4X faster.

Sort of on topic, anyone else been a bit underwhelmed with nVidia's products in general recently? I use to always go for nVidia's video cards on my gaming builds but recently switched to ATI for gaming. If these claims turn out to be true, its just one more reason I won't be returning to nVidia anytime soon.

Well using Neowin as a source if you look here:
http://www.neowin.net/news/gui...hone-hardware-27-graphics-2
Scroll down to the chart and you'll see the "Kal-El" GeForce in the Tegra 3 (4th Row) is 4.8 GFLOPS@200MHz, the PowerVR SGX543MP2 in the Apple A5 (2nd Row) is 12.8 GFLOPS@200MHz, and the PowerVR SGX543MP4+ (1st Row) which both the Vita and the new iPad have is 25.6 GFLOPS@200MHz. So depending on what the final clocks are the 4x performance doesn't seem too unreasonable. Although that neowin article indicates that the Asus Transformer Prime is thought to be clocked at 400MHz so the final performance is 9.6 GFLOPS and the Apple iPhone 4S is clocked at 250MHz so it's total is 16 GFLOPS which isn't quite the double Apple claims. If we assume the new iPad uses the same clock as the 4S then it would be 32 GFLOPS which is closer to 3x the Tegra 3 than 4x but still Apple's claims are not as crazy sounding as nVidia may have us believe.

That said those are all theoretical GFLOPS and don't equate to real world performance. Furthermore the extreme resolution of the new iPad is going to put a far greater strain on the graphics card then lower resolution devices. For example even if the Vita and new iPad are clocked similarly (which we don't know) using the same chip the Vita will seem MUCH faster because that GPU is driving a much lower resolution screen.

really? who cares. android tablets needs to fix the buggy software. not cool with force closes every 15 minus with 8/16/32 cores. and random reboots, and phone apps expanded to fill 10 inch screen with mostly blank spaces. apple got the point. I got the transformer prime, so buggy. then returned it and got one from second batch, still can't keep it for everyday use. asus is planing to sell their 1080p transformer 700 for $599? look at ipad3 and try to believe it's not DOA? There are a bunch people who don't like the limited IOS(that's me). android has not made anything that could touch apple in any aspect. now hope is on Win8.

obviously steve jobs is channeling his reality distortion field from the grave. i like apple products but i'm with nvidia on this one. show us the dickie, apple.

The problem with those benchmarks is that they're meaningless, which is why Apple can claim whatever they want and nobody will be able to say anything.

You have two vastly different OSes, running two different pieces of hardware. Hardly a fair comparison since well for one iOS is much better optimized than Android and is GPU accelerated for the most part (android isn't).

It'll be like comparing an nVidia 580 on Windows and an ATI 6970 on Linux and going oh look the 580 is clearly 10x faster.

Thenetavenger posted this in a comment above, and it pretty much sums it up.

If you look at the 1ghz Snapdragon in the WP7. The numbers benchmarked under Android and Qualcomm's generic Linux using OpenGL ES were 5 to 10 times slower than a WP7 device using DirectX in actual fillrate, pixels, triangles, and overall graphical performance of the GPU.

Does this mean the SnapDragon was 'instantly 5 to 10 times faster? No, it means Android/Linux and OpenGL was 5 to 10 times slower than WP7 and DirectX.

Razorfolds said,
The problem with those benchmarks is that they're meaningless, which is why Apple can claim whatever they want and nobody will be able to say anything.

You have two vastly different OSes, running two different pieces of hardware. Hardly a fair comparison since well for one iOS is much better optimized than Android and is GPU accelerated for the most part (android isn't).

It'll be like comparing an nVidia 580 on Windows and an ATI 6970 on Linux and going oh look the 580 is clearly 10x faster.

Thenetavenger posted this in a comment above, and it pretty much sums it up.

How are they meaningless? The tests don't lie. There was also an HTML5 test that stressed the CPU and GPU and also showed the iPad blowing everybody away. People are just insistent on spitting out any excuse they can to discredit Apple. This isn't about what platform a certain processor would work best on. Who cares about that? This is taking 2 or 3 devices on the market, putting them head to head on some tests, and then sharing the results. Everything has showed that Apple clearly reins supreme because they have it figured out how to make their software run amazingly well on specific hardware.

Again, even if the Tegra 3 could somehow prove to be 10x faster than the A5X, then great... Do something about it and get that performance on the market. There's nothing else that needs to be said.

Everything has showed that Apple clearly reins supreme because they have it figured out how to make their software run amazingly well on specific hardware.

Thank you for just proving my point that its not only hardware that matters. Hence claiming that one processor is better than the other when you have like 5 other variables is stupid and for marketing reasons only.

Now if Apple allowed iOS to run on Tegra 3 or Android on the A5X, then you would be able to compare it legitimately. Otherwise like I said it would be comparing the 580 on windows and an 6970 on Linux and claiming the 580 is the best card by a huge margin when in reality they probably have similar performance just Windows and Direct X is better than Linux and Open GL.

Ugh can't edit my post but:

There was also an HTML5 test that stressed the CPU and GPU and also showed the iPad blowing everybody away.

That test used Androids stock browser. Now the stock browser is famously known for, how should I put this nicely, being ****. Its barely hardware accelerated, whereas Safari is almost fully hardware accelerated.

Android does have browsers that are, notably Opera but for whatever reason nobody bothered testing that.

I'm not saying the A5(X) is a **** processor, and I'll completely agree that Apple's integration of software and hardware is light years ahead of Androids (ICS is closing that gap though, finally) but I highly doubt that if in a scientific test where the only variable was the processor that the A5X would be 4x as good as the Tegra 3.

Ugh can't edit my post but:

There was also an HTML5 test that stressed the CPU and GPU and also showed the iPad blowing everybody away.

That test used Androids stock browser. Now the stock browser is famously known for, how should I put this nicely, being ****. Its barely hardware accelerated, whereas Safari is almost fully hardware accelerated.

Android does have browsers that are, notably Opera but for whatever reason nobody bothered testing that.

I'm not saying the A5(X) is a **** processor, and I'll completely agree that Apple's integration of software and hardware is light years ahead of Androids (ICS is closing that gap though, finally) but I highly doubt that if in a scientific test where the only variable was the processor that the A5X would be 4x as good as the Tegra 3.

Razorfolds said,

Thank you for just proving my point that its not only hardware that matters. Hence claiming that one processor is better than the other when you have like 5 other variables is stupid and for marketing reasons only.

Now if Apple allowed iOS to run on Tegra 3 or Android on the A5X, then you would be able to compare it legitimately. Otherwise like I said it would be comparing the 580 on windows and an 6970 on Linux and claiming the 580 is the best card by a huge margin when in reality they probably have similar performance just Windows and Direct X is better than Linux and Open GL.

That's really not the point of it. Nobody cares what the processor itself would be capable in the most ideal setting. As I said, it comes down to the product on the shelf and it's clear as day that Android devices have a lot of issues. It's perfectly valid to say that the A5X is 4x faster than the Tegra 3, because all the proof gives that conclusion. Who's to say that the A5X wouldn't run 10x faster on different hardware? If somebody can test the Tegra 3 and get better results, then great, but for right now, it is what it is.

Btw, Apple likes to beat everyone to the Market. But the early adopters should know they are getting beta technology. Apple doesn't care about you. Intel had not finished their Light Peak technology, But apple adopted it anyway before it was finished testing. BTW, if you don't know already, Light Peak is Thunderbolt.

Enron said,
That's a benchmark according to Apple's marketing staff.

Please don't confuse marketing staff for IT personal. Marketing staff knows that most consumers don't even know what or even how a benchmark works. All they hear and care about is 2 times faster.

SuperKid said,
Typical marketing, showing figures that mean nothing. "1x, 2x, 4x" times what? bannas? apple?

The "1x" is written above the bar for NVIDIA Tegra 3, so I'm assuming "2x" and "4x" would be relative to the Tegra 3. By the way, it's bananas. No need to thank me for the Statistics or English lesson.

Manish said,

The "1x" is written above the bar for NVIDIA Tegra 3, so I'm assuming "2x" and "4x" would be relative to the Tegra 3. By the way, it's bananas. No need to thank me for the Statistics or English lesson.

I know what it means, but its still useless information..., And I mistyped bananas... didn't notice before I hit add comment so no I won't thank you for the English lesson.

SuperKid said,

I know what it means, but its still useless information...

I don't think you do understand what it means. It means the A5X (in an iOS device) is 4 times faster than the Tegra 3 (in an Android device) in regards to graphics performance. That's not exactly useless information, is it?

Every consumer computing platform is so powerful these days that the benchmarks hardly matter any more - so long as it's good enough people will differentiate by things like the OS and how it looks, the apps available for it, not how much raw power it offers.

The problem is not Tegra 3 but the Android OS. Google was not smart enough to make it from scratch so they bought Android and work on it from there. That's why it runs so slow and benchmarks are bad for hardware with on Android.

ACTIONpack said,
The problem is not Tegra 3 but the Android OS. Google was not smart enough to make it from scratch so they bought Android and work on it from there. That's why it runs so slow and benchmarks are bad for hardware with on Android.

Android isn't as snappy as iOS because the way they use the GPU and CPU. iOS runs the entire UI from the GPU with the highest priority possible, which is why it's so responsive and fluid. Android can't do this, because the way the OS is made. It will never be as responsive as iOS in it's current form and it will be almost impossible to change the OS.

To proof I am not full of bullcrap, here is a very interesting article to back me up

http://www.redmondpie.com/here...-as-ios-or-windows-phone-7/

Dannydeman said,

Android isn't as snappy as iOS because the way they use the GPU and CPU. iOS runs the entire UI from the GPU with the highest priority possible, which is why it's so responsive and fluid. Android can't do this, because the way the OS is made. It will never be as responsive as iOS in it's current form and it will be almost impossible to change the OS.

To proof I am not full of bullcrap, here is a very interesting article to back me up

http://www.redmondpie.com/here...-as-ios-or-windows-phone-7/

iOS uses the GPU for a lot of the UI, but it is not fully GPU accelerated in the same manner as WP7.

If Android ranks 0 or 1, the iOS would rank 5 or 6 and WP7 would be a 9 or 10 in the GPU utilization.

The same is true of Windows vs OS X. Windows (Vista and newer) uses the GPU for more than just 3D composition, it also shoves a lot of processing through the GPU from image decoding to font rendering, where OS X is essentially just using the GPU for 3D composition (textures on surfaces). This is why OS X was always so dependent on SSE, as this is where the 'animation' and other graphical effect code ran, not on the GPU.

Just to be clear, WP7 takes from the Windows video model and shoves a lot more than 'base UI' rendering through the GPU as iOS does. This is why IE9 on WP7 can make an iPad2 look slow, as it is also far more GPU assisted.

It is good to remind people that Android, even Honeycomb 4.0, has very little GPU assistance compared to iOS and even less assistance compared to WP7.

iOS has a long way to go to get to full GPU utilization though, and would improve its performance if it was done earlier, where now it would break too many Apps. (Apple ran into this with OS X as well, when on 10.4 they wanted to shove more GPU assistance, but it was a crashing nightmare in applications.)


Ironically, even Windows 3.1 and Win95 using a 2D GPU had far more GPU acceleration than Android does now.

The way iOS does UI GPU acceleration is more very much like the acceleration that Windows GDI/GDI+ in 3.1 through Win9x and XP uses, which also is not the latest or greatest utilization of GPU technologies.

WP7 is more like Windows 7 that goes beyond the traditional 2D acceleration drawing concepts and moves on to use the 3D portion of the GPU for acceleration, and is doing DirectCompute and sub-rendering concepts on the GPU below what the user sees as the final image composition on the screen.

It is a fact that the iPad 2's graphical performance owns the Tegra 3 in many cases. It's plausible the new iPad will be even better in many cases. Will be a huge achievement though, especially when you consider the new iPad's resolution of 2045x1536, which is even uncommon in the PC world.

Also, who really cares? The iPad's ecosystem is so much more popular, all the big titles will come out on this platform first and in many cases won't be ported to Android at all.

Dannydeman said,
It is a fact that the iPad 2's graphical performance owns the Tegra 3 in many cases. It's plausible the new iPad will be even better in many cases. Will be a huge achievement though, especially when you consider the new iPad's resolution of 2045x1536, which is even uncommon in the PC world.

Also, who really cares? The iPad's ecosystem is so much more popular, all the big titles will come out on this platform first and in many cases won't be ported to Android at all.

The problem isn't the 'chipset' aka CPU/GPU truly 'owns' the Tegra3, it is more of an iOS vs Android argument.

When running iOS, it will consistently outperform Android on even hardware that is slow than the Android hardware. This is where the 'benchmark' confusion comes from.

If you look at the 1ghz Snapdragon in the WP7. The numbers benchmarked under Android and Qualcomm's generic Linux using OpenGL ES were 5 to 10 times slower than a WP7 device using DirectX in actual fillrate, pixels, triangles, and overall graphical performance of the GPU.

Does this mean the SnapDragon was 'instantly 5 to 10 times faster? No, it means Android/Linux and OpenGL was 5 to 10 times slower than WP7 and DirectX.

This is why NVidia can make a credible claim in technical hardware, but until Tegra3 is running anything but Android in the real world, Apple will have traction to prove they are correct in making this claim.

It is VERY probable that Windows 8 running on Tegra3 will change the NVidia benchmarks, and bring them beyond the current generic Linux/Android OpenGL testing numbers, and give the chipset (CPU/GPU) the chance to perform at its full potential.

Until then, Nvidia and Apple are both a little right.


it claimed the graphics performance of the A5 processor "used in the iPad 2 and iPhone 4" was twice that of NVIDIA's recently launched Tegra 3 processor.

Dead'Soul said,
*Apple claimed the graphics performance of the A5 processor "used in the iPad 2 and iPhone 4" was twice that of NVIDIA's recently launched Tegra 3 processor.

easy solution, if we dont hear anything from Nvidia regarding the statement,,, then we know it came out ahead of the Tegra, if they announce, then we know it didnt..

cause you know Darn sure they are going to test the crap out of it and try to find AT LEAST 1 test the Tegra excels at, and they are going to use that to backup their statement. and if it isnt, they are goign to bury the results

Hell-In-A-Handbasket said,
easy solution, if we dont hear anything from Nvidia regarding the statement,,, then we know it came out ahead of the Tegra, if they announce, then we know it didnt..

cause you know Darn sure they are going to test the crap out of it and try to find AT LEAST 1 test the Tegra excels at, and they are going to use that to backup their statement. and if it isnt, they are goign to bury the results

The tech sites will have benchmarks up within a few days of release, along with comparisons to other top devices.

Given that the iPad 2 beats tegra 3 devices in a lot of benchmarks I'm sure the iPad 3 will.

Julius Caro said,
galaxy tab 10.1 has a tegra 2 and its complete crap. so it aint really hard to believe.

They're comparing it to Tegra 3 btw, currently the fastest Android SoC at the moment, though the new Exynos in SGS3 will probably blow it out of the water.

Julius Caro said,
galaxy tab 10.1 has a tegra 2 and its complete crap. so it aint really hard to believe.

my tegra 2 galaxy tab is great. threw ICS on it and it's nice and quick

Anandtech benchmarked them a while ago, the ipad is only 1.9 times faster than Tegra 3 in a single benchmark, otherwise they are still pretty close (With the iPad 2 having a slight win though). So i'm not sure how they got the "2X Performance" number.

The iPad 3's relative performance probably won't be much different from the iPad 2 as it will have to drive a higher resolution, which means that users probably won't see a difference in game performance, unless they use a lower resolution and upscales the content.

FISKER_Q said,
Anandtech benchmarked them a while ago, the ipad is only 1.9 times faster than Tegra 3 in a single benchmark, otherwise they are still pretty close (With the iPad 2 having a slight win though). So i'm not sure how they got the "2X Performance" number.

The iPad 3's relative performance probably won't be much different from the iPad 2 as it will have to drive a higher resolution, which means that users probably won't see a difference in game performance, unless they use a lower resolution and upscales the content.

They said 2X, you said 1.9. What is the difference? We all do rounding.
I agree that they pick the best performance benchmark is not very wise. But it is what marketing did. You never see a marketing pitch use average or lowest number. Every people do it the same way. It is not a technical session. It is a marketing session.
Yes, they are telling part of true. But I am sure, they are not making up story. This is marketing.

We are saying clips performance not devices performance, we should not take the higher resolution of the new iPad into account when doing comparison. Yes, may be it is not truely 4X, but it will probably be over 3X. They are doubling number core, there are 50% more in performance increase is very natural.

Its a bold move to say to a Graphics card company that a device is 4x as powerfull...

Will be intresting to see how Nvidia responde next week.

brent3000 said,
Its a bold move to say to a Graphics card company that a device is 4x as powerfull...

Will be intresting to see how Nvidia responde next week.

This article is kind of about their response... :?

M_Lyons10 said,

This article is kind of about their response... :?


Im reffering to Nvidia benchmarking the iPad next week or Nvidia showing the true numbers not the "SHow us the figures" response

NVidia: Say apple, those are impressive numbers, mind telling us the name of the benchmark tool?
Apple: Sure, its called "Freshly baked out of TC's rear end HD v3"

Knowing apple they ran shadowgun on the tegra and glxgears on the iPad.

In all seriousness though, the new gpu is the same as the old one just with 2 more cores. It's the exact same gpu that is used in the PS Vita. I highly doubt it has the performance they are claiming, especially considering the resolution of the new iPad.

apple's BS again. apple hardwares are manufactured by contract manufacturers. do you think those manufacturers like Foxconn is so much advanced than the rest of the hardware companies? most of them are on par with each other.

2 cents: iBullS.

warr said,
apple's BS again. apple hardwares are manufactured by contract manufacturers. do you think those manufacturers like Foxconn is so much advanced than the rest of the hardware companies? most of them are on par with each other.

2 cents: iBullS.


Foxconn and the others manufacture the iPad/iPhones, they don't make the chips. I'm pretty sure Samsung makes the A5 chips for Apple, so they are in a much better position to compete with nVidia and Qualcomm in the chip department.

warr said,
apple's BS again. apple hardwares are manufactured by contract manufacturers. do you think those manufacturers like Foxconn is so much advanced than the rest of the hardware companies? most of them are on par with each other.

2 cents: iBullS.

We'll see once people start benchmarking it once its released. If history shows us anything it's usually that apple downplays their benchmarks. Do a bit of google for iPhone 4, 4S, iPad2 benchmark articles from around the time they were released

Stokkolm said,

Foxconn and the others manufacture the iPad/iPhones, they don't make the chips. I'm pretty sure Samsung makes the A5 chips for Apple, so they are in a much better position to compete with nVidia and Qualcomm in the chip department.

either foxconn, or samsung or qualcomm. the point is, apple doesn't manufacture the hardware itself. so for any design that comes from apple, it must be more than superman to be able to stretch to 4x performance of these hardwares just on design alone. it's like all the other engineers have never thought of it. something like Einstein's e=mc2.

so it is either super-superman or iBS.

(the thing about BS is, in these days of endless information and with people's short attention span thanks to all electronic devices, people forget it 2 days later. but anyhow it makes an excellent claim in a presentation)

warr said,

either foxconn, or samsung or qualcomm. the point is, apple doesn't manufacture the hardware itself. so for any design that comes from apple, it must be more than superman to be able to stretch to 4x performance of these hardwares just on design alone. it's like all the other engineers have never thought of it. something like Einstein's e=mc2.

so it is either super-superman or iBS.

(the thing about BS is, in these days of endless information and with people's short attention span thanks to all electronic devices, people forget it 2 days later. but anyhow it makes an excellent claim in a presentation)

Anandtech has already shown A5 to be faster. A5X will be faster still and it will be shown by independent reviewers, not nVidia or Apple. Your trolling is not winning any argument at the moment. Wait for the tests.

Mohitster said,
I guess people are getting used to distortion fields Apple create by now! lol

The RDF is weak without Steve!

Arceles said,
nvidia/amd vs apple is like a sword vs nothing... pretty much.

It may be correct some years ago. But may it be changed?
You know how large Apple now is? You know the Apple's market capital now is same as Google and Microsoft added together? You know how much cash Apple has now? They are all crazy number. In term of available Research and Development funding, I would say, apple vs nvidia/amd is like a sword vs nothing.
With the amount of Cash and fund on hand, to a IT / Technology company, they are unstoppable. Beside using money in R&D, do you think they can do head hunting as well? What kind of talent they can't hunt from others?

I am not saying that Apple must win in the end. There are so many possibility. But I cannot agree with you that "nvidia/amd vs apple is like a sword vs nothing."

Fred Kwok said,

It may be correct some years ago. But may it be changed?
You know how large Apple now is? You know the Apple's market capital now is same as Google and Microsoft added together? You know how much cash Apple has now? They are all crazy number. In term of available Research and Development funding, I would say, apple vs nvidia/amd is like a sword vs nothing.
With the amount of Cash and fund on hand, to a IT / Technology company, they are unstoppable. Beside using money in R&D, do you think they can do head hunting as well? What kind of talent they can't hunt from others?

I am not saying that Apple must win in the end. There are so many possibility. But I cannot agree with you that "nvidia/amd vs apple is like a sword vs nothing."


I believe the OP was referring to the technological capabilities of the companies products, not to the companies market share/value. The debate you're attempting to have is a completely different debate than what the OP was asking for.

Well this is Apple we're talking about. They like to fudge numbers. I do find incredibly hard to believe that the original 2 core GPU in the A5 beats the 12-core one in the tegra 3.

SharpGreen said,
Well this is Apple we're talking about. They like to fudge numbers. I do find incredibly hard to believe that the original 2 core GPU in the A5 beats the 12-core one in the tegra 3.

ok it is not a 12 core tegra 3 it is 4 core with a 5th core for battery things low power stuff. Also Anand tech has already showed benchmarks showing the iPad 2 outperforms the Tegra 3 platform

http://www.anandtech.com/show/...ime-nvidia-tegra-3-review/3

as you can see the Apple iPAd2 CPU/well Dual core GPU just stomps the crap out of the Tegra 3 platform


notuptome2004 said,

ok it is not a 12 core tegra 3 it is 4 core with a 5th core for battery things low power stuff.

Stop mixing stuff please.

Right Tegra 3 is a 4+1 CPU core, but here we are talking about the GPU .

Tegra 3 has 12 GPU cores. From http://goo.gl/RUozk :

"The Tegra 3 quad-core CPUs are complemented with a new 12-core NVIDIA GeForce® GPU"

SharpGreen said,
Well this is Apple we're talking about. They like to fudge numbers. I do find incredibly hard to believe that the original 2 core GPU in the A5 beats the 12-core one in the tegra 3.

Yeah, I call nonsense personally...

netXchanges said,

Stop mixing stuff please.

Right Tegra 3 is a 4+1 CPU core, but here we are talking about the GPU .

Tegra 3 has 12 GPU cores. From http://goo.gl/RUozk :

"The Tegra 3 quad-core CPUs are complemented with a new 12-core NVIDIA GeForce® GPU"

The 2 core GPU used in the A5 is hell of a lot different than the "12-core" geforce GPU in tegra 3.

SharpGreen said,
Well this is Apple we're talking about. They like to fudge numbers. I do find incredibly hard to believe that the original 2 core GPU in the A5 beats the 12-core one in the tegra 3.

Absolutely nonsense. Every company does this. I mean look at the thing they did with Yelp yesterday. They showed it on their iPad and on an Android tablet. The thing is the Yelp app was designed for phones on the Android side where it was designed for both the tablet and phone on the iOS side. Apple did show how the Instagram app looks like on the iPad. Why not? Because it would look worse than the Android version on a tablet.

The other thing Apple did was during the announcement of the iPhone 4S, they said they did a comparison of 4G phones with the iPhone's dual antenna. However none of the phones they tested was a 4G LTE phone. They were only doing it on the 4G HSPA+ network. They never made mention of LTE.

Fast forward to the iPad event and you see how fast LTE all of a sudden.

The fact is, the majority of people that buy Apple products are technologically stupid. They don't know anything about specs. So they will listen to what Apple says and take their word for it. which to me is STUPID.

Yesterday I went to the Apple Store to preorder the new iPad. I wanted to see if I can be safe in buying a Wifi model over a 3G/4G model. So I asked the sales person, does the Wifi model have a GPS chip. 5 people assured me it did. I convinced one of them that my app does not work on the WiFi model but it works on the 3G model. Is this still the case. After listening to their bs, I went to the specs and finally found that the aGPS chip is on the 3G model. They all just shut up.

UndergroundWire said,

Absolutely nonsense. Every company does this. I mean look at the thing they did with Yelp yesterday. They showed it on their iPad and on an Android tablet. The thing is the Yelp app was designed for phones on the Android side where it was designed for both the tablet and phone on the iOS side. Apple did show how the Instagram app looks like on the iPad. Why not? Because it would look worse than the Android version on a tablet.

The other thing Apple did was during the announcement of the iPhone 4S, they said they did a comparison of 4G phones with the iPhone's dual antenna. However none of the phones they tested was a 4G LTE phone. They were only doing it on the 4G HSPA+ network. They never made mention of LTE.

Fast forward to the iPad event and you see how fast LTE all of a sudden.

The fact is, the majority of people that buy Apple products are technologically stupid. They don't know anything about specs. So they will listen to what Apple says and take their word for it. which to me is STUPID.

Yesterday I went to the Apple Store to preorder the new iPad. I wanted to see if I can be safe in buying a Wifi model over a 3G/4G model. So I asked the sales person, does the Wifi model have a GPS chip. 5 people assured me it did. I convinced one of them that my app does not work on the WiFi model but it works on the 3G model. Is this still the case. After listening to their bs, I went to the specs and finally found that the aGPS chip is on the 3G model. They all just shut up.

Sales people are not too technical. I image they assumed you were asking "does it do gps" which the WiFi model does infact do.

Calling anyone who buys apple products "technologically stupid" is just wrong. I do IT and own a lot of Apple devices. I buy them mainly for the discount I receive from work, and their customer service is unmatched IMO - Logitech comes close though.

If you don't enjoy the iPad, don't buy it. 12 million people buying iPads in a single Q proves Apple Marketing works. The fact these people will continue to buy Apple products means that Apple, as a company, works.

TurboTuna said,

Sales people are not too technical. I image they assumed you were asking "does it do gps" which the WiFi model does infact do.

Calling anyone who buys apple products "technologically stupid" is just wrong. I do IT and own a lot of Apple devices. I buy them mainly for the discount I receive from work, and their customer service is unmatched IMO - Logitech comes close though.

If you don't enjoy the iPad, don't buy it. 12 million people buying iPads in a single Q proves Apple Marketing works. The fact these people will continue to buy Apple products means that Apple, as a company, works.

You missed my point completely. My point was don't go by what people tell you. Had I listened to them, I would be stuck with a product that doesn't work with my application. Hence why I ordered the 4G model instead of the WiFi model. Nowhere did I say I don't enjoy it at all. I have no idea where you are getting that from.

I also never said that it doesn't work. In fact I did say because most people are technologically stupid, people will go by what they see advertised than what is technically there.

I hope I cleared that up for you.