@mateo124 HAHAHAHA... It just can't win with you can it? First you hate it because it's just a "big iPhone"... now It's not fair because you're comparing a phone to it and it's more of a netbook device. Choose one already...
@mateo124 Clock speed does not matter if the chips are different. 3.5Ghz Intel is different from 3.5Ghz AMD. And even 1.6Ghz Intel can be different from 1.6gGhz Intel (Atom and Celeron).
@mateo124 You can't directly compare clock speeds of entirely different CPU's. It just doesn't work. For example, a 1.6Ghz Intel Atom is roughly equivalent to an 800Mhz Celeron. And that 800Mhz Celeron is WAY WAY more than 800 times more powerful than the 1Mhz 6502 that was in the Commodore Vic-20.
Have you compared how fast the UI on the ipad is to a netbook? Try it side by side and you'll be shocked at how smooth and fast the ipad is compared to even the best of the best netbook.
@Dreamwriter They aren't entirely different CPUs. They are the same A9 processor licensed from ARM except that Apple uses its own video chip and eliminates some other hardware that is included in the Snapdragon SoC.
@mateo124 Also, the iPad runs a mobile OS- you don't need an insanely fast processor. The iPhone OS is light and efficient. Over power a device and you'll just be wasting battery life.
The iPad may be "smooth" but in my experience it's hardly fast. Engadget took around 20 seconds to load on the iPad I played with today (AnandTech said 13.8 seconds), which is WAY slow even compared with a netbook.
The iPad OS may be lightweight but it's not magic. In my experience today, big, graphics heavy pages (like Engadget or Gizmodo or many others) took 10-20 seconds to load on the iPad, which is way, way slower than my Core 2 Duo T400 and still considerably slower than a netbook.
@Nolano Yeah, sorry for the mistake. I keep forgetting that the iPad is using an even crappier processor technology than the Tegra 2 will and it only has one core. Silly me. Apple's SoC that fanboys hail as a custom design that is responsible for the "breathtakingly fast user experience" is nothing more than an ARM CPU, the same as Snapdragon, with some of the other hardware bits hacked out, like hardware video encoding, all running on a severely handicapped OS so that Apple can push claims of speed and battery life. I'll wait for my Tegra 2 tablet with its better instruction set, dual core processor, and better video processing so that I can output 1080p. Oh, and Flash rules bitches!
@NikAmi OK, so when can we compare that Tegra2 to what is in-stores today? We can't. It's been delayed. And by the time it comes out Apple will counter with the next version of their chip.
It always goes back and forth and the only way you can really compare these things, if you must, is to run tests on the hardware that's available, that day. But you can keep waiting for your tablet and on this I'm sure we can all agree: it will be compared against the iPad when it's in some tech site's hands.
But you know what? You're one of those guys who complains and types "LOL" about "fanboys" when you're obviously one yourself - just for the other team.
You just got told above how webpage loading is not equivalent to a benchmark and then you make that stupid comment. Engadget does not take anywhere near even 10 seconds to load on my ipad OR my iphone...ever think it might be your wifi connection? Duh?!
@hill60 True, but the Tegra 2 is based on an A9. 25% faster per mhz, plus it'll be multicored. That said, you're correct, it's not out yet, and thus can't really be compared until it is, or at least close enough that someone gets to test it.
However, Apple just started manufacturing this chip late last year. We won't be seeing an upgraded one until at least iPad 2, maybe number 3, and that won't be until 13 or 26 months from now. If they follow their typical upgrade pattern.
I thought we were done comparing MHz to MHz like, 5 years ago.
They should be loading local webpages to factor out network speed. The iPad can have Web apps that are completely local, and I'd assume you can do something similar with Android phones. Or do something like load a large PDF. I don't care much about factoring out the OS because in the real world, I have to use A4+iPhone OS or Snapdragon+Android.
Also, "smooth" is something that Apple does very well, and while benchmarks can factor it out, they don't account for the perception of speed that people seem to like.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Why does the iPad only have GHz if the Nexus One has a GHz too but thats a phone. The iPads more of a netbook. Kinda weak I'd say.
@mateo124 HAHAHAHA... It just can't win with you can it? First you hate it because it's just a "big iPhone"... now It's not fair because you're comparing a phone to it and it's more of a netbook device. Choose one already...
@mateo124 Clock speed does not matter if the chips are different. 3.5Ghz Intel is different from 3.5Ghz AMD. And even 1.6Ghz Intel can be different from 1.6gGhz Intel (Atom and Celeron).
@mateo124 You can't directly compare clock speeds of entirely different CPU's. It just doesn't work. For example, a 1.6Ghz Intel Atom is roughly equivalent to an 800Mhz Celeron. And that 800Mhz Celeron is WAY WAY more than 800 times more powerful than the 1Mhz 6502 that was in the Commodore Vic-20.
@mateo124
Have you compared how fast the UI on the ipad is to a netbook? Try it side by side and you'll be shocked at how smooth and fast the ipad is compared to even the best of the best netbook.
@Dreamwriter They aren't entirely different CPUs. They are the same A9 processor licensed from ARM except that Apple uses its own video chip and eliminates some other hardware that is included in the Snapdragon SoC.
@mateo124
Also, the iPad runs a mobile OS- you don't need an insanely fast processor. The iPhone OS is light and efficient. Over power a device and you'll just be wasting battery life.
@NikAmi
Actually, no.
Both are souped up A8's.
@jaffreywali
The iPad may be "smooth" but in my experience it's hardly fast. Engadget took around 20 seconds to load on the iPad I played with today (AnandTech said 13.8 seconds), which is WAY slow even compared with a netbook.
@think before you react
The iPad OS may be lightweight but it's not magic. In my experience today, big, graphics heavy pages (like Engadget or Gizmodo or many others) took 10-20 seconds to load on the iPad, which is way, way slower than my Core 2 Duo T400 and still considerably slower than a netbook.
@mateo124
It's mainboard has the size of the iPod Touch mainboard, the rest is used for display, batteries, (3g-board)
@Nolano Yeah, sorry for the mistake. I keep forgetting that the iPad is using an even crappier processor technology than the Tegra 2 will and it only has one core. Silly me. Apple's SoC that fanboys hail as a custom design that is responsible for the "breathtakingly fast user experience" is nothing more than an ARM CPU, the same as Snapdragon, with some of the other hardware bits hacked out, like hardware video encoding, all running on a severely handicapped OS so that Apple can push claims of speed and battery life. I'll wait for my Tegra 2 tablet with its better instruction set, dual core processor, and better video processing so that I can output 1080p. Oh, and Flash rules bitches!
@NikAmi You do know that the tegra's are also based on ARM architecture.
OMG!!! it says NVidia on it, it must be like their graphics cards.
They are not.
@NikAmi OK, so when can we compare that Tegra2 to what is in-stores today? We can't. It's been delayed. And by the time it comes out Apple will counter with the next version of their chip.
It always goes back and forth and the only way you can really compare these things, if you must, is to run tests on the hardware that's available, that day. But you can keep waiting for your tablet and on this I'm sure we can all agree: it will be compared against the iPad when it's in some tech site's hands.
But you know what? You're one of those guys who complains and types "LOL" about "fanboys" when you're obviously one yourself - just for the other team.
@youngluck Actually I find him very consistent :
he complained because it's "a big iphone" and now he says "what's more ! it's big but he has a smartphone SoC !!"
Bottom line it's big but it does what the iphone does no more no les (oohhh wait less you know...the phone part !)
@brianwsnetworknet
You just got told above how webpage loading is not equivalent to a benchmark and then you make that stupid comment. Engadget does not take anywhere near even 10 seconds to load on my ipad OR my iphone...ever think it might be your wifi connection? Duh?!
@hill60
True, but the Tegra 2 is based on an A9. 25% faster per mhz, plus it'll be multicored.
That said, you're correct, it's not out yet, and thus can't really be compared until it is, or at least close enough that someone gets to test it.
However, Apple just started manufacturing this chip late last year. We won't be seeing an upgraded one until at least iPad 2, maybe number 3, and that won't be until 13 or 26 months from now. If they follow their typical upgrade pattern.
@brianwsnetworknet It's called "internet speed". Engadget loaded in under 2 seconds on the iPads in Best Buy.
I thought we were done comparing MHz to MHz like, 5 years ago.
They should be loading local webpages to factor out network speed. The iPad can have Web apps that are completely local, and I'd assume you can do something similar with Android phones. Or do something like load a large PDF. I don't care much about factoring out the OS because in the real world, I have to use A4+iPhone OS or Snapdragon+Android.
Also, "smooth" is something that Apple does very well, and while benchmarks can factor it out, they don't account for the perception of speed that people seem to like.
@jaffreywali
Would that be 'with' an SSD drive or without?