In Theory: How iPad 3 Breaks the 1080p Barrier

By Richard Leadbetter Published 22 February, 2012

Digital Foundry assesses the remarkable rumours surrounding Apple's next tablet.

It's that time of the year again. In the next calendar month, Apple is widely believed to be unveiling its third-generation iPad, and the engine at the core of the rumour mill is being cranked up to maximum warp in anticipation. Stalwart news site MacRumors has managed to acquire one of the new displays while Chinese forum WeiPhone has already hosted photographs of what many believe to be the iPad 3 logic board. Combined with other rumours currently circulating, a picture is beginning to form of the kind of device iPad 3 is and the level of power it is capable of delivering.

But first we need to assess the quality of the rumours in question. This close to release, we'd be inclined to believe that they're quite reliable. Apple isn't like a conventional games company: it keeps its cards close to its chest, and even before announcing a new product to the world it's already well into production. When it comes to mass-producing millions of units in a faraway country staffed by poorly paid workers, it's inevitable that leaks occur and across the years they have been growing increasingly accurate. Seemingly they're getting ever closer to home too - incredible pictures, highlighted by tech site MicGadget seem to be spy-shots taken directly from the iPad 3 production facility.

As it happens, most of these leaks are eminently plausible precisely because of the lack of surprises they offer. MacRumors says its OEM replacement screen confirms that the new iteration of the iPad offers a 4x resolution boost over the existing 1024x768 4:3 panel, offering up a mammoth 2048x1536 pixel count. The implications are immense: this would offer an increase in resolution of over 51 per cent compared to the 1080p plasma or LCD you may have in your living room or office, and within its 4:3 aspect ratio it will easily be able to display a full HD movie rendered in native resolution with real estate to spare. All this on what we would assume is the same 9.7-inch sized screen as the current iPad.

"An iPad 3 'Retina' display along the lines being rumoured would offer an increase in resolution of over 51 per cent compared to the 1080p plasma or LCD you may have in your living room or office."

screen

MacRumors acquired what they say is an OEM replacement iPad 3 display and put it under a microscope, ascertaining that there were four pixels for every one on the current screen, seemingly confirming an impressive 2048x1536 resolution for the new tablet.

Its pixels-per-inch count may well be lower than the iPhone 4's "Retina" display, but the screen is larger and likely to be held further away, so the overall impact of the mega-resolution should still be quite remarkable. The new screen brings with it obvious implications, not just on the make-up of the rest of the device but also on Apple's lucrative media delivery services. Right now, iTunes' definition of HD content is basic 720p, which would look rather miniscule rendered at native resolution on the new display. Rumours have been circulating for some time now that Apple has been moving up towards a so-called HD+ service, with content encoded at 1080p. Such a move makes plenty of sense, not just for the new iPad, but also for the completely integrated Apple TV displays that the company is said to be releasing at some point in the near future.

A "Retina" screen for iPad 3 also suggests that we should be seeing some significant upgrades to the camera in the new device. The iPad 2 only supports 720p movie capture at 30 frames per second - fine for the existing display, but upgrading this element up to 1080p for the new unit makes a lot of sense. Elsewhere within the tablet, we're looking at some serious architectural upgrades to maintain such a mammoth display with the kind of fluidity and response expected from an Apple product.

The Mysterious A5X - Quad Core or Not?

Here's where the leaked photo of the logic board and its mysterious A5X SoC (system on chip) comes under scrutiny. The notion that the main processor may not be called A6 has led many to believe that we are looking at an incremental upgrade of the existing chip found within the iPhone 4S and iPad 2, and there are concerns that a boosted version of the dual-core A5 simply won't have enough horsepower to maintain that incredible display. The important thing to factor in here is that Apple's definition of an incremental upgrade may well be quite removed from what we think it is.

The transition from A4 to A5 truly was a generational jump in terms of processing performance: core count on the Cortex A9 doubled, but the big news was that the SGX535 graphics core in the iPad 1 and iPhone 4 was given the boot in favour of brand new dual-core architecture from PowerVR maker IMG. The boost in CPU power between the chips was obvious, but it was in the graphics technology that we saw the biggest improvement. In truth, the original iPad's GPU - the same as that in the iPhone 3GS, but running at a higher clock speed - was inadequate for the much higher tablet resolution. A5 addressed that with the PowerVR SGX543 MP2 offering anything between a 4x to 9x improvement in power depending on the benchmark.

"An A5X doesn't necessarily rule out quad-core processing for iPad 3 - adding more CPU/GPU cores to the existing architecture would be a natural incremental upgrade."

board

Everyone expected an A6 chip in the iPad 3 but the revelation of the 'A5X' suggests an incremental update rather than a generational leap. A quad core ARM Cortex A9 in concert with a PowerVR SGX543 with either three or four cores still makes sense though.

An incremental upgrade for A5 makes much more sense because its architecture is inherently scalable: Apple can maintain that phenomenal resolution either by introducing a third graphics core (SGX543 GPU core count can be odd or even) and running all three at a much higher clock speed, or it well be the case that it will opt for a fourth core instead at the same speed. The current A5 is fabricated on the mature 45nm process by Samsung, and it's widely believed that iPad 3's processor will be produced at 32nm - so despite the increased power, it should still maintain the platform's enviable battery life.

Despite the worries that Apple will retain a dual-core A9 for the A5X processor, evidence suggests that we will be seeing a quad-core chip. BGR.com's leaked iBoot dump correctly identifies A5X's S5L8945X model number (A4 was S5L8930X, while A5 was S5L8940X) and is unequivocal about the number of CPU cores being utilised: four. Developer betas for newer iOS revisions have also seen support for quad-core CPUs, strongly suggesting that the OS was being tested on A5X. Whether the configuration will be four vanilla A9 processors or something more customised remains to be seen.

Will ARM A15 'Eagle' and PowerVR 'Rogue' Power the Next-Gen A6?

So if the new processor is so capable, why not name it A6? What is the actual significance of A5X? A look at the future of mobile technology puts everything into perspective. The march of technological innovation in this field is relentless; ARM is working on its next-gen A15 "Eagle" architecture, while IMG's "Rogue" GPUs are about to break cover. Adding cores to an existing design is incremental, moving to a new, more powerful, more capable technology is an entirely different ballgame.

"The focus for the iPad 3 reveal will almost certainly be on the most obvious upgrade: the new display, and how it improves what is already an excellent product."

iPad 3 will no doubt be highly capable, but let's put it into context with competing upcoming technologies: Sony's NovaThor chipset, in particular the 28nm A9600, represents the kind of generational leap in power we should expect to see in the full-blooded A6. A basic look at the raw specs suggests that this is the kind of power level that will finally see mobile technology match that we have now in our current gen home consoles, from a GPU perspective at least.

This is obviously exciting stuff, but it's unlikely that we'll see actual shipping products with this level of power until this time next year. The technology may be ready, but mainstream production of 28nm chips at good yields isn't really there yet. That being the case, the focus for the iPad 3 reveal will almost certainly be on the most obvious upgrade: the new display and how it improves what is already an excellent product.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (89) Latest comment 3 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • J0rdan_KZ #1 3 months ago

    Reality: Higher resolution display will make things look nicer. Probably not a quad core SoC, just a higher clocked version of the current A5 SoC found in the iPad 2/iPhone 4S.

    Apple Magic Land: RETINAS! SPEEEEDS! MAGIC! BUZZ WORDS!
    Edited by J0rdan_KZ at 22/02/12 @ 16:10

  • scoop #2 3 months ago

    I don't expect anything higher than iPad 2 performance with all the added fillrate.... in fact I hope it is iPad 2 performance. It's one thing to have to create whole new asset sets, but the performance index is getting a bit stretched out. It's neat to see the year-on-year advances in power, but man is it exhausting keeping everyone happy regardless of device generation.

  • wizlon #3 3 months ago

    I've had my Vita for 3 minutes and now it's outdated... of wait, the iPad doesn't have buttons, panic over.

    But seriously pushing all those pixels is going to take a insane processor and lot of battery, it almost doesn't seem worth it.

  • Thunderbolt #4 3 months ago

    Looks good but I wonder if they will increase the price to match the new tech

  • abigsmurf #5 3 months ago

    I really don't see the point in such a high resolution in such a small display. The high DPI of the iphone 4 makes sense because you hold it close to your face but the ipad it held on laps or near arms length.

    I would much rather have a more modest resolution boost and have Apple look at the way other companies are using; Nokia's clearblack displays are excellent and make iphone displays look washed out in comparison, and OLED tech leaves IPS in the dust when it comes to contrast, richness of colour and response times.

    Sadly pointlessly high resolutions look better on paper than response times and colour gamut figures.

  • dan13l #6 3 months ago

    @abigsmurf The point is so they can retain compatibility with existing apps. It sounds like an ludicrously high res, but it's the only place the can go from where they are now without killing app compatibility entirely.

  • shadowmind #7 3 months ago

    I feel with all Apple products they do move things technologically forward, but the marketing makes the progress seem like leaps and bounds and not the slow progression it really is.
    I think Apple products are great and easy to use with everything being under one roof. But I hate being held to ransom by 'Itunes'.

    Secondly as mentioned above processing the supped up touch screen will take a fair bit of power. and I can't see Apple adding to the weight to allow a stronger battery.

  • TarickStonefire #8 3 months ago

    tl;dr - It'll be faster and have a better screen.

  • dr_zoidthrob #9 3 months ago

    And of course, I expect to see similar DF treatment for the 1920*1200 resolution Android tablets coming out soon...

    ... also, I'd like a review of the flying pigs outside my window in dreamland. Thanks.


    EDIT: Negged... why exactly? It's not like EG got this excited about the quad-core Transformer Prime for example. Which is one of the tablets getting the resolution above.

    EDIT 2: Now not negged... thanks! So EG/ DF... howsabout a review of the Transformer Prime then? I suggest you get it running on a nice big TV too - it looks lovely (and will only cost you £5 for the micro HDMI cable)
    Edited by dr_zoidthrob at 23/02/12 @ 12:50

  • TarickStonefire #10 3 months ago

    @shadowmind "But I hate being held to ransom by 'Itunes'."

    At least you don't have to connect a wire any more. And you don't have to buy content from there at all.

    "I can't see Apple adding to the weight to allow a stronger battery."

    I can't see them crippling the battery life it has now, so I'm interested to see what the compromise will be, or if there'll be one at all.
    Edited by TarickStonefire at 22/02/12 @ 16:46

  • arcam #11 3 months ago

    The rear casing for iPad 3 has been pictured, and shows a smaller housing for the logic board - it stands to reason that that extra room will be taken up with a larger battery.

  • TarickStonefire #12 3 months ago

    @arcam I read it was a fraction of a mm thicker in fact! Ah, the details. :)

  • scoop #13 3 months ago

    @abigsmurf

    I work with someone who still doesn't see the point in HDTV & Blu-Ray.

    He's never watched a Blu-Ray on an HDTV before. It's a case of 'once you've been there...".

    (and what Dan13l said)
    Edited by scoop at 22/02/12 @ 16:48

  • dr_lha #14 3 months ago

    Apple's main advantage over pretty much every other mobile operating system out there is that they baked GPU usage into the system from the word go, this is why even using an original iPhone scrolling through a webpage with Safari is smooth as silk, and yet modern Android phones still stutter. My guess with the iPad 3 is that Apple are going to concentrate mostly on beefing up the GPU to handle the extra pixels. The getting the device to "feel" good is Apple's primary goal, so expect them to improve the iPad in ways mainly to help push pixels, and not necessarily make software run any faster.

  • arcam #15 3 months ago

    @dr_lha Agreed, advances in GPUs are so fast, and power consumption of those GPUs going down all the time, so I don't think it's going to be too much of a problem to power those extra pixels.

  • DrStrangelove #16 3 months ago

    If it's not a lot pricier than the iPad 2, I'll get one.

  • mkreku #17 3 months ago

    Since the new screen is exactly 2x2 of the old one, games made for the Ipad 2 should still be playable.. with giganto-pixels!

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #18 3 months ago

    I'd be willing to bet that the A5X is effectively just two A5s glued together. 4 Cortex A9 cores, 4 PowerVR SGX 543 cores, 1GHz just like the A5.

    That'll be a very similar CPU to the one in Playstation Vita (without dedicated VRAM), and not much different than a Tegra 3 (but with a better GPU). Apple have been keeping fairly well in-step with the mobile device power arms race so far, and I doubt this iteration will be any different.
    Edited by MENTAL1ST at 22/02/12 @ 17:16

  • memeroot #19 3 months ago

    quad core will sell it to me - if not then I'll think twice.

    having said that - first time I've even thought about buying apple...

    win 8 out soon...

  • memeroot #20 3 months ago

    @scoop

    I dont see the point in bluray. download is the way forward.

  • FortysixterUK #21 3 months ago

    I'll upgrade when Ipad 4 hits methinks.
    Love my Ipad.

  • Ryze #22 3 months ago

    So... if this happens, they're going for 4:3 AND finally getting 1080p capability.

    Want one.

    It's a damn shame that Sony couldn't take one of these and combine it with a PSVita, with Android instead of iOS running the show.

    *sigh*

  • Collymilad #23 3 months ago

    Honestly, so many chumps keep buying these things.

    Lol.

  • Lucodeath #24 3 months ago

    Im waiting for the ipad 10

  • damoxuk #25 3 months ago

    I'll wait for the ipad 4 as the ipad 3 surely won;t be properly able to handle that resolution without melting or games becoming jerk fests.

  • abigsmurf #26 3 months ago

    @dan13l Some barely noticeable up filtering rather than pixel doubling is hardly the worst thing in the world.

    I'd much rather have pixel response times 20 times shorter and actual blacks in all games rather than some being in a non-native resolution.

    @scoop

    Resolution is like frame rate in that there are diminishing returns until eyes cannot physically tell the difference. It's why 60fps has become the standard.

    You're being facetious about your BD remark but there are plenty of people who genuinely struggle to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Heck, how many people never realized that Call of Duty doesn't run at a true HD resolution until someone confirmed it with pixel counting?

  • _LarZen_ #27 3 months ago

    DAY 1!

  • secombe #28 3 months ago

    I'm actually impressed that they generally get within weeks/days of release before anything really concrete leaks. Given how many people/sites seemingly dedicate their lives to "finding" information about the latest Apple products they do a good job of keeping things quiet.

    We are presumably about 4 weeks from release so there must be hundreds of thousands of units fully produced.

  • CloudXIV #29 3 months ago

    ipad is big and has no buttons, so for a gamer it doesn't really matter how powerful it is. I still don't get tablets, it's so much more convienient to use a small and light netbook.

  • bionic_v2 #30 3 months ago

    I've yet to buy anything by Apple.

  • punzai #31 3 months ago

    @bionic_v2 um... well done?

  • oupe #32 3 months ago

    Erm. How would a 2048x1536 rez benefit a 9.7" screen? I currently own a Galaxy Nexus with 1280x720 on a 4.65" screen. Honestly, this resolution is LUDICROUS for such a small screen. When extrapolated, the iPad will push even more pixels. Unnecessary for users, cool for the marketing department.

    BTW, Won't this cause video upscaling errors? I can imagine the picture quality would degrade.

  • natureboy #33 3 months ago

    Boring. The others will get there and beat it so why is this news??? please stick to traditional gaming news and not fanboyism

  • Dr.Buckles #34 3 months ago

    Such an outpouring of anti apple rage, I'm sure most are members over at macrumors, huge troll forum.

    I've yet to even see an apple product or store and I only eat oranges.

  • smelly #35 3 months ago

    REALITY : games wont run at the full res, unless they're running at 10fps.

    You'll have to wait for the 3S for that...

  • scoop #36 3 months ago

    @oupe And how would you feel if you woke up to find your Nexus screen res was 640x360?

    It's 2:1 of the existing res so no there'd be no issues... quality degredation, no idea what you mean.

  • Grayvern #37 3 months ago

    The only higher pixel density monitors than these are pretty much those produced by companies like Eizo for medical imaging, whereas their professional photography monitors tend to only go to 2560 at greater than 20" so I'm not sure of the point.

  • Dave #38 3 months ago

    So, I'm not really getting this higher resolution. Aren't all apps and movies based on lower resolutions and wouldn't they therefore be upscaled and look "blockier"?

  • bemaniac #39 3 months ago

    i do not need more pixels........make some goddamn more games for my ipad 2 you money grabbers!!!!

  • MaxFN #40 3 months ago

    I'm more interest in review and articles about HDTV's, not tablets, not many sites has proper reviews of HDTV's, and Eurogamer's DF has all the resources and people needed. And as a gamer would gladly appreciate help from DF in choosing right HDTV for games.

  • agent55 #41 3 months ago

    A 2k display would be gorgeous, I'd consider buying one if that's the case.

  • Dave52 #42 3 months ago

    Angry Birds will look awesome..!

  • mr2ange #43 3 months ago

    Well done to Apple to get a screen this size and resolution.

    I think they know that now, they have hit the highest resolution worth having at the given size. There is no longer any point in increase resolution, now performance is the next area to improve on.

  • smelly #44 3 months ago

    >wouldn't they therefore be upscaled and look "blockier"?

    If they are upscaled normally, they'd look EXACTLY the same as before.. a 2x2 pixel at the new res will look the same as a 1x1 pixel on the previous one.

    But i imagine they'd be upscaled with bilinear filtering, so they WILL look better than the original.

    Now same with the iphone 4, devs will change their apps to render to the new res natively with a update... However, i really doubt that anything but the most simplest of apps (stuff like angry birds/etc) will work well at the higher resolution - without killing frame rate.

  • Dave #45 3 months ago

    @smelly Thanks for the info!

  • Matthew_Hornet #46 3 months ago

    @Dave No. Games, maybe. But apps use OS functions, so most of them will automatically get mostly sharper, especially the most important part, which is text. Text is why Apple is doing all this in the first place. Check out iBooks and Safari on the Retina display and imagine that sharpness on a screen the size of a book page. *That* is the endgame. It will instantly make iPad 3 the best web-surfing (and book-reading) device on the market.

    Also with smart upscaling your movies might seem a bit blurrier (they aren't really, if you think about it they still have the same number of pixels) but should look pretty good, especially HD stuff.

  • drSchiwago #47 3 months ago

    @oupe Absolutely !

    Viewing experience is based on three main factors:
    - Resolution
    - Screen size
    - Viewing distance (to screen)

    The DPI number (dots per inch) on this screen is 263, thats extreme.

    I doubt that any mobile GPU can deal with that resolution (4x the pixels than ipad2), except the desktop itself everything has to be scaled up I guess.

    Maybe the games on the iPad are so low-end that resolution is not a critical factor, I don't know.

    I'm curious to hear from the marketing guys..., but I seriously have no idea how this setup could be useful or beneficial, but a limitation like this hasn't stopped people from buying gadgets so far...

    Watching an internet video (non-Flash ;-) on ipad3 scaled from 360p to native res won't be a flashy experience ...


    Maybe, when the next Olympic Games will take place in London, people will fetch the ipad3 again to watch the live streams on a mobile device with appropriate resolution. BTW, I'm not talking about the 2012 Games...

  • TexMurphy01 #48 3 months ago

    How do you know if someone owns an iPad?

    They'll tell you.

  • craziii #49 3 months ago

    no wonder game devolopers have been moving to tablet gaming. with just 3 generations(3 years time) consoles just became obsolete.

  • TazerFan #50 3 months ago

    Nice Google-bait article, EG. Page me when you have news to report.

  • Snake_2011 #51 3 months ago

    Apple are not on my need list any more they hold back things every year just so they can scam you the next year no thx.

  • 3william56 #52 3 months ago

    How is not that interesting. Why is. My Nexus 1 may have a much lower res than a newer phone, but you'd only notice if side by side. Only screen size makes a real difference in usability. 4x the pixels on a pad will make little difference to use or image quality. What's interesting is if bigger is better numbers are all the ipad3 has going for it, it is making exactly the same mistake as the majority of android pads. My prime can outgun an ipad in every way, but the majority of users don't give a toss.

  • KopparbergDave #53 3 months ago

    The amount of Apple hate and doubt here is ridiculous. For one Apple will not compromise the main feature of their devices, namely the silky smooth operation, as some think MUST be the case if they're plying it with a higher res screen. This outcome simply won't be the case, they will be adequately beefing up the innards to cope, and probably then some.

    As for those going on about Apple holding stuff back so they can scam you next year... get a life and get some logic, no one is forcing anyone to buy it, and just because in your head you think all people who buy Apple are misguided brainwashed idiots who would buy a new one every year doesn't actually make this the truth. And for those that do then for them it is clear that Apple products offer them everything they want, and more, and plus they can sell their 'old' Apple device for a premium so the upgrade cost is minimal. Trust me, no one buys more shit if the first time round they got burnt by it. Thing is, if that's what they want to do with their money then so be it. There's probably the same people here moaning about Apple who feel the desire to upgrade their graphics card every year or two to the latest model, for similar amounts as an iPad costs. Get some perspective and get off your high horse seemingly knowing everything there is to know when half of you are so skeptical and unwilling to give anyone the benefit of the doubt that you have to keep peddling your assumptions and castigating others, and haven't even touched an iPad or iPhone, haven't seen a retina display up close so make your so casual remarks that it simply doesn't matter (yet at the same time make the comment that your Android tablet wipes the floor with the iPad cos it has a faster processor.. ffs!)

    Arghhh go fuck yourselves :p

  • Quixz #54 3 months ago

    It will be kinda funny if it ends up being 1280 X 1024 or max 1600 X 1200.

    I'm looking forward to the new Transformer Prime with 1920 x 1200 :lol:
    Edited by Quixz at 23/02/12 @ 04:39

  • Bander #55 3 months ago

    What I'd like to see: a clock visible when the iPad is in standby, notification lights, haptic feedback, contrast and viewing angle that's comparable to/using AMOLED, usable as portable storage, can use portable storage and other peripherals (USB OTG), bluetooth that works with non-Apple products, non-shit camera with a flash, expandable memory via SD cards or similar, better speaker/s, NFC, FM transmitter and receiver, user-replaceable battery, and a casing that has some grip to it.

    What we'll really see: a retardedly high resolution that exceeds that of a 24" desktop monitor. A faster CPU that won't really be used except maybe by two games. And probably Siri, even though there's nothing holding it back form running on older hardware. That's probably it. It doesn't matter what the 'exciting' processor is if functionality is still in iPod Touch territory.

  • ruddiger7 #56 3 months ago

    Higher resolutions are always welcome. Picked up a 2560x1600 rez screen when they were on special and cant go back.

  • SGT-packson #57 3 months ago

    Amazing!...

  • strangevil #58 3 months ago

    Really hoping for a Retina Display. I can't even fathom how so many pixels filled in a 9.7 inch screen would look. I don't care much about the rest tbh... Camera upgrade is good, but who takes shots or shoots a video with an iPad anyways? Also, if the iPad 3 can have a retina display and yet keep the performance of the iPad 2, then I'll be more than happy (also similar battery life!!!)... Let the tech geeks do the Dual Core vs Quad core vs Unicorn Core argument.

    This would be my first tablet! Can't wait for the big unveil!!

  • Bennicus #59 3 months ago

    Yeah I hate to be that guy, but there's never been any "barrier" - the pc has been doing resolutions higher than this for yonks. It's technically impressive to have such a high resolution on a small portable device, but also a bit pointless. Still, it won't stop people buying the thing will it!

    edit: I suppose 1024x768 is a bit crap so they wanted something higher, and this is the next resolution up where they can maintain compatibility with existing apps by simple pixel-doubling instead of some more complex filtering. Given that more powerful machines like ps3 and xbox360 struggle to keep a full 720p going, I doubt many apps will actually run at full res, but it will give some apps (Apples ones I suppose) the opportunity to look a bit nicer.
    Edited by Bennicus at 23/02/12 @ 08:35

  • Eraser #60 3 months ago

    @dan13l What kind of nonsense is that? @abigsmurf said that he'd prefer Apple to improve the visual quality of the display by having richer colors and faster pixel response times. That has nothing to do with app compatibility.

    In fact, an increased resolution actually has the biggest chance of breaking compatibility with existing apps, because they might be hard-coded to scale well to a maximum resolution equal to that of the iPad2.

  • Bennicus #61 3 months ago

    @fightman9p
    Oooh yeah "fuckwits", you sure showed those people-who-bought-a-product-you're-not-really-interested-in.

  • smelly #62 3 months ago

    >remember the 1990s when these resolutions were new.

    On a portable platform? Wow - the 90's was better than i remember...

  • gruntboy #63 3 months ago

    I'll be interested to see what all the extra resolution is going to mean to (game) app development costs and therefore profitability of games developed for iPad3 and other similarly specced devices in the future.

    Seems to me that development costs are just going rise, as they did for PC and home console, to the point that business isn't viable for the vast number of current iOS/Android developers. Could be the beginning of the end for the current "wild west" on the app stores. Not that I think the market will die: I think it will drastically shrink, the race to zero will reverse and games will typically cost more to play (whether that's up front or through in game item purchase).

  • gruntboy #64 3 months ago

    @Bander - looks like you'll be buying an Android tablet then. ;)

  • UncleLou #65 3 months ago

    I'll be sorely tempted by that screen. And with the money I save because I've changed all my print newspaper subscriptions to iPad epapers, the thing basically pays for itself.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #66 3 months ago

    This isn't really for games, you know, it's Apple's war on paper. iPad 2 will have near-enough the pixel density of a printed magazine or glossy non-fiction book, that's the important thing.

    It's not as if people making serious performance games are unused to post-process upscaling, at least if they're making PS3 games if all the digital foundry comparison articles are to go by.

  • gruntboy #67 3 months ago

    @craziii - one of the silliest statements I have read on these forums I think.

    Matching or passing current console power in a tablet does not suddenly mean the death of console gaming. Most developers' move to tablet/smartphone gaming is nothing to do with hardware and everything to do with low development friction/barrier to entry, simplicity of business models and size of addressable market.

  • Uncompetative #68 3 months ago

    Awesome for 12 minutes and then the battery goes flat...

  • CrispyXUK #69 3 months ago

    The obsession with fixed specific resolutions must end.

  • Bennicus #70 3 months ago

    @MENTAL1ST
    True, but no matter what the resolution you'll still get eye strain after extended reading. As I understand it, the main reason e-ink displays are so much more comfortable to read on is because they're not shining bright light out at your eyes all the time.

  • StooMonster #71 3 months ago

    @Grayvern Apple had the first monitor on the market with the 2560x1600 resolution, 30-inch Cinema display, I had to buy £700 ATI FireGL to run it on my PC as it was the only card on the market with Dual-Link DVI.

    Historically Mac monitors were 72DPI (or PPI pixels per inch) and Windows was 96ppi but in more recent times screens with higher pixel density (such as 103ppi on the monitor I am using now) have become common.

    The iPhone 4 introduced a "retina display" at 326DPI which is on the cusp of pixel density a human eye can differentiate at reading distance, they achieved this by doubling the DPI/PPI of previous iPhones. It looks like they are doing the same with iPad, and as well as the physical evidence (and LG's CEO demonstrating the screens a while ago, and saying Apple were a customer) their SDKs have had double resolution graphics in for a while.

    But where this is getting interesting is the latest builds of OSX contain graphics for double density screens for computers too, similarly Windows 8 has support for high density screens, so it's looking like we might see laptops and desktop screens with "retina displays" too in the not too distant future. Moreover, there's evidence from Asia that the forthcoming Ivy Bridges updates to MacBook Pro 15-inch model include a 2880x1800 screen and a 17-inch model with a 3840x2400 screen.

    Might we see a 30-inch desktop display with 200DPI double density at 5120x3200 in the next couple of year? (Panasonic recently demoed 200DPI 20-inch desktop monitors). I hope so, but boy would it kill graphics cards rendering at that resolution.
    Edited by StooMonster at 23/02/12 @ 10:23

  • greenthumb #72 3 months ago

    "Apple isn't like a conventional games company"

    They mostly differ from other game companies by not being a game company

  • Bander #73 3 months ago

    @gruntboy The only portable device maker that does all of those features is currently Nokia, except they don't do Android or tablets. It'll be interesting if they enter the tablet market with Windows 8 though.

    There really does appear to be a lot of people here that want an iPad with doubled resolution, despite the extra memory, bandwidth and battery consumption that this means. Are webpages on the current models unreadable or something? Does it resemble Teletext to you?

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #74 3 months ago

    boy would it kill graphics cards rendering at that resolution.
    Well, yeah, rendering Skyrim at that resolution with antialisasing on would. But I've got a 5 year old works PC with a graphics card technically inferior to the one in iPad 2 that handles general work tasks and web browseing on two 1600*1200 monitors with no problem at all.

    Like I said above about paper, these resolutions are NOT ABOUT GAMES. It's only in the current HD console years that running games at native monitor resolutions became a thing. Back in the day people thought nothing of graphics processing intensive apps like games running at 640*480 on monitors capable of 1280*1024 or even higher.

  • StooMonster #75 3 months ago

    @MENTAL1ST By using the shorthand term "rendering" I thought it implicit that it meant 3D gaming graphics rather than 2D desktop graphics. ;)

    Back in the day (e.g. mid 1990s) I always had the highest resolutions monitors available (Sony Trinitron screens usually) running games at native resolution (usually with hacking their INI files) and high refresh rates. e.g. I used to run Half-Life Deathmatch at 1600x1200 at 180fps @ 180Hz — but previous to that always preferred resolution and never ran 640x480 on a 1280x1024 capable monitor.

    Obsessions with resolution pre-date "the current HD consoles".

  • Bander #76 3 months ago

    @StooMonster @StooMonster when playing Unreal Tournament 2004 online, I'd go with the highest resolution I could for a competitive edge. But in single player, immersion was more important, so I'd turn on all the effects and anti-aliasing. This would force me down to about 640*480 for a smooth frame rate, but it just looked a lot richer and less artificial.

    There may be such a thing as the best of both worlds, but I find polygon models look rubbish if the screen resolution is so high, you can see the facets and the blurred pixels making up the textures. With R-Type Dimensions for example, the 3D models aren't really good enough for the HD mode, so I play it with the retro filter that takes the resolution back down to that of the arcade original. And that knocks out all the ugly corners and straight lines of the 3D models that shouldn't be there.

  • michaelius #77 3 months ago

    Hmm my 200W gpu in stationary PC would have trouble to push this resolution in demanding games, so game makers probably won't be too happy with new ipad display.

  • LightSleeper #78 3 months ago

    Alongside higher resolution displays and faster chips, maybe Apple should improve staff welfare conditions in their contractors' factories next?

  • StooMonster #79 3 months ago

    @Bander I agree, that was how I used to play.

    I've recently swapped from PC gaming on 2560x1600 30-inch monitor to using a 1080p 37-inch television instead, lower resolution but cranking up the AA.

    Looks great and I prefer it. :)

  • Dave #80 3 months ago

    @LightSleeper In fact, higher resolution screens are introduced in the factories too. Because of the clearer text, the staff can now correctly read their working times.

    Anyone who negs me, doesn't have a sense of humour :p

  • strangevil #81 3 months ago

    Boy people complain about everything these days!! Never imagined people would even dislike a product due to the display resolution being exceptionally high for it's form factor lol!! I suggest you just wait till March 7 to pull the trigger and leave the worrying of 'Apps looking pixelated' or 'Games not rendering at Native resolution' or 'High res breaking compatibility' to Apple and it's developers.
    Edited by strangevil at 23/02/12 @ 16:06

  • huckan #82 3 months ago

    Whoop. time to start shopping around for an ipad1, I can only afford to be two 'generations' behind with apple products :D

  • SniperZoz #83 3 months ago

    Pretty sure games will run internally @ ipad2 res ... unscaled to ipad3 ....

    Text will be pretty sharp thou'!

  • KanePaws #84 3 months ago

    I hope the answer lies in cheap Chinese labour.

  • flanker22 #85 3 months ago

    wow apple, even your resolutions are proprietary...

    2048x1536 what the hell is that.

  • StooMonster #86 3 months ago

    @flanker22 1024x768 doubled in each dimension, so perfect double scaling (as with iPhone 4 before).

  • goldbug #87 3 months ago

    Been burnt by speculation before.

    I still say this is going to be the iPad 2S.

  • ARustyFirePlace #88 3 months ago

    lol apple

  • FutureDave #89 3 months ago

    Sony really need to do a PSPad with sticks and buttons.