The new iPad is Faster Than Your Laptop

laptopmag.com/reviews/laptops/new-ipad-pro-2018-129-inch

Two words: Holy. Fucking. Shit.

Attached: aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGFwdG9wbWFnLmNvbS9pbWFnZXMvdXBsb2Fkcy9wcHJlc3MvNDU3NDEvbHRwX3ZpZGVvX2Fkb2JlX3J1c2hf (1920x1080, 122K)

Other urls found in this thread:

theverge.com/2018/11/5/18062612/apple-ipad-pro-review-2018-screen-usb-c-pencil-price-features
iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/17/06/17/review-apples-2017-105-ipad-pro-stuns-with-120hz-promotion-display
appleinsider.com/articles/18/05/15/apple-oled-iphone-x-and-promotion-ipad-pro-win-display-industry-awards
testufo.com/ghosting
notebookcheck.net/Our-Test-Criteria.15394.0.html
youtube.com/watch?v=-FBavC-n0Uw
youtube.com/watch?v=3AEwAqOwKv8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Attached: aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGFwdG9wbWFnLmNvbS9pbWFnZXMvdXBsb2Fkcy9wcHJlc3MvNDU3NDEvbHRwX3Bob3RvX2Fkb2JlX2xpZ2h0 (1920x1080, 129K)

Can Apple be stopped?

OH NO NO NO!

THEY CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT BROS! IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE YEAR OF LINUX!

Apple ARM SoC-powered MacBook when?

It just shows how terrible macshittops are.

And now the real benchmarks

But what is that power being used for? Running what's basically still just a huge smartphone..

iPad pro is probably using a hardware encoder. Hardware encoders often need more bitrate for equivalent quality. Speed should be the least important part about video encoding.

The comparisons are to windows laptops

obviously hardware encoder.
the question is, if the image quality is any good?

does it handle png?

How about something with a graphics card like a T480?

If Apple came out with an arm macbook I’d buy it in a second.

7nm doesn't matter.

ruh-roh

Attached: Screenshot_2018-11-05-08-42-25(1).jpg (720x439, 106K)

Just like when everyone bought Windows RT devices?

>iPad pro is probably using a hardware encoder
>probably
if anyone thinks a few weak little arm cores are capable of that performance, i've got a few acres on mars to sell them...

the real story here is how apple is shitting on intel's pathetic integrated gpu

they will.

>Competitive gamers
I don't think they use iPads anyway.

Most dirt cheap monitors have 5-10ms of response time. This turd has fucking 18. At """""120HZ""""" frames as supposed to be displayed for just 8ms.

You're going to want to avoid the first generation user. Don't pay them to beta test it. ARM macbooks are a LOOOOONG way off.

Probably GPU encoding, with lower quality.

I have been considering buying the HP Envy X1 and installing debian 9 arm on it. 30 hour battery life sounds amazing.

Seething Gamerjeet

Attached: seething.png (813x1402, 506K)

funny thing is there are only 4 charts in that review and they all shows ipad winning.

i wonder who could be behind this review?

That's cool user, but it's still an iPad on Apple's locked down environment, so I don't really care about it.

Mathematics?

The point is the ipad LITERALLY can't display 120 FPS even with the 120Hz refresh rate. Hell it can't even display 60 FPS, best it can do is 30 FPS with response time taking literally half that to change to the next frames. This is embarrassing. It's not even about gamers anymore but the fact that $20 second hand monitors are literally better than this display.

Attached: 1473641856243.jpg (689x571, 55K)

And here's the tab S3 from WW2 :^)

Attached: Screenshot_2018-11-05-08-59-00(1).jpg (720x849, 156K)

Why is it this bad?

Attached: zachqwe1o4w01.jpg (645x773, 62K)

>competitive tablet gaming

Who are these people trying to fool?

>the real story here is how apple is shitting on intel's pathetic integrated gpu
As if that's difficult. Intel hasn't actually innovated in the CPU and GPU market in many years.

Even the biggest Apple-shill site's head pajeet complains it still can't replace his laptop because they stapled a piece of shit mobile OS to this hardware

theverge.com/2018/11/5/18062612/apple-ipad-pro-review-2018-screen-usb-c-pencil-price-features

Attached: 1532279083241.png (476x635, 292K)

are you implying someone would cherry pick results for a biased article!?

You're paying a huge premium for a '''''120Hz''''' iPad '''''pro''''' and it literally can't even render 60 FPS because the response time is higher than the frame time (18.4 vs 16.6) and you're OKAY with that?

Attached: 1541113708035.jpg (640x845, 133K)

Considering you’re literally the only person talking about this, I’m gonna say you’re probably wrong

The sour grapes defense. "I didn't want that anyway".

>Encoding tasks.
>Faster than your laptop
Nope. I'm not using Intel graphics. As usual, macfags have to leave their brains at the door.
If literally any other company tried this, they'd be eaten for breakfast. Cults sure do think different.

Attached: 1507196871428.png (645x729, 59K)

You’re all fucking stupid who have no idea how the display works.

>The stunning, redesigned Retina display in iPad Pro features ProMotion, a new technology that delivers refresh rates of up to 120Hz for fluid scrolling, greater responsiveness and smoother motion content.
> ProMotion also improves display quality and reduces power consumption by automatically adjusting the display refresh rate to match the movement of the content.

iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/17/06/17/review-apples-2017-105-ipad-pro-stuns-with-120hz-promotion-display
>appleinsider.com/articles/18/05/15/apple-oled-iphone-x-and-promotion-ipad-pro-win-display-industry-awards
>The display's ProMotion technology is highlighted as one of the main reasons it won in the category, with its ability to adapt between 24 and 120Hz noted as "the first displays in mainstream computer products to do so." The committee adds that it is enabled by a "new high-performance oxide TFT, as well as newly engineered liquid-crystal materials and advanced photoalignment materials."

This would be meaningful if they didn't cherrypick fast refreshing content in this biased article.

By dirt cheap I'm guessing you mean TN displays which you would never want on an iPad.

>that would be meaningful if they didn’t use 120hz content
Huh

>up to 120Hz
>up to
>guaranteed between 0 and 120

>Variable refresh rate
Copycat Apple back at it again. As usual, they'll get the credit.

Attached: i712cimgpsh_orig.png (634x845, 694K)

If they used 30fps content, the slow refresh would be justified. But they didn't, and 18ms refreshes are the best this turd can deliver.

At 18ms response time, 120hz isn't possible. What must go on in the head of a macfag.

Attached: 1490138632998.png (600x580, 360K)

this is disingenuous

Go to apple store and run this:
testufo.com/ghosting

18.4ms response time is absolutely unacceptable EVEN for a 60Hz screen for NON-GAMERS.

Attached: 1539298648901.jpg (808x720, 156K)

> What must go on in the head of a macfag.
You sometimes get a gust of wind.

Hold power button for 10min to unlock turbo mode.

Attached: 1524310415941.jpg (643x960, 255K)

now try this on a ryzen laptop with vega on it

>the Rajesh still thinks the response time isn’t dynamic
Seething

Attached: L M A O.png (1600x900, 303K)

You're right. It actually does MUCH MUCH worse.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-11-05-10-05-46(1).jpg (720x783, 145K)

here's the one for the old tab s3

Attached: Screenshot_2018-11-05-10-07-22(1).jpg (720x855, 154K)

>Dynamic response time
>Claims to be 144hz
>18ms pixel response time
Based on response time, this screen isn't even 60hz. It's 55.5hz. Apple selling icucks a par 60hz display as a 144hz one. LMAO. You cannot make this shit up.

Attached: 1485604408299.jpg (798x770, 195K)

wtf

>video encoding on a mobile device

The same people. Namely idiots.

>response time is the same as refresh rate
Wow, Jow Forums has reached new levels of retardation.

Yes, you can by literally just making shit up

Response time LITERALLY cannot be higher than frame time else pic related happens. Please go ahead and prove me wrong.

Attached: AALWE18.jpg (4128x2322, 647K)

>claims to be 144hz
No it doesnt
>18ms response time
At 50hz which they used for testing (PAL testing in 2018 Jesus).

see

Nobody is saying that ghosting doesn't occur retard.

Then stop defending it you mong. This is in no way acceptable for a "pro" product.

Open a compatible 120hz app and run the test again.
Their testing methodology is fucked, and NBC are known anti-apple shills.
The display can hit 240hz when the Apple Pencil is in use too.

I suggest you do some research before posting, thanks.

That test WAS DONE WITH THE DISPLAY AT 120Hz

Literally nobody can see it, unless if you're playing video games. If so

Prove it.
You can’t manually pick the refresh rate, you MUST use a compatible app.

How is it fucked? It was done at 120Hz and complied with the ISO parameters.

>"ISO 13406-2 response time which will represent a measurement for the pixels changing from black > white > black (0-255-0). This ISO response time is made up of the rise and fall time as the pixel changes from one state to the other and then back again."

see

Attached: 6720349762020327623.jpg (597x766, 284K)

>>claims to be 144hz
>No it doesnt
Yes it does.
ms response time
>At 50hz which they used for testing (PAL testing in 2018 Jesus).
You do not understand what pixel response time is. Here's a hint. While impacting refresh rate significantly it is not related to it.
>Their testing methodology is fucked
LMAO. Bbbbb but the test must be wrong. These guys have been doing this for a long time macfag.
The pixel response time IS NOT the refresh rate. It's how fast the display is capable of changing a pixel. As such, it ends up capping the refresh rate regardless what the screen controller supports. Apple put in a fast controller but a shit screen.

Attached: 1540006735432.png (1177x1024, 100K)

>it was done at 120hz
Still haven’t proved it. Their own testing methodology just states the equipment they use, not the device state.
notebookcheck.net/Our-Test-Criteria.15394.0.html

You tried.

speed does not equate to usability or productivity. there's a reason I can't use Linux but might be able to use macOS (hint: FOSS can't compete). mobile OSes are not desktop OS replacements.

It doesn't matter what refresh rate they used. The pixel response time is independent of the refresh rate. The pixel response time will always stay the same no matter the refresh rate.

Attached: h30yqdjmjh701.png (560x632, 137K)

this.

t. 75Hz monitor OC'd to 100Hz that still gets 5-8ms response time

>itoddler ignoring that Apple lies about their features and gets away with it because of the icult
Source: this thread

The encoding blocks are usually a separate coprocessor. But reality is next to no one uses accelerated encoding

>no one uses accelerated encoding
when you record a video on your phone it isn't saved in a raw format dipshit

can't wait to play farmville in lightspeed

youtube.com/watch?v=-FBavC-n0Uw

>It doesn't matter what refresh rate they used
retardalert.gif

The iPad Pro uses dynamic refresh rate, and has to be supported on the app level.
It doesn't matter what kind of content you use if the app used to view it doesn't support dynamic refresh rate.

The documentation for the OS and the hardware datasheet is clear: 120fps throughout the OS (animations, scrolling, etc.), and dynamic refresh rate (30fps-120fps) for apps that support it, depending on content.


Using your retarded armchair engineer extrapolation to """conclude""" that a product with 120Hz in its hardware and software specification (aka legal binding document) is actually less than 60Hz is absolute retardation.
There are even games, showcased live, running at 120fps on the new iPad Pro.
And if you're too blind to see with your own eyes the difference between a 60Hz and 120Hz display, I got a nice slow motion video that will make it easy for your special little eyes and brain.

>youtube.com/watch?v=3AEwAqOwKv8

>updates
>iPad gets progressively slower
>Linux laptop gets progressively faster

Attached: anime draygun maid smug salute the flayg im gettin some layg we call it pop over here.png (439x387, 310K)

It doesn't matter what refresh rate they used. The pixel response time is independent of the refresh rate. The pixel response time will always stay the same no matter the refresh rate.

Those are three words.

Nobody is saying it doesn't have a 120Hz refresh rate. We're all just saying the response time is HIGHER than the frame time at 120Hz. This is a big no-no because it causes all kinds of visual artifacts like ghosting, blurring, smudging that
does NOT suffer from despite 60Hz screen.

Attached: tumblr_mhz8n3EZ531rvyooxo1_500.png (500x405, 115K)

I'm a bit confused, how is the new iPad so much faster than the Macbook at video transcoding? Are its specs that much better, or is there better use of its resources by the application?

Dedicated hardware to do a single task that Apple spent millions on just for the headline.

Interesting. I wonder if we'll start seeing iPad render farms then?

It's called hardware video encoding, it uses a specialized asic chip to transcode video. The catch is it increases bitrate significantly so to match the quality of a video file encoded with say 4mbps at 1080p it would need to bump the bitrate up to at least 32mbps.

It's good for recording video directly from a camera but bad for general purpose transcoding.

Attached: latest.jpg (1280x720, 124K)

>people too retarded to understand the difference between latency and throughput

N-N-N-N....NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
B-B-B-But my iPajeet! M-m-m-muh iToddlers!

Anti Apple shill on suicide watch.

We won't as even youtube uses SW for their video encoding. This is why it's actually hard to match the 1mbps at 720p quality even with software encoding. Compression is much more important than speed for most people.

Of course. Adobe Lightroom detects if you are running an iPad and automatically switches to shitty encoding settings because that makes total sense.

I do color grading and 3D animation for a living, please tell us mr. professional.

How much do they pay you to post this garbage?

Definitely not. iPads are so expensive you're better off making your own asic or just using a GPU.
>It's called hardware video encoding
No shit Sherlock. Apple picked a format that Intel had not optimizated. Any reasonable GPU would crush Apple's solution. The only question is if their encoding isn't complete shit.

Precisely, the A12X is actually very bad for SW video encoding so the devs opted to enable HW encoding by default.

i don't mind these marketing shenanigans because fuck Microsoft

i'll switch to Mac as soon as Apple starts using AMD processors in their shit. They're already using AMD graphics cards so it's only a matter of time now

It is, preliminaries in x264 showed it used 8x the bitrate of software encoding with the slow preset.

There's a lot more to encoding than speed