4 ms·

Retina Display doesn't automatically mean 300+ ppi. If you believe Apple, it simply means 'at the distance you hold this from your eyes, you won't perceive indi

Retina Display doesn't automatically mean 300+ ppi. If you believe Apple, it simply means 'at the distance you hold this from your eyes, you won't perceive individual pixels'. I have an iPad and I hold it on my lap or a table which is usually 2-3x farther away from my eyes. I didn't do the math, but making a larger screen with that pixel density is closer to the realm of possibility than a 300+ ppi screen and it would still be called a Retina Display by Apple.

masklinn 16y ago
Which doesn't change the fact that, barring moving the iPad to 7", "retina-ing" the iPad's screen means doubling its resolution (as was done for the iPhone 4). This translates into a 2048x1536 resolution in about 10", and around 260dpi. 2038x1536. On — at best — a 1GHz dual-code ARM CPU with something like an SGX 540 (or a 545) GPU, maybe a miraculous XT-series (multicore GPUs, perfs scale almost linearly). Desktop GPUs have a hard time driving that kind of resolutions on modern games, and they don't have to deal with power issues much...
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  Indeed. It's one thing to have a mobile phone with a tiny screen but with high pixel density. The iPhone 4 doesn't even have XGA resolution. It's another thing to have a large screen with high pixel density, you end up with a crap-ton more pixels. Which is a lot more expensive. 2038x1536 is considered extremely high resolution today, and generally only attainable if you have a giant 27" or 30" monitor hooked up with dual-link DVI. In total we're talking about 5 iPhone 4 displays tiled, which gives you some idea of the potential cost. It'd be awesome if Apple was able to do this, but it seems quite unlikely. It's far more likely that the iPad will see an incremental bump in resolution.