5 ms·
I don't know if there is much to deduce from these benchmarks. They are good for bragging rights, that's for sure. But that's about it. Note also that while th
by abuzzooz 16y ago
I don't know if there is much to deduce from these benchmarks. They are good for bragging rights, that's for sure. But that's about it.
Note also that while the Xoom is a new product, its Tegra 2 processor is relatively old. NVIDIA first demoed it in January 2010. So here they're really comparing apples to oranges.
In any case, good for Apple. The iPad 2 does look like a good product.
- wtallis 16y agoTake a look at the screenshots from Infinity Blade on the iPad 1 vs. the iPad 2. There's a big difference in graphical quality. Most notably, the iPad 2 can handle antialiasing, more detailed geometry, and much more complex lighting. From these numbers, it looks like if the iPad 3 included a double-resolution display but no further GPU speed increases, it would still outperform the iPad 1.
- ghshephard 16y agoI agree that comparing the GPUs is a little unfair, but the iPad and Xoom were released within a several weeks of each other, so I think it's entirely fair to compare system graphics performance.
- wtallis 16y agoThings like this show that we need a change of mindset when evaluating the technical capabilities of embedded devices instead of PCs. When a new graphics chip is released, you can't swap it for your old GPU, and it won't show up as a build-to-order option in 3 weeks, either. You have to wait for it to be integrated in to new SoCs. Trying to excuse the Xoom's obsolete GPU (particularly when the Xoom's biggest selling point is the higher resolution screen) makes no more sense than trying to compare a current product to the announced but not shipping Cortex A15 processor.
- abuzzooz 16y agoPerhaps you're right. Personally, I would be more interested in comparing actual finished apps, as opposed to meaningless benchmarks.