Evidence points to high-density display on the iPad 2

As unlikely as it sounds for Apple to start piling on pixels in a 9.7" slate, MacRumors has uncovered evidence that the second-generation iPad may have a higher-resolution display than its predecessor. The clue? A pair of unused, jumbo-sized graphics inside Apple’s iBooks 1.1 app.

One of the graphics is a bookmark icon, which has the same aspect ratio as the current iPad one but is labeled "iPadx2" and has "double" the resolution. (The MacRumors folks seem to think doubling the resolution on both axes is… doubling the resolution rather than quadrupling it. Go figure.) There’s also an "x2" wooden texture background with a 1536×800 resolution. That’s far more pixels than what even the iPhone 4’s 960×480 "Retina" display can output, a strong hint that a larger, higher-res iOS device is in the works.

If the iPad 2 does follow in the iPhone 4’s footsteps, MacRumors reckons it may feature a quadrupled screen resolution of 2048×1536. Assuming the iPad’s display size and aspect ratio remain the same, that would result in a pixel desntiy of 264 DPI—lower than the iPhone 4’s but, as the site points out, probably still enough to make individual pixels faint or invisible, since users shouldn’t hold the device as close to their eyeballs as a phone.

Comments closed
    • hmm
    • 9 years ago

    There is just no way the ipad is going to have a screen in the range of 2048×1536. Get real, we aren’t going to get a near-‘cinema display’ resolution on an iPad. Technical possibility asside, it doesn’t make any business sense.

    Maybe the UI elements are for supporting video-out.

    • eitje
    • 9 years ago

    Probably just for outputting images to a bigger monitor screen.

    • RealPjotr
    • 9 years ago

    There is no way it’s going to be 2048×1536, those IPS panels are way too expensive. Judging from the “x2” resolution, counting total pixels compared to iPad1 and keeping the 4:3 aspect ratio you get close to 1440×1080.

    • jstern
    • 9 years ago

    Apple is kind of know for putting not so powerful hardware and charging a premium, so it would blow my mind if they put a more expensive screen and gpu to support it. They make an insane ammount of money that way since they know many people are going to buy it no matter what.

    • FireGryphon
    • 9 years ago

    A higher res screen is a good idea for a product update. Maybe this means the hardware is more capable, and we can get an updated iOS with true multitasking.

    • blitzy
    • 9 years ago

    personally i see the ipad as 0.5, and the ipad2 as 1.0. It was natural to expect improvement in screen res since the ipad is a bit gimpy.

    i would also expect that ipad2 to command a higher price due to the increase in hardware specs and the short timeframe of the refresh.

    fortunately the android tablets will be keeping apple honest with some decent contenders of their own.

      • axeman
      • 9 years ago

      I would like the iPad if it cost less, fit in my pocket, and could make phone calls. That would be even better. Oh wait, Apple had the same idea. [url<]http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/02/jobs-says-ipad-idea-came-iphone/[/url<]

    • ssidbroadcast
    • 9 years ago

    To be frank, if this is true I think it’s too soon. It’s really neato, Apple, if you can pull this off… but um… aren’t people still buying [i<]first gen[/i<] iPads by the boatloads? Secondly--and this is getting a bit more self-serving--as an app developer it's a [i<]slight[/i<] PITA to have to go back and re-make @2x assets for the iPad. (I say "slight" because most of the assets are vector, and scale up, etc, but they still have to be exported to png) Oh well. I'm cool with any other hardware updates. Just not radical changes in screen resolutions. Edit: Bah. I miss the old tags. Much easier to use.

      • ludi
      • 9 years ago

      Didn’t stop them from doing it with the iPhone, and that was actually a good strategy. Yeah, they were selling first-gen iPhones by the boatload…but the second-gen and then third-gen iPhones kept up the momentum ahead of the competing offerings that quickly arrived to the market in response to the success of the first-gen model.

      • blastdoor
      • 9 years ago

      I wonder if some game developers will elect to stay at 1024×768 but opt for more complex scenes and/or higher frame rates…

    • Voldenuit
    • 9 years ago

    When I first saw the Macrumors article a couple days ago, I thought it was a hoax/prank. I still do.

    In an analogy, just because game developers may use a 4096×4096 texture in their FPS title doesn’t mean that 16 Megapixel LCDs are coming to PCs. My guess is that the putative iPad texture is either a placeholder graphic, spans multiple screens (hey, maybe it’s time iOS got multiple home screens?) or purposely supersampled to allow zooming and resizing without IQ degradation.

    Maybe I’ll be proven wrong, but I think that ultra high resolutions on a tablet device will just complicate hardware and software development with diminishing returns for the consumer and developer alike.

      • FuturePastNow
      • 9 years ago

      It’s not a hoax that they’ve increased the resolution of UI elements in one application.

      How anyone extrapolates that into increasing the resolution of the screen is beyond me, however. Most likely they want to make it possible to zoom without pixellating things.

        • HisDivineShadow
        • 9 years ago

        Doubling the resolution from last year results in quadrupling the pixels being pushed, which would require quadrupling the device’s GPU capability. Curiously, that’s exactly what separate rumors are saying (ie., that the GPU is being moved to a dual core part in addition to the CPU part).

        Then a version of one of Apple’s apps shows up with an image bumped up to double the resolution of the current iPad with the descriptor, “ipadx2,” corresponding to the label used for the retina display-powered iPhone 4’s descriptor, “iphonex2.”

        Doesn’t seem like so much of a stretch. Especially when Appleinsider also quoted a passage in an Apple investors call where they admitted that profits would be dropping because the cost of each iPad would be going up this year and prices would not be going up much, if it at all. A larger CPU, GPU, and higher resolution display would all help do that.

        Toss in the fact that the original iPad’s resolution is small by comparison to other devices and doubling the pixels helps keep the original’s apps compatible by pixel-doubling akin to the iPhone 4 doing iPhone 3G/3GS apps in like-manner.

        I think there’s some fire amidst all this smoke.

      • MathMan
      • 9 years ago

      The difference is that this particular texture is rendered one-to-one to the screen buffer 99% of the time (the remaining 1% is when you rotate the book case.) So you particular example doesn’t hold.

      We’re not yet at the point of diminishing returns. The iPhone4 screen is close to perfect wrt resolution. The iPad screen is not: I always cringe a little bit when I switch from the former to the latter.

      Doubling up the resolution both ways doesn’t complicate the chip hardware much. It’s just the natural progression of increased performance. The increased software development should be minimal.

      I have a harder time believing that LCD panels with such high resolution can be produced reliably at high volumes.

      • grug
      • 9 years ago

      There is no reason to have an image larger than the screen resolution of the device. It’s not a 3D game texture, it’s a UI element. All UIElements on iOS are 1:1.

      The texture is a tile used on the background of the iBooks application. The 768×400 image is mapped 1:1 to the 768×1024 screen. In *addition* to that image, the new version of iBooks has the same filename with a “@2x” suffix and a 1536×800 image.

      Now with the iOS API, you call an image, say “background.png”, and on a Retina display device with 2x the res, it automatically looks for “background@2x.png” version first, falling back to the low-resolution one if it doesn’t exist. The same thing is happening here with a prototype iPad loading is 2x version for a display with…2x the resolutions.

      There is no other reason for the image to exist other than the fact that there is a 2048×1536 iOS device at Apple.

        • mcnabney
        • 9 years ago

        You didn’t even read the message you are responsing to.

        One of the benefits to having more detail loaded into a desktop texture than is normally visible is for zooming purposes. The additional detail will be see as the image is blown up when a zoom occurs.

        The other possibility is that the new device will support a larger desktop, like Android, which is revealed as you slide from desktop panel to desktop panel.

          • Hattig
          • 9 years ago

          Yeah, but this application doesn’t zoom into the bookcase. It’s a 1:1 UI element, and on top of that it’s got a filename with “@2x” in it! It would only get loaded on an iPad with twice the resolution!

          In-game textures are higher resolution because you might be standing really close to an object wrapped in that texture, and you don’t want wolfenstein-style pixelation happening.

          • grug
          • 9 years ago

          I read it just fine thanks. It seemed like the author of the message didn’t bother reading the original links, talking about multiple home screens when it has nothing to do with the iOS home screen. Nor did you, since you’re talking about a ‘larger desktop’

          Now go and look at what we’re actually taking about: the wooden background in this particular app:
          [url<]http://www.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ibooks.jpg[/url<] From both an iBooks functionality perspective -- and an iOS technical implementation perspective -- there is no reason to have a double-resolution background without a double-resolution display. The mere fact that there are *4* different images for the bookmark should be enough evidence that isn't scaling. You also ignored the @2x suffix. So...on to UIImage, part of the UIKit framework in iOS used to create standard apps (ie, not OpenGL games). Even on a Retina Display like the iPhone4, you still get the same 320x480 dimensions of the original -- you don't get pixel-level positioning. The OS *automatically* loads the @2x version in its place for the higher 640x960 display if it exists. You don't write code to query a 960x480 resolution and load a different image, it all happens behind the scenes. As a developer, you recreate/rerender all your art at double the res, call it exactly the same filename with a @2x at the end, and without changing a line of code you have a Retina app. So...if the current iPad has 768x1024 positioning, and it's a standard UIKit app, and it has a @2x.png, and that PNG is twice the resolution, it is HIGHLY likely that it's sole purpose is for a 2048x1536 resolution iPad. That doesn't mean it's necessarily coming out on April, but it's the *only* reason for it to exist.

    • SPOOFE
    • 9 years ago

    [quote<]The MacRumors folks seem to think doubling the resolution on both axes is... doubling the resolution rather than quadrupling it. Go figure.[/quote<] But they're right. In order to double the resolution, you need quadruple the pixel count.

      • MrJP
      • 9 years ago

      Agreed. Resolution is a linear measure, so double is correct.

      • mcnabney
      • 9 years ago

      No, they aren’t.

      A resolution is a specific ‘area’ – 1920×1080 is a different resolution than 1920×1200. Only the number of horizontal lines has changed.

      So when an area is doubled, it is the number of pixels.

      Otherwise all of the following could be construed as being double the existing 1024×768 iPad resolution.
      2048×768
      1024×1536
      2048×1536

      All of those double one or more aspects to the display. Regardless, I don’t see the iPad jumping from a 0.77MP display to a 3.1MP display. Hell, you can’t even get a 2MP display on anything under 15″. The idea that Apple can acquire large volumes of 9.7″ 3.1MP IPS screens is laughable.

      Also, the graphics engine would have to quadruple in power, not double, to maintain the same performance of the current iPad.

        • SNM
        • 9 years ago

        “A resolution is a specific ‘area'”
        You poor, confused person. Once upon a time, before computer screens corrupted the term, “resolution” was a word used in association with optics: “the ability of a microscope or telescope to measure the angular separation of images that are close together.” So a 4x jump in pixel density quite definitely corresponds to a doubling of resolution.

        “The idea that Apple can acquire large volumes of 9.7″ 3.1MP IPS screens is laughable.”
        I agree. About as laughable as the idea that Apple could acquire large volumes of 3.5″ 964×640 IPS screens.
        Except, oh, they already did that. Before anybody else’s phone screens were exceeding 480×320 displays.

        “Also, the graphics engine would have to quadruple in power, not double, to maintain the same performance of the current iPad.”
        Good thing the rumored GPU consists of two “cores” which are each twice as powerful as the current iPad GPU then, huh?

          • Duck
          • 9 years ago

          “Resolution” for a display usually means screen resolution. Like 1024*768 for example. Double both those numbers and you quadruple the screen resolution you are using.

            • SPOOFE
            • 9 years ago

            [quote<]Like 1024*768 for example.[/quote<] Okay. Resolution = 1024x768 2x Resolution = 2x (1024x768) 2x Resolution = 2048x1536

            • Duck
            • 9 years ago

            1024 x 768 = 786,432
            2048 x 1536 = 3,145,728

            3,145,728 / 786,432 = 4

            The new screen resolution is 4x as big as the old one when you double both the axis. It has quadrupled in size.

            • SPOOFE
            • 9 years ago

            [quote<]The new screen resolution is 4x as big as the old one when you double both the axis.[/quote<] You have simply mistaken "resolution" and "pixel count". One needs 4x as many pixels in order to achieve 2x the resolution.

            • Duck
            • 9 years ago

            I already defined “resolution” as “screen resolution” aka “number of pixels”. Example: “1024×768”

            Just like 1 MB = 1024 KB. Even though that is technically wrong, everyone knows what it means and it’s what we all use.

            • SPOOFE
            • 9 years ago

            [quote<]I already defined "resolution" as "screen resolution" aka "number of pixels".[/quote<] And you'd be wrong to define it that way. Resolution pertains to the relationship of two axes. A screen's resolution is not 1024 and, oh, by the way, ALSO 768. It is "1024x768". Separate those two numbers and you have two individual axes, but you do NOT have resolution. Let's think higher-dimensionally: A cube is six square faces of equal size. Change the size of one of the square faces, and the other five are now smaller in comparison, and you no longer have a "cube". Just look at the math. Resolution = "1024x768". Doubling the resolution is doubling "1024x768", or in mathematical expression: 2*(1024*768). Yes, resolution is essentially a multiplication "problem". Solve the problem and you have pixel count. But resolution is ALSO a descriptor of aspect ratio, and in that regard, the two axes are inherently intertwined and what happens to one automatically happens to the other. Double only one axis and you have doubled the pixel count, but NOT resolution.

            • Duck
            • 9 years ago

            I said it was wrong but it’s what everyone uses. “Resolution” means number of pixels when you are talking about the resolution of a display on a tech site. Therefore, the resolution quadruples, not doubles when you double both axis.

            • SPOOFE
            • 9 years ago

            [quote<] "Resolution" means number of pixels when you are talking about the resolution of a display on a tech site.[/quote<] Your insistence does not make it so. Resolution is a pair of figures; using a single figure means you are no longer referring to resolution, but some other metric.

            • Duck
            • 9 years ago

            But if you double the resolution on both the axis then the final resolution does get 4x as large, not 2x; which is the whole point of this argument over nothing.

            • SPOOFE
            • 9 years ago

            I’m sorry you don’t understand the difference between “resolution” and “number of pixels”.

            • ImSpartacus
            • 9 years ago

            Stop trolling. We both know what’s up, let’s not play games.

            The best way to measure resolution with constant aspect ratio is using the diagonal. When the diagonal doubles, a layman can assume the resolution doubled.

            Different measures are useful in different situations. For example, televisions do not have a constant aspect ratio. They are getting wider and wider. But what is staying constant? Height. Hmmmm, that’s why it’s called “1080p”! 1920×1080 and 2560×1080 both have 1080 lines of vertical resolution.

            Not all of us can be good teachers, but if method A isn’t working, try method B.

            • blastdoor
            • 9 years ago

            In order to fully test the new comment system, I suggest that people just keep making pointless replies to this thread until we reach the physical limits of message indentation.

            My contribution:

            Is not!

            (suggested reply: “is so!”)

            • way2strong
            • 9 years ago

            Is not! Doh!

            • ludi
            • 9 years ago

            Ordinarily, “resolution” is understood as a dimensional quantity, of which a doubling of the dimensional quantity on each axis produces a four-fold increase in [i<]display area[/i<]. Technically, resolution should actually be a measure of pixel density per unit area, with both the number of pixels and the unit area being clearly defined measures. Neither Spoofe's use of "resolution" as per above, nor your counterargument about display area, really gets to the true meaning of resolution...but for my part, I would tend to use it the way Spoofe is using it in a casual conversation.

            • Voldenuit
            • 9 years ago

            QVGA (quarter VGA) halves the resolution of VGA (640×480) in both axes, resulting in a 320×240 display. We don’t call that ‘half-VGA’. So it is common practice to refer to resolution by the absolute number of pixels rather than just horizontal or vertical resolution.

            So a 12 MP camera has twice the resolution as a 6 MP camera, even though it only has 1.4x more horizontal or vertical lines of resolution. This means that resolving power (which is measured in line pairs, not pixels) is not doubled, which may be the source of the confusion.

            • TaBoVilla
            • 9 years ago

            official explanation right there

            • SPOOFE
            • 9 years ago

            I understand the usage of industry terms, and I’m not saying they’re wrong. I’m simply saying it’s also not wrong to say that doubling the resolution means double on both axes. In terms of resolving detail, it is more meaningful to say that twice as many pixels in both directions are necessary to resolve twice as much detail; the former is simply the number of pixels (which, if you do the math, is this “4 times as much” thing everyone is getting hung up on) whereas the latter is the actual resolving power (a mere 2x as much), and hence, resolution.

            The industry got in a bit of hullaballoo over definitions of “gigabyte” as well, if I recall. Its nomenclature is not sancrosanct.

            • MrJP
            • 9 years ago

            No, you’re mistaken. Resolution (in the context of optical equiipment) refers to the ability to resolve small details. To resolve twice the detail of a 6MP camera, you need twice the resolution in [b<]both axes[/b<], hence a 24MP camera (6MPx2x2). Go and read some reviews at dpreview.com and look at the sections on resolution to help clear this up. This is also why print quality is always referred to in terms of dots-per-inch (dpi), not dots-per-square-inch. It's the linear measure that's the important one in being able to make out fine detail. The exact same logic follows for display equipment. Total number of pixels is not the same thing as resolution. For anyone still struggling with this, even Apple have named the new textures "x2", not "x4".

            • axeman
            • 9 years ago

            I think resolution is a vague term. It means whatever people assume it means. And people are dumb. That’s why we get great things like “1080p” display that have less total pixels than some older displays, but they’re FULL HD! OMG!

            • bhtooefr
            • 9 years ago

            Fun fact: On a 10.1″ netbook, there really are two resolution figures.

            Why? 10.1″ netbooks are 1024×600 pixel area, 16:9. Note that that means that they’re not square pixels.

            So, a 10.1″ netbook screen is 8.8″ wide, and 4.95″ tall. That comes out to 116 PPI horizontally, 121 PPI vertically.

          • accord1999
          • 9 years ago

          [i<]I agree. About as laughable as the idea that Apple could acquire large volumes of 3.5" 964x640 IPS screens. Except, oh, they already did that. Before anybody else's phone screens were exceeding 480x320 displays.[/i<] It was long after many phones came out with WVGA screens.

            • axeman
            • 9 years ago

            You mean like most of these 😉

            [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mobile_phones_with_WVGA_display[/url<] To be fair 964x640 is pretty impressive, but it's not that big of a leap.

        • SPOOFE
        • 9 years ago

        [quote<]So when an area is doubled, it is the number of pixels.[/quote<] False. Pixel count is just the two axes multiplied together. Start with a single pixel, 1x1. Then add another pixel: 1x2. That is NOT double the resolution of a single pixel. It's just adding another pixel. 2x2, however, IS double the resolution. And maybe I just plain sucked at elementary school arithmetic, but 2x2 typically equals 4. And maybe it's just that durned public schooling keepin' me down, but I'm pretty sure 4 is 4 times more than 1.

      • Rakhmaninov3
      • 9 years ago

      It’s the same area, so items 4x smaller than an original pixel can now be “resolved” or appear distinct from each other. So the resolution, which is a measure of how small you can go before 2 objects appear as one, is quadrupled.

        • SPOOFE
        • 9 years ago

        [quote<]so items 4x smaller than an original pixel can now be "resolved" or appear distinct from each other.[/quote<] In order to "resolve" smaller details, you need to increase both the axes at once, because details on a screen exist in two dimensions, not one.

      • Rakhmaninov3
      • 9 years ago

      And PS where is UberGerbil or JustAnEngineer? They’re the brains around here, could one of them come settle this for us?

      😛

        • derFunkenstein
        • 9 years ago

        Maybe they realize that this is a meaningless conversation? :p

      • YeuEmMaiMai
      • 9 years ago

      look no matter how you slice it 640*480 is not double the resolution of 320*240. It is 4 times the resolution. Do not confuse doubling horizontal and vertical line count with resolution…..

        • SPOOFE
        • 9 years ago

        I’ve sliced it up several times and I’ve yet to see someone provide any reason to think I’m wrong. For some reason all that matters is “total number of pixels” and that there’s no use for terminology that describes pixel number and arrangement at once. Aspect ratio is not a trivial aspect of imaging devices and I think it’s being ignored in favor of one monolithic number that, in and of itself, is a worthless metric for judging a consumer device. In a forum that gets caught up in minutiae over product model names, I’m surprised that something actually indicative of quality would be glazed over.

        • SPOOFE
        • 9 years ago

        Whoops, double post. No, not four times the posts, merely double.

    • jjj
    • 9 years ago

    And games will use ray tracing all the way lol
    Apple is insane,often,but not crazy enough to ruin gaming on the device.
    As for PowerVR SGX543,maybe but those rumors started 2 years ago when it was first announced so it’s getting a bit old.

    • Hattig
    • 9 years ago

    Well I can see why they would want a higher resolution than 1024×768 for the second generation, and I can also see that resolution doubling in each axis is the simplest method, and should allow for retina branding (264DPI at 2 foot should suffice). It would require four times the pixel pushing power – the rumours suggest a dual-core SGX543. With the volume of the iPad sales the cost of a high DPI 10″ display could be reduced significantly.

    The rumours are saying A8 and A5 for the codename. I’m going out on a limb and suggesting there are two SoCs being made. The A5 is a single core A9 with a single core SGX543, for iPhone and iPod, the A8 is a dual-core CPU with a dual-core GPU, for the iPad and Apple TV – devices that have more power available due to larger batteries or being plugged in.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the $499 iPad stays at 1024×768, and the more expensive ones get the higher spec display.

    If the rumours are correct, it’s going to be hard to not buy the device.

      • adisor19
      • 9 years ago

      I have to say that your prediction of 2 separate SoCs makes a lot of sense.. I have a hard time seeing the dual core GPU Soc fitting in the same power envelope as the current gen iPhone.

      Adi

        • MathMan
        • 9 years ago

        No, it doesn’t make much sense at all.

        Very little companies make 2 different chips with similar specs, especially since the incremental area of a GPU and a CPU are not that large: probably not more than an additional 25% of die area. The overhead of making an additional chip is usually not worth it.

        If your concern is power, then you can simply power gate one of the two cores.

        Also: when did it become reasonable to have 2 cores GPUs on 1 die instead of increasing parallelism within the same GPU? The latter approach is what PC GPU’s have been doing for 15 years…

          • SNM
          • 9 years ago

          I assume that the “cores” they’re discussing here are more on the level of a “compute unit” or whatever the hell AMD and Nvidia are calling their functional blocks with a bunch of shaders and cache.

          • blastdoor
          • 9 years ago

          “Very little companies make 2 different chips with similar specs, especially since the incremental area of a GPU and a CPU are not that large: probably not more than an additional 25% of die area. The overhead of making an additional chip is usually not worth it.”

          Right… and this is why AMD and Intel only sell quad core chips, and no dual or single core chips…

            • MathMan
            • 9 years ago

            In the case of AMD and Intel, the difference between 1, 2 or 4 cores can mean many hundreds of dollars difference in price per chip. It makes sense to create different chips in this case.

            The market price of a complex SOC is ~$20. The producing cost is ~$10 (which is the relevant cost in the case of Apple.) If you’re going to cut 20% of your die, you’re going to optimistically save $3.

            IOW: Nice try, genius.

            • blastdoor
            • 9 years ago

            Well, “MathMan”, $3 * 100 million = $300 million. Are you still sure it isn’t worth it?

            • MathMan
            • 9 years ago

            Sure, dear blastdoor.

            – 100 million is over several generations. 25 million is more realistic, give or take a couple of million. Poof goes $225M.
            – Of those remaining, a whole bunch of them actually will use the full core, so you can’t include those either. Poof goes another $20M.
            – $3 is probably too optimistic.
            – There are other constraints: even very large chip companies are constraint by the amount of backend projects they can handle at the same time.
            – The engineering effort spent on a minor cost reduction is engineering effort that can not be spent on the next project.

            It is known secret in the Valley that the A5 is still not the major new chip designed by the PA Semi group, even if Apple already claimed so for the A4. This is where Apple is spending a lot of its effort. A5 is expected to be a relatively straightforward upgrade of the CPUs and GPU.

            • blastdoor
            • 9 years ago

            100 million is next year’s iPhone plus iPod Touch shipments.

            • Hattig
            • 9 years ago

            Hmm, saving $3 per chip for 20 million iPhones and iPods is a $60,000,000 saving. Pennies for Apple, but they didn’t make loads of money by splashing out when they didn’t need to.

            More likely is that it is the same physical die, but with a CPU core and a GPU fused off (increase yield, or mere market segmentation) and rebranded A5 instead of A8.

            • MathMan
            • 9 years ago

            Yeah, that’s another point that I forgot to make. The $3 difference will be if they use disabled cores.

            However, I don’t expect future iPhones and iPod Touches to have only 1 CPU: the whole top end of the marker will soon be dual core. In that case, the only difference is the additional GPU core. At less than 10mm, not enough to warrant a different chip.

      • designerfx
      • 9 years ago

      the big question is, will it run okay?

      2043x15xx is a very high resolution and puts some serious stress on both a: the battery and b: performance.

      I mean have you ever seen games try that?

      we’re talking tablets now

        • MathMan
        • 9 years ago

        Performance: for 2D, there is not a major issue. A bigger GPU should handle it nicely. I suspect you’ll have a 64bit memory interface at higher MHz, so the increased bandwidth requirements (700MB/s just for LCD scanout at 60fps) should be manageable too.

        For video content, you can do on the fly upscaling. No problems there.

        3D is indeed a different issue. It’s a staggeringly high resolution for that. Maybe they’ll continue to limit things to the original resolution for that and use upscaling again? It worked out pretty ok for the iPhone 4 initially…

        Power is less of a concern, at least for the SOC. The LCD power is mostly in the backlight, so it shouldn’t be such a major issue either.

        I still think it’s unlikely because of the LCD availability, more than anything else.

    • Forge
    • 9 years ago

    iPad 2 will have the new Cortex A9-based Apple A8 SoC, with the upgraded graphics component. Screen is 2048×1536, has front and back cameras, top storage size of 128GB, similar prices to iPad 1.

    This is just a summarization of the most plausible or somewhat confirmed rumors so far, but it paints a coherent picture. I’ll take one. The increased DPI and overall res will benefit the three things I do most on my iPad; books, videos, and web browsing.

    • dpaus
    • 9 years ago

    While I’d love to see it, I’m not convinced that the mere presence of a texture background of 1536×800 indicates a screen resolution of 2048×1536…

      • thesmileman
      • 9 years ago

      Correct. However if the author looked into the issue some more he would see that a screen called the “ipad 2 screen” with a resolution of 2048×1536, just went on sale from the parts wholesaler that showed the verizon iphone a month early. This along with a number of other reasons makes the case well. Unfortunately this site seems interested in apple news but I always find out better information elsewhere then pull up techreport to find worse a recap with only 5-50% of the information included.

      Techreport: say with what you do best.

    • tejas84
    • 9 years ago

    Holy something of someplace… (said in a Hermes Conrad voice)

    That pixel density is insane! 2048×1536 is not far of my 30″ Dell 3008WFP @2560×1600.

    Looks like phones are going to need some serious GPU’s. Impressive from Apple.

    • adisor19
    • 9 years ago

    If this rumour is true, then it makes sense that the next iPad 2 GPU will be a dual core PowerVR 543MP. Kinda hard to drive such high resolution display with the 535 or 540 series GPU.

    Adi

    • KamikaseRider
    • 9 years ago

    Any chance it will be launched around March? I’m going to Canada on the first couple of weeks in March and would be good to buy it then.

      • crose
      • 9 years ago

      Yeah, similar situation for me… but unfortunately I read it’s likelier to be released in April.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This