x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Options

Photo of Apple iPad 3 casing leaks; no quad-core and thicker body for larger battery

0. phoneArena posted on 08 Feb 2012, 19:57

Speculation is swirling all around the Apple iPad 3 about the A6 processor expected to power the tablet; according to The Verge, the A6 will not be a quad-core processor as expected, but will be a upgraded dual-core processor with a more powerful graphics core...

This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here

posted on 08 Feb 2012, 20:09 11

1. RazaAsad (Posts: 100; Member since: 24 Nov 2011)

Good for Apple lovers, I will wait till Tegra 3 is offered in the range of 250 dollars but more importantly for a device running Win 8.

posted on 08 Feb 2012, 20:26

5. Cwebb (Posts: 501; Member since: 05 Oct 2011)

Should get a x86 chip for Win8, that way you can use all the legacy applications and desktops in their original form

posted on 08 Feb 2012, 20:29

7. DetroitTech (Posts: 66; Member since: 02 Nov 2011)

There are recent reports x86 apps will run on win8 in arm mode... Cross fingers.

posted on 08 Feb 2012, 21:29

10. belovedson (Posts: 1052; Member since: 30 Nov 2010)

that would be sick!

posted on 08 Feb 2012, 20:11 14

2. bossmt_2 (Posts: 457; Member since: 13 Oct 2009)

No Quad Core


posted on 08 Feb 2012, 20:15 13

3. Sackboy117 (Posts: 178; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)

No quad core is a shame, yet this thing will probably have massive sales just because its an iPad. :O

posted on 08 Feb 2012, 22:05 5

12. Joshing4fun (Posts: 1237; Member since: 13 Aug 2010)

As it should. Quad core would be merely a gimmick to apple as the iPad runs perfectly with a dual core. And no i'm not an apple fan.

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 14:58 2

46. trumpet116 (Posts: 27; Member since: 17 Nov 2011)

Yeah, but it's almost exactly the same...thicker, actually. Anyone who replaces their iPad 2 would be a ridiculous fanboy.

posted on 08 Feb 2012, 22:05 5

13. E.N. (Posts: 2610; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)

I'm sure it'll be plenty fast. Don't forget the iPhone 4s is only clocked at 1ghz and it's faster than some of those 1.5ghz phones.

posted on 08 Feb 2012, 22:20 12

15. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5713; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)

the 4S is clocked at 800MHz and the only reason it's a little snappier than the cream of the crop running Android is because iOS is more simple and is more efficient resourcefully albeit less resourceful than what you get from Android being a true multitasking and extremely customizable platform.

posted on 08 Feb 2012, 22:24 8

18. remixfa (Posts: 14605; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

darn it KK, you beat me to it.

fine.. uhhh. what he said!! lol

posted on 08 Feb 2012, 22:40 4

23. E.N. (Posts: 2610; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)

The more simple argument in regards to speed only recently sprung about when the 4S released and beat all the current Android devices at the time. And so to make you guys feel better you guys rationalized (like you're all so good at doing) and used "oh it's because iOS is so simple" as an excuse

If you remove all widgets and do a browser test, you'd get the same results. Unless you're downloading news feeds or weather information, then the results should be the same.

And look online. In most videos they clear everything like cookies and cache and even running applications on both devices making things like "true multitasking" irrelevant

posted on 08 Feb 2012, 22:56 8

24. bossmt_2 (Posts: 457; Member since: 13 Oct 2009)

Well here's my question about your tests, are you using the same browser? Cause if you're using different Browsers it could create unfair advantages in terms of what it chooses to load. For example, if a website has a flash ad, it won't load on safari but it will on stock Android. And of course doing it over WiFi.

GNex has an advantage over iPhone 5 in benchmark and it's faster in some tests done.

The reason i4s beat Android was because of it's superior Browser software, now that ICS brings a much better software, it beats the iPhone.

And for people saying Quad-Core isn't important or whatever, you must not like Multi-tasking because that's what improves with a higher multi-core.

posted on 08 Feb 2012, 23:40 2

28. E.N. (Posts: 2610; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)

Well the browsers are not the same, but that's usually the tool that's used most often to compare. I didn't come up with it, but that's what has been used for years, although I agree with you. When people say X phone is faster than Y, its usually based on the browsing speed.

And aside from browser speeds, I'm seeing minimal difference in the huge increases in processor. The samsung galaxy ii is not that much better than the Droid X lag wise, and this is coming from personal experience/use. With a 1.5 ghz dual core processor, I expected perfection, but that's definitely not what I got.

I also don't think Quad-core is a gimmick. But with that said, I don't think its that big of a deal. Dual cores is a nice speed upgrade, but it isn't crazy good.

In the end, I still stand by what I said. "I'm sure it'll be plenty fast." I don't think there's much to pick at that statement. After owning the SII for a while, these specs really mean nothing to me. Buy the device you want and evaluate it yourself. If it's not fast enough/smooth enough, then return it.

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 00:06 3

32. bossmt_2 (Posts: 457; Member since: 13 Oct 2009)

That's largely because of the fact that they're running on the same OS, if you have an Android 2.3 on 2 devices even with better specs the different won't be giant all the time.

But the difference between Quad Core and Dual Core is in the complexities of what they can handle. They will handle a single task at whatever the processor speed is but start adding more tasks the more cores equal a better result,

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 00:22 6

35. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5713; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)

wow..nobody is ever going to take you seriously ever now that you've said the Galaxy S II isn't better than a Droid X lag-wise. xD

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 20:31

51. E.N. (Posts: 2610; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)

I didn't say it wasn't better. I said it isn't that much better (you see the difference now? Don't put words in my mouth). Saying it isn't better at all would be a lie. I'm clearly acknowledging there was a difference, just not to the level anticipated.

As for the processors, I'm confident that Exynos out-performs the Snapdragon. But with that said, most of the reviews online of the Skyrocket don't have too many negative things to say about the Snapdragon/Skyrocket. Before I bought the phone, I read many reviews and most all of them had good things to say. You can't say that the Skyrocket doesn't "count" because at the end of the day, Samsung released it and its one of AT&Ts flagship devices, so it "counts" very much.

Somehow, I feel like we keep getting away form the point. The iPad 3 will be plenty fast. Simple. iPhone 4S is fast. Even the iPhone 4 is still pretty fast. I can't say this for sure because the device hasn't been released yet, but I think iPad 3 users will be pleased with their speed. My whole entire point, before we got into all this iOS vs Android and Snapdragon vs Exynos, is pay little (but some) attention to all the specific specs and buy the device you want to check it out yourselves.

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 21:05 2

53. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5713; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)

cool story bro but you're still wrong, the Galaxy S II Exynos variants are leagues ahead of the Droid X in speed and power. xD

i would never recommend a Skyrocket to anyone. if you bought a Skyrocket it was a stupid mistake and I have no sympathy for you. I just explained to you if you're going to go Android and go for a 4S level of smoothness you have to learn these things. the original Galaxy S II is the best buy on AT&T the processor performance more than makes up for the lack of LTE especially with AT&T's pathetic roll out of the network.

yes, I agree it will be quite ridiculously fast but that's not enough to impress me with an Apple device as they're generally fast due to their simple OS.

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 22:28

54. E.N. (Posts: 2610; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)

lol, why would I want your sympathy? The skyrocket wasn't the stupid mistake, it was buying an Android device. If it makes you feel better, processor speed wasn't the only thing I was unimpressed by.

Wow, you wouldn't want to buy iOS device, surprise surprise. I wasn't posting for you. It was for those who were using quad processors as a deciding factor for the iPad. iOS is more simple? Maybe. Is iOS better? I think so.

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 23:15 2

55. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5713; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)

believe what you want to but you would've been so much better off with a Galaxy S II. trust me, i know.

i'm sure whatever kind of processor the new iPad uses will be impressive but as long as it's powering the same ol' iOS it kind of puts a damp rag on all the excitement for it, at least for me. give us a new iOS that actually puts the power to better use and then they'll be cooking with grease.

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 08:18 5

38. remixfa (Posts: 14605; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

im going to stop you right there.

if you used a "galaxyS2 @ 1.5ghz stock clock", then it wasnt a galaxyS2. It was a hercules/skyrocket, which uses a crapdragon chip. The only true galaxyS2 uses a 1.2ghz EXYNOS chip, which is much faster and stronger than the crapdragon @1.5ghz and the 1.0ghz OMAP thats in the droidX.

Dont say you have compared,when you were using the wrong phone. :)

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 15:34

47. E.N. (Posts: 2610; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)

I'm not using the wrong phone. I used the Galaxy SII skyrocket. It's still a SII device. Just because it's not the phone you would have liked me to use doesn't mean it's wrong.

And you just prove my point even more. Numbers don't matter. The skyrocket at 1.5 ghz is not that much more fluid than a 1.0 ghz droid X and a 1.2 ghz Galaxy SII is, according to you, much better than a 1.5 ghz SII Skyrocket.

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 17:39 2

48. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5713; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)

the Skyrocket doesn't count, it uses a trash Crapdragon. the S3 is leagues behind the A5. smarter Android enthusiests know this. that's like comparing an iPhone 4 to an Exynos powered Galaxy S II and I assure you an Exynos powered SII is quite noticeably smoother than an S3 powered one. the iPhone uses a better SoC than most phones period. it can be lower clocked however because iOS doesn't require it to be clocked higher. on Android it does, even for phones with comparable SoCs. I commend Apple for their hardware even though most of the credit goes to Samsung. it doesn't even matter though because it's the smarter Android users that truly prosper over iOS users because we have Droid Razrs, Galaxy S IIs and Galaxy Nexuses and their hardware compensates for lag typical from Android devices.

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 00:20 2

34. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5713; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)

of course i welcome quad-cores however give me the choice between an A9 quad-core and an A15 dual-core I'd choose the ladder.

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 03:10

36. yingcong6 (Posts: 22; Member since: 09 Feb 2012)

when you complain iphone's speed is due to the simple IOS, Can you image if these dual-core Android phones all run at 800MHZ speed? I could tell you Iphone 4s will way faster than them. It's not a fair comparison at the beginning when you using a 800MHZ cores compare d to 1.x GHZ cores. And one thing it seems you forget is that iphone 4s is only 512 ram when many of them is 1G ram. Apple is searching for technology integration, while these Android phones get more power to accommodate this laggy android system.

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 13:28 1

44. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5713; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)

so what's your point? nobody is saying the 4S is slow.

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 18:03

49. yingcong6 (Posts: 22; Member since: 09 Feb 2012)

What's my point? My saying just refers to the post #24. That's my point. However, I can no longer see the post #24 here. is it deleted by the poster? who knows.

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 00:14 2

33. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5713; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)

I don't know where you've been but us Fandroids have been saying iOS is simple all along. you'd be a fool to not realize that iOS is a generally smoother platform but it doesn't really matter considering what you're getting in return from Android especially when it's running on hardware that almost completely compensates for being a more resource hungry platform.

iOS prioritizes smoothness whereas Android does true multitasking in exchange. there's a good article about it all on this very site.

I found it pretty useful the other day actually. xD
i have the all six Scott Pilgrim book apps loaded on my SD Card (if anyone wants them I'd be glad to give them to you, great apps.) and when you first launch them you have to do updates that take like 10-15 minutes so do I have to keep the app open and stare at a progress bar in that time? no, I have Android so I did other things while that was going on. :P

posted on 08 Feb 2012, 23:45 1

31. chadrick0814 (unregistered)

it crashes more than those phones also.

posted on 08 Feb 2012, 20:25 1

4. protozeloz (Posts: 5396; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)

Glad they making it a bit tick so people can stop this "thin" war. .. seriously you call my slate fat because it's 1m thicker I think you are dumb. Glad to see some are thinking into adding more battery. Good for everyone but this also reveals that Apple wont use a new battery technology as rumors said .

Now about quad core. ... I thought it was going to be like that. They can't control the dual core on the 4S so what are the odds a new 4 core will do better? If the iPad 3 is dual core it backs up my statement that is the dual core the one responsible for the battery life and makes less likely to have an iPhone 6 with quad core

LTE could be the reason for them beef the battery even more.... but again we have WiFi ones don't we?

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories