Credit: Tom's Guide
Posted on 11/05/2018 7:27:11 PM PST by Swordmaker
When Apple introduced the new iPad Pro, the company boasted that its slim slate is more powerful than 92 percent of PCs out there. Now that we've benchmarked the 12.9-inch iPad Pro for our review over at Laptop Mag, it looks like that claim could very well be legit.
The 7-nanometer A12X Bionic chip processor inside the iPad Pro packs four performance cores and four high-efficiency cores, and there's a new GPU that promises twice the graphics performance as the A10X processor inside the last iPad Pro.
And the benchmark results are quite impressive.
On Geekbench 4, which measures overall performance, the iPad Pro notched a score of 17,995. That blows past the Surface Pro 6 with a Core i5 CPU and even the Core i7 version of the Dell XPS 13.
Samsung's Qualcomm Snapdragon 850-powered Galaxy Book 2 (3,945) doesn't even come close to Intel-based PCs, nevermind the iPad Pro. The 13-inch MacBook Pro with a Core i7 chip was just slightly below the iPad Pro at 17,348.
To test the A12X Bionic's real-world power, we turned to Adobe Rush, a video editing app. We took a 12-minute 4K video and transcoded it to 1080p at 24 frames per second. And once again the iPad Pro blew away the field.
Apple's tablet took just 7 minutes and 47 seconds to complete our task. It took the 13-inch MacBook Pro 25 minutes and 53 seconds, and the Dell XPS 13 (31:03) and Surface Pro 6 (31:54) both took over half an hour.
We then turned to Adobe Lightroom to see how long it would take to export 50 RAW images to the JPEG format, and the iPad Pro once again outperformed the competition--though not by as large a margin.
The iPad Pro took 59 seconds to complete the batch export, while the Surface Pro 6 (1:35) and 13-inch MacBook Pro (1:36) were about 30 seconds behind. Strangely, the Core i7 XPS 13 took 2:01 on this test.
If you're wondering how efficient the A12X Bionic processor is, you'll probably be glad to know that the new iPad Pro offers pretty great battery life. On the Laptop Mag Battery Test, which involves web surfing at 150 nits of screen brightness, Apple's tablet lasted for 13 hours and 41 minutes.
The Surface Pro 6 lasted about 4 hours less at 9:20 and the Dell XPS 13 with Core i7 and 4K display mustered 8:53. The Qualcomm-powered Galaxy Book 2 came closest to the iPad with 10:41.
The new iPad Pro's sheer speed is undeniable. In fact, if I were Apple, I would be finding ways to bring this chip over to the Mac. But keep in mind that performance is just one consideration when deciding between the iPad Pro and a more traditional PC.
If you prefer a desktop interface, the Surface Pro 6 is the better choice, and it also offers a better keyboard with touchpad and built-in kickstand. But if you can see yourself working within iOS, the iPad Pro should make quick work of whatever you need to do.
Are we starting to resemble the two old men who were always fighting about checkers on the Andy Griffith show? ; )
Both the review you posted from Tom's and its first link which went to the review by the same author at Laptop Mag were less review than promotional hype. eg. "The new iPad Pro's sheer speed is undeniable. In fact, if I were Apple, I would be finding ways to bring this chip over to the Mac." That and many other statements in the "review" are hype not review. When I tried to point out the red flags that indicated this you showered me with insults and pretended that you thought that I didn't see the charts you have so generously shared multiple times.
I enjoy reading through promotional material as much as the next person. I loved the DAK catalogs from Drew Alan Kaplan in the 1980s. He was a great writer and promoter. At least back then you knew when someone was trying to sell you something and the material was not disguised as some sort of comparison review.
At one time Tom's was a trusted source. These days almost all of the review sites and magazines are just thinly veiled promotional hype. I read every review of every product with a healthy dose of skepticism, not just Apple products.
As far as Spoonauer being an Android fan... it wouldn't surprise me, but it is much more likely that the publication has some undisclosed relationship to Google as well. The tentacles of all the huge tech companies have incredible reach. It is hard if not impossible for me to believe that even being the lead fanboy here that you do not seem to realize this.
I understand wanting a powerful device for content creation, or certain types of highly realistic computer games or simulations. When I am working on a complex model to print on our 3-D printer, editing high definition video of one of my wife's historical presentations, or even doing work in photoshop... I appreciate quick processing times. But 99% of the people that I know who spend a lot of money on incredibly expensive electronic devices don't actually use them for content creation or even demanding gaming apps.
I assume these people are victims of marketing hype of the type that you like to post that is along the same line as the hype that convinces people to buy an expensive new car. I own two airplanes and two large houses but would never consider purchasing even a moderately priced new car. They are a complete waste of money. I might buy a 3 year old luxury car that has already depreciated 50% but the newest vehicle we currently own is 10 years old. So why do people who are not content creators or addicted to highly realistic video games buy super expensive devices that after 3 years are not much quicker than cheap current devices, and then ridicule others who don't do the same. But who are the actual fools?
What part of iPad Pro (meaning "professional") in this article did you fail to grasp? There are iPads with Retina displays in the line-up from Apple from $329. . . all of them faster than the latest Android tablets. They also can be used for content creation but are not so well designed for that purpose as the pro models.
My three year old iPad Pro is still much faster than standard iPads and offers more features. Again, you don’t know what you are talking about because YOU don’t use the products you are criticizing.
You are really spouting all this criticism because it doesn’t meet your narrow use requirements.
No, in this instance my criticism has very little to do with the devices themselves. They often are technical achievements that you and I can appreciate for their own sake because of our long time interest in electronic devices. My criticism is directed at advertising hype disguised as “reviews” that encourage people to make poor decisions with their money.
This hype is so imbedded in your consciousness that you spout it out, I assume without even realizing it. E.g. "There are iPads with Retina displays in the line-up from Apple from $329. . . all of them faster than the latest Android tablets." Why is it that you feel this comparison is important in devices that are meant mostly for "content consumption? i.e. My new television is faster than your television. Who cares? My wife and I are using Amazon Fire HD devices which we paid only $49 for the same basic purpose. How much more satisfying is it to watch the news, read a book, or check your emails on a super fast Apple tablet?
I understand that you are a computer and electronic device connoisseur because I have "suffered" from a similar affliction for most of my life. And it is lots of fun hurling insults back and forth, not unlike the two old men playing checkers in front of Floyd's barber shop on the Andy Griffith Show. But lets be realistic here for just a moment. Super fast tablets with 13" screens are still going to be used 99% of the time for content consumption not content creation something that all that extra power is not really going to be used. They are not unlike fancy sports cars without the appeal to young women, or expensive paintings without the potential for capital appreciation.
I have a large collection of vintage electronic devices that date back to the 1970s. I have reached a point in my life where I have to start disposing of these devices and many of my actual assets. I guess a few of the devices are a little interesting to others, but at this point few have any market value at all. I can only be thankful for the good use that I got out of some of them. And I suppose that I helped the economy in some small way by purchasing products that helped fund further technological advancement. But the experiences and enjoyment with the devices feel a bit hollow at this point compared to the true adventures that I have had in my life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.