New iPad Pro Benchmarked: This Blows Away Windows PCs (laptops)

Tom's List ^ | November 5, 2018 | By Mark Spoonauer

[Moltke]

After the first few dozens overheat and burst into flames Apple will throttle the performance like they usually do a few months after the launch... ;)

[grwcfl537]

I routinely VPN my iPad (last generation) into my MacBook Air and Mac mini over my home network. Picture quality is great but haven’t been able to get audio.

[itsahoot]

So the specifics of the benchmark tests matter.

I will tell you what matters, the OS and that is all that matters to most Mac users, figure it out. We get screwed over all the time and we don't love Apple for it like you guys imply. $5000.00 for a base level iMac? Get real. I can buy a used PC for a couple hundred, why don't I?

[TheBattman]

You haven’t used a more recent iOS device, have you?

[AustinBill]

Two answers: First Apple has long experience with emulation and just like Rosetta enabled legacy PPC apps to run on x86 Macs I'm sure a similar such tool will be available to ease migration to Apple's own chips when the time comes.

But second, Microsoft has had Arm versions of Windows in house for a long time. They just never had a reason to release and support them. If Apple provides a mass-market Arm-based platform I've no doubt Microsoft and everyone else will make versions of their products available that run natively on them as well. At the recent iPad Pro announcements, Adobe, for example, announced that the full Photoshop will be available for it.

The bottom line is few users really care about computer instruction sets these days. That's just not a relevant decision point any longer.

[Swordmaker]

Apple's statement intentionally does not specify what they are talking about. Obviously they are not talking about high performance computers or even laptops that have current generation high performance processors - not the portable versions. Even older generation performance Core i7 based computers blow the new iPad Pro out of the water. Tom's Guide and Laptop magazine obviously understood this which is why they compared the iPad Pro only with computers with a similar form factor. So Swordmaker you don't get a banana either.

What a load of false assumptions and assertions that you can't possibly know the truth or facts to be true.

• False assumption: "The i7 version they “tested” that got a score of 14,180 most likely had last year's portable i7 installed." Dell upgrades processors as Intel releases them. You pulled that assumption out of your rear.
• False assertion: "They listed the Samsung Galaxy Book 2 (Not tested)." Totally FALSE! Look at the fourth for on this chart:
  
  

I submit, fireman15, you don't know at all what you are talking about and you are making a fool of yourself by making false "factual" assertions and grasping at made up straws.

[Swordmaker]

Elsewhere some say there is no ability to add external storage. While you can connect to external drives or thumb drives - nothing happens. True? False?

False. But iPads are PORTABLE devices, they are not intended for multiple dongle and cable connections, so external storage is over WIFI or cellular connection in most instances, but you can also use hardwired if you need to. Drives connected to a WIFI router can be external storage or alternately you can access everything on your Mac. . . and save work there or on the cloud.

[Swordmaker]

Still no specifics on processor speed, memory clock speed, transfer rate for long time storage, and how many cores it has for multi-tasking. You know. The stuff that matters if you want to call it a technical review.

There are eight cores in the new A12X Bionic chip with 64-bit architecture: four high-speed cores and four low-power cores, plus a Neural-net engine which can perform 5 trillion calculations per second, and an Embedded M12 graphics coprocessor.

[Yaelle]

I may be in a common law marriage with my iPad Pro. Try and take it away from me and see.

[fireman15]

False assertion: “They listed the Samsung Galaxy Book 2 (Not tested).” Totally FALSE! Look at the fourth for on this chart:

That is from the first graphic in the review being referred to in Laptop magazine that the Tom's article is about. The iPad Pro got 4.5 stars in the review by the way... not exactly stellar.

https://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/laptops/new-ipad-pro-2018-129-inch

False assumption: “The i7 version they “tested” that got a score of 14,180 most likely had last year's portable i7 installed.

As I said, “The Dell XPS 13 with a current generation portable Core i5 tests out at 13747 on Geek Bench 4.” That is a difference of 433 or 3%. Most people are aware that typically there is a much larger difference between same generation Core i5 and Core i7 processors. So it is a fairly safe assumption that the I

The other devices being compared to the iPad Pro in the review being referred to were not subjected to all of the same tests. Graphic 4 in the review from Laptop Magazine shows that they had not yet tested the Dell XPS 13 using Geekbench 4. I am always suspicious of reviews comparing devices where the reviewers can't be bothered to test all of the devices in the same way. It is pathetic to make comparisons between just three devices and not subject all of them to the same tests. My conclusion is that the reviewers are using the results from other sources and not doing any hands on reviews.

I said that the iPad Pro was a "an impressive achievement for Apple." But this "review" was a thinly veiled marketing ploy... and nothing but pathetic to anyone who looked it and the source material with a critical eye. So sorry Swordmaker, "no banana".

[Swordmaker]

I will tell you what matters, the OS and that is all that matters to most Mac users, figure it out. We get screwed over all the time and we don't love Apple for it like you guys imply. $5000.00 for a base level iMac? Get real. I can buy a used PC for a couple hundred, why don't I?

You aren't talking about a "base model iMac", itsahoot.

That $5000 price is for the workstation class iMac Pro which comes with a 27-inch Retina 5K 5120-by-2880 P3 display, the latest 3.2GHz 8-core Intel Xeon W processor (that by itself sells for around $2300!), 32GB 2666MHz ECC memory, and a 1 TB HIGH-SPEED SSD which you might find on NewEgg for $999. . . not a base model iMac which starts as low as $1099 for a 21.5" 1920-by-1080 sRGB display with a 2.3GHz dual-core 7th-generation Intel Core i5 processor, 8GB, and a 1TB HD drive, or $1299 with a Retina 4K 4096-by-2304 P3 display with a 3.0GHz quad-core 7th-generation Intel Core i5 processor, 8gb, and a 1TB HD drive,

[Swordmaker]

That white device plugged in on the side must be putting quite a strain on the connection port. I bet it will be a cause for many repairs. Also why is that cable so short that the white device hangs like that?

Why? it weighs a couple of grams, less than a long cable. It is an adapter that adds two USB-A ports to the USB-C port.

[Swordmaker]

Graphic 4 in the review from Laptop Magazine shows that they had not yet tested the Dell XPS 13 using Geekbench 4.

Laptop Magazine ALWAYS does a Geekbench 4 test in their reviews and they did for this Dell XPS 13 (2018) review as well. You just didn't find it. How do you think they found the 14,180 score?

The iPad Pro got 4.5 stars in the review by the way... not exactly stellar.

4.5 stars is very high, fireman15. The only better rating is five full stars, which requires NO NEGATIVES in the review. You don't find perfect five star reviews. You're really stretching denigrating a 4.5 star rating.

[fireman15]

You just didn't find it.

Maybe you could go ahead and provide us all with the URL of the graphic that you just linked to... Because strangely missing in it is the Apple iPad Pro. Lets see what does this indicate? Oh yeah, that it wasn't part of the review of the Apple iPad Pro that we have been discussing! You are such a shameless scallywag.

[fireman15]

How do you think they found the 14,180 score?

Maybe you can tell us, because if you go to the Geekbench website a current Dell XPS 13, the 9370 model with the current Core i7 has scores all the way past 18,000 which is marginally faster than the numbers claimed in the Laptop Magazine review that we supposedly have been discussing.

I have repeated in every post that the new iPad Pro is an impressive achievement for Apple. I object only to your attempts to use a somewhat misleading review in misleading ways. Once again Apple has released a device that is impressive but not truly groundbreaking. As we have discussed many times previously this is a pattern for Apple from the first iPhone.

Apple is the most successful marketer in the history of the world. They are not the most innovative company in the history of the world. Typically, others like Dell, or HTC, and even Samsung come up with truly innovative products; Apple copies them and adds some interesting but predictable refinements and calls their evolutionary product a revolutionary product. Then a choir of fanboys and girls start singing the same tune. Time goes on and on but the pattern remains the same.

[fireman15]

You don't find perfect five star reviews.

Gosh should I believe you or my lying eyes? What about the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon? What was the rating from Laptop Mag again... Oh yeah 5 stars!

https://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/laptops/lenovo-thinkpad-x1-carbon

[Swordmaker]

Maybe you could go ahead and provide us all with the URL of the graphic that you just linked to... Because strangely missing in it is the Apple iPad Pro. Lets see what does this indicate? Oh yeah, that it wasn't part of the review of the Apple iPad Pro that we have been discussing! You are such a shameless scallywag.

Are you REALLY THAT DENSE? That graphic came from the review of the Dell XPS 13 (2018) which YOU said they did not do a Geekbench 4 test on. . . YOU provided the link! Both articles referred to it.

These Geekbench 4 numbers are comparable without being on the same chart, fireman15. You can compare the Geekbench 4 test result number for the Dell XPS 13 (2018) with the i7 processor to the Geekbench 4 test result number in the iPad Pro (2018) review. . . the tests are an accepted standard across platforms suitable for comparisons.

• Dell XPS 13 (2018) i7 processor: 14,180
• Apple iPad Pro (2018): 17,995

The iPad is 127% faster than the Dell XPS 13 (2018) with the i7 processor in the Geekbench 4 tasks. It should be noted the Geekbench 4 tested 2018 Dell XPS i7 retailed for $2499 compared to just $999 for the 2018 iPad Pro!

So much for your awkward, foolish dancing trying to denigrate the iPad Pro and me with out any real facts. Keep it up, it's fun shooting down the dancing rabbit.

Incidentally, it is totally impossible for Laptop Magazine to have included the iPad Pro (2018) in the Dell XPS 13 (2018) review or comparison chart, fireman15, became it had had NOT BEEN RELEASED YET when they published the XPS review! Both iPad articles however referred to the XPS i7 Geekbench 4 test score which is sufficient. Do try reading for comprehension.

Instead, you jump on the ad hominem attack bandwagon.

[Swordmaker]

Maybe you can tell us, because if you go to the Geekbench website a current Dell XPS 13, the 9370 model with the current Core i7 has scores all the way past 18,000 which is marginally faster than the numbers claimed in the Laptop Magazine review that we supposedly have been discussing.

Really??? Not that I find. . .

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?q=Dell+XPS+13+9370

Sampled November 6, 2018, 11:00 PM PDT

I searched random pages in 76 pages of Dell XPS 13 i7 and found NOTHING OVER 18,000! That makes your claim bogus!

So where are these high scoring XPS 9370s????

[fireman15]

Really??? Not that I find.

As Bugs Bunny would say, “What a maroon!” You don't have to search “I searched random pages in 76 pages”. You can sort by score. Here is a link:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?dir=desc&q=Dell+XPS+13+9370&sort=multicore_score

[fireman15]

YOU provided the link!

The meaningless graphic you provided did not come from a link that I provided to the review of the iPod Pro... you silly old fanboy. You are losing it. Go through your browsing history and provide the link that I requested if you know how to do that.