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.
Fireman15, you are still dancing, comparing a FULL FEATURED $2500 laptop with a $1000 tablet. . . and saying Apple is copying the functions and speed of the laptop in its tablet. . . and the tablet exceeds the power of that laptop!
Do you realize how foolish you're being?
Even laptop magazine's negatives they used to downgrade the iPad Pro to just 4.5 stars which you said was "not stellar" were about optional or exchangeable ACCESSORIES, not the device itself. i.e. "no touch pad." on a device which is one big touch pad, being inherently a touchscreen device as the primary input. They complained an optional "Keyboard is not as good as Microsoft Surface Keyboard," an impermissible comparison in a review, especially when one can buy a third-party LogiTech keyboard that has essentially the same touch and response as MS's keyboard (which is a necessity on the Surface to use it at all). . . and "power cable is too short" on a device that is never intended to be used tethered to a power brick, has a far longer battery life than any of the competition, and for which one can buy 10 foot power cables for under $10 if one needs such a thing! Absurd complaints.
I did that too. . . but I was looking at the most recent tests. . . and all of those fast ones you found are running LINUX, fireman15. You implied there were a lot of them.
"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."
There's only ONE, at 18,060, exceeded the consistent test speed of the iPad Pro's 17,995. . . all the rest are slower, yet YOU claimed "scores all the way past 18,000. . . " but ONE score slightly above the iPad's score does not fulfill the promise of your claim. The review already established the i7 score were close, which the vast majority listed on your link demonstrate.
You wrote that implying "way past" to other FR readers 18,000 and plural. . . i.e. implying lots of results exceeding 18,000.
Out of seventy-six pages (~1,900) Geekbench 4 test results, fireman15, there is exactly ONE (1), SINGLE Dell XPS 13 9370 i7 that is 1/100% faster than the iPad Pro — a device which cost 1/3rd the price of the tested XPS and required no tweaking. . . and even then the XPS is not running Windows10 64 bit, but LINUX 64 bit. The first Windows PC version could only turn in a pathetic 16,167 due to Microsoft's system overhead.
You made claims about certain models not being tested or shown in the charts, but they were published and are in the chart in Tom's Guide:
You dissemble like that, misrepresenting the facts, and then have the gall to attack me as a scalawag. ROTFLMAO!
ROTFLMAO!
fireman15, the chart is not meaningless and did indeed come from the link you provided. You just didn't follow the imbedded link in the text on that page to the Dell XPS review page WITH the chart they and I provided (hint: not every chart is exposed on the review page, some are in slide shows accessed by dots, and cannot be linked to).
I don't need to do your research for you. . . but I've provided all the charts with the data you should need in the two articles on this thread, one from Tom's Guide and the other from Laptop magazine. There are links in each of them which provide more data which is quite enlightening, should you understand it.
I am very happy with the last two laptops that we purchased as well which cost around half as much and have many features that surpass the iPod Pro. But they are full featured full sized 17” touch screen laptops so it is not a meaningful comparison. For highly portable devices my wife and I use our little 8” Fire HDs which we got on sale on “black Friday” for $45 a piece last year. This is less than the sales tax on your new iPad Pro.
As for your refusal to provide the link to the following graphic that you provided whose source that you refuse to provide a link to...
There is not an iPad Pro listed... it certainly did not come from any link that you or I provided to Laptop Mag's review of the iPod Pro. I think that you should consider adding a few more carbs to your high protein diet; it appears that your blood sugar is not staying up in the range needed for rational thought.
But that is neither here nor there. Thank you for the thread and for the lively discussion. I am very glad you are still around and doing well. It is always a pleasure to have an argument about something other than politics around here and once again you have not failed to satisfy. Until next time...
Yeah I knew that just didn't type Pro. I built out an iMac last night, I don't need one for what I do but it lets me be current. I think it priced out at $1,799.00 and that will likely outlast me. I have been using Apple products since before the 80 column card.
I built out a iMac MacMini last night, I screwed that up too.
You are truly delusional. I told exactly where to find that graphic. . . it's from Laptop Magazine's review of the Dell XPS 13 (2018) i7 which is LINKED from the link you provided and, as I pointed out, the bar data you complain is missing, the iPad Pro (2018) compared to this very same Dell XPS 13 (2018) i7 (which YOU erroneously claim was not even tested) is displayed in the very FIRST CHART in the original article which started this thread!
I repost for the THIRD TIME that chart FROM THE iPAD PRO REVIEW you say does not exist, hoping to break through your willful blindness, this time with annotation and arrows showing what you say you could not find or see, including the Samsung Book 2 you ALSO claimed was untested, which it has been. I quote from the chart itself which includes both the Dell XPS 13 i7 (2018) and the Samsung Galaxy Book 2, "Test performance using Geekbench 4 multi-core benchmark. More is better.":
I posted the original testing because YOU claimed they'd never been tested, when that was BLATANTLY FALSE. Here it is again, annotated with ARROWS showing you the results you claim are WORTHLESS and untested showing you don't know what you are talking about. Did you sleep through the relevant classes that showed you how to read a chart? Do you see the LINK in the text in the image above that says "core i7 version of the "Dell XPS 13"? That is the link to the Laptop Magazine review of the Dell XPS 13 (2018) and has the chart link you claim I did not provide. It's been available to you from the very beginning. . . and I told you how to find it. . .but you were too lazy to go look, or did not grasp that Geekbench 4 report A which matches Geekbench 4 report B which matches Geekbench 4 report C are dispositive that all are reporting the same results and it gets to the point that testing again is not necessary.
You have been hoist on your own petard, multiple times in this thread. . . but you don't seem to know it.
I am very happy with the last two laptops that we purchased as well which cost around half as much and have many features that surpass the iPod Pro. But they are full featured full sized 17” touch screen laptops so it is not a meaningful comparison. For highly portable devices my wife and I use our little 8” Fire HDs which we got on sale on “black Friday” for $45 a piece last year. This is less than the sales tax on your new iPad Pro.
I know you don't use Apple products but here you are vehemently criticizing something YOU don't have a clue about from a complete state of ignorance. . . and tossing around ad hominem insults when your arguments have little basis in fact and you are called on that. The anti-Apple delusion is strong in you.
I am happy you are happy with your choices. Let us be happy with ours. . . and go read some other thread.
I waited for today to see if my Apple store would have stock of what I wanted. Yes! I’m so excited! They’ve pulled 12.9” iPad Pro, silver, 512GB, Apple Pencil, the keyboard and I tossed in Apple Care. I decided to pick them up tomorrow so it won’t be quite as busy. I am pumped! Been waiting a long time to upgrade my iPad. ;)))))
For someone so knowledgeable you seem extremely dense. I thought that it was an act, but now I am not so sure.
I copied and pasted (never tested) from the first table that shows up in the Laptop Mag “review” linked in the article you posted. It demonstrated that of the three devices did not all receive the same tests, not they were not tested at all. This indicated that this was not an actual comparison review. The “reviewers” did not even bother to get all three devices for a side by side comparison. They relied on “reviews” from third parties.
I fully expect you to twist my words, mischaracterize, or just out and out lie again about what I wrote because this is a theme in your modus operandi. But of course it doesn’t make a bit of difference. This entire discussion was just a distraction from the important events that took place yesterday. If you are unable to recognize the insignificance of this thread then you really do need to add some carbs to your diet because you are not firing on all cylinders.
All three of those devices, the iPad Pro, the Dell XPS 13 9370. and the Samsung Galaxy Book 2 have undergone Geekbench 4 testing. . . whether or not YOU can find the relevant testing for each device or not.
I linked you to the charts showing you those results. Geekbench is a standard test designed for comparisons across platforms and does NOT require repetitive, side-by-side testing each time a reviewer writes a review of another device. THEY DO NOT CHANGE BETWEEN TESTS OR REVIEWS! They are considered reliable across tests, reviews, and reporters, especially with such organizations with reputations such as Tom's Guide and Laptop Magazine.
You are the thread troll here, fireman15, making a mountain out of some insignificant molehill that you've concocted in your own mind, creating a need for reviewers to duplicate and replicate again already existing tests of every device they compare or mention in the review of a new item. That is why you are delusional.
It is not a proper comparison or review if the one’s writing it do not physically handle the devices. It is exactly the same as reading a comparison review of various automobiles based on their specs and not hands on driving. I am not saying even that does not happen, but it would not be wise to base a purchase decision based on this type of comparison.
And as you are well aware the various “bench testing” programs can come up with different results even on the same device. The overall scores given by Laptop Mag are not based exclusively on a device’s benchmark scores; the results of the various other tests and measures are important... in some cases more important than the benchmarks.
I don’t believe for a second that you need this type of schooling. I mention this because your insult filled posts seem carefully written with the intent to deceive others. You are obviously not trying to win an argument with me because we have had similar conversations in the past and you are well aware of my experience level. I assume that you are grandstanding for others that you assume are following this thread who you believe do not understand the difference between real reviews and the marketing hype that you so often like to call attention to here.
SIGH. . . YOU are the one who does not grasp standardized testing software, fireman15. The ONLY thing the reviewer was referencing in these reviews about these other products were there validated tests, not subjective opinions until the reviewer made his opinion known. CHARTS are about tested scientific measurements that can be replicated and once measured, do not need to be done again.
These measurements by organizations such as Tom's Guide and Laptop Magazine are done on equipment that is LOANED to them for short periods of time so they can test and review them, not keep them forever to continually and repeatedly test them against other devices that may be reviewed later that year. They have to return them in about two to three weeks from when they get them. The testing is done, the review is written, and they are sent back.
I know this because many years ago I was publisher and editor of a monthly tech magazine. . . and GOT hardware loaned to my journal from manufacturers wanting a review done. We were NEVER allowed to keep it. If we did, then that smacked of payola, an impermissible practice in journalism. We did the tests and wrote the reviews and shipped it back. IF we liked a product enough to want to keep it, we had to BUY it, paying retail list, eschewing even getting a discount.
If later we referred to it again, we used the ALREADY DONE TESTS on file as we could not request the maker to send another review unit. They would not, especially if it was to use in the review of another maker's product.
YOU really do not know anything about what you have been blithering about and the one needing schooling is YOU, not me.
I am not sure why I feel compelled to continue this, but I do appreciate your moderated tone this morning. The test that was missing for the Galaxy Book 2 in the very first graphic in the very first link in the article you posted was the Battery Life test. This is arguably one of the most important aspects of any portable device. So no, I was not referring to a “subjective" test. The link went to another article written by the same person.
From the first sentence, Mark Spoonauer wrote this piece in a somewhat misleading way. I was a fan of the original Tom's Hardware website and magazine that Thomas Pabst started in the mid 1990s. I enjoy some of their current forums, etc even these days. But after who knows how many mergers and acquisitions the site's integrity appears to be a far cry from what it once.
It would have been less misleading if Mark Spoonauer, Editor in Chief instead of writing “Now that we've benchmarked the 12.9-inch iPad Pro for our review over at Laptop Mag”, he would have written, Now that I've benchmarked the iPad Pro for my review over at Laptop Mag.
It is always amusing to me and a red flag when authors reference their own work and refer to it like it was written by some other group. And then his initial review was of course less complete than his second review. The apparent reason for this goofy link and entire exercise was to add some sort of false legitimacy to a puff piece designed to increase excitement for the iPad Pro not fairly review it.
We were NEVER allowed to keep it. If we did, then that smacked of payola, an impermissible practice in journalism.
I am glad that in your day as a "journalist" you tried to maintain some form of integrity. The “review” this thread was based on was entertaining reading but it has red flags from the first sentence that suggest to me that there is some sort of illegitimate relationship between Apple and Mark Spoonauer or his employer the Purch Group, an international online marketer.
“there is some sort of illegitimate relationship between Apple and Mark Spoonauer or his employer the Purch Group, an international online marketer.”
Should have said undisclosed not illegitimate.
Thanks, I appreciate knowing that!
See ya’,
Ed
Thanks, I appreciate knowing that!
See ya’,
Ed
https://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/laptops/new-ipad-pro-2018-129-inch
I noticed Amazon’s Fire tablet wasn’t on the list... what gives? /s
Original article BATTERY LIFE CHART:
It was tested. . . Just because YOU did not find it and the test was not repeated for the umpteenth time for this particular review does NOT invalidate all previous testing of the same thing under similar test conditions.
It would have been less misleading if Mark Spoonauer, Editor in Chief instead of writing “Now that we've benchmarked the 12.9-inch iPad Pro for our review over at Laptop Mag”, he would have written, Now that I've benchmarked the iPad Pro for my review over at Laptop Mag.
This is a conceit all editors-in-chief and publishers and many reviewers adopt. It is called the editorial plural, in which the reviewer is speaking for the organization with the permission of the organization. It means they write with the official imprimatur and reputation of the organization. It therefore becomes the official opinion of that organization. There is nothing underhanded about it.
I am glad that in your day as a "journalist" you tried to maintain some form of integrity. The “review” this thread was based on was entertaining reading but it has red flags from the first sentence that suggest to me that there is some sort of illegitimate relationship between Apple and Mark Spoonauer or his employer the Purch Group, an international online marketer.
No, fireman15, you are reading your own negative bias toward Apple products into the review that are not there. You expect the author to be biased toward Apple so you weight every positive comment as nefariously biased . . . so you find you find exactly what you want to find and chalk it up to the author being biased toward Apple products. He’s not. Spoonauer is an Android fan.
Could it be due to really embarrassing Geekbench 4 score results?
Yup, could be. It’s 9.4% as fast as the iPad Pro (2018). . . and about 25% the speed of a standard iPad (2017). ROTFLMAO!
That’s the tablet fireman15 has.
That’s the tablet fireman15 has.
You guys crack me up. I have other more pricey tablets, but the two 8” Fire HDs cost $49 on sale, have great battery life, work fine for looking at websites, checking emails, reading books and magazines, watching video, and playing games. Often it is nice to have something along that didn’t cost an arm and a leg. So they actually get used a lot.
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.