Quantcast
New Ipad Pro more Powerful than Xbox One

Forums - Gaming Discussion - New Ipad Pro more Powerful than Xbox One

It cost 1800$. It better be faster than the Xbox one and most laptops too.



Around the Network
Pemalite said:
haxxiy said:

I thought the graphic architectures of Apple and the like were still years of development behind even AMD's stuff, so comparing computing performance would actually be flattering to them and not the opposite.

I mean... Imagination Technologies, man.

AMD's latest graphics architectures are years ahead.
But the Xbox One's GPU is derived from hardware that came out 2012. Keep that in mind as we are about to enter into 2019.

Soundwave said:
That NBA 2K19 demo was running at full Retina resolution which is 5.6 million pixels .... that's more than 2.5x 1080p resolution .... so it was rendering the game at 60 fps at a resolution way beyond an XBox One S. Not quite 4K resolution, but not far off.

I think their claim might be correct, that GPU must have some serious grunt underneath it to be able to pull that off. The CPU totally destroys the XB1S or PS4 CPUs.

If it can run NBA 2K19 at that resoution, I think there's a good chance it can run just about any other XBox One S game at a much lower resolution of 900p-1080p (which is where most XB1S games are rendered at).

More to hardware, graphics and performance than just resolution.

Yes, NBA2K19 is not the most demanding game, but it's not exactly a 2D platformer either. It's a fully 3D game. 

If that iPad is running that game at 60 fps, at 5.6 million pixels (2732x2048 resolution) .... that's waaaaaaaaaaaay past the XBox One's 1080p and Switch at 720p (undocked). 

You're talking double the frame rate and almost 6 freaking times the pixels of the Switch version undocked, 2.5x more pixels than the XBox One S that's plugged into a wall outlet. 

That's impressive. The GeekBench scores on the CPU are freaking beastly too, the CPU destroys the PS4/XB1 and goes toe to toe with Intel i7s, it probably isn't a stretch accounting for all that the GPU is pretty solid. 

I think this chip is easily 3x the Tegra X1 that's in the Switch (it is 3 1/2 years newer tech on a radically smaller 7nm node). If you put this chip into a Switch and let devs code right down to the metal, I think just about every PS4/XB1 game would doable on it, especially at a 720p resolution for undocked. 

It's a shame actually this chip is probably largely wasted on an iPad, Apple won't allow console size game downloads and there's no real business model for $60 physical games on the iPad/iPhone either.



TheBraveGallade said:
The switch is at least three quarters of an xbone at only 30 percent more expensive while being a portable with actual controllers. Try again apple.

In terms of Graphics performance:
Switch = ~393 Gflops (docked)
Xbox One = 1,310 Gflops (this is the non-S version, the weakest Xbox)

Differnce is like 300%+ when docked (x3 performance).

But if your argument is its a tablet thats 3/4ths as powerfull as a Xbox One......  Your wrong, when its in handheld mode its only ~157 Gflops.
Theres a massive differnce between the Switch as a handheld and a xbox one, it doesnt get close to 3/4ths the performance.

Differnce is like 800%+ when handheld (x8 performance).

 

3/4ths of 1310 Gflops = 982 Gflops.
The Switch doesnt do FP32 at that rate or anywhere close to it.

Switch = 393 Gflops (docked) & 157 Gflops (handheld)

Not to mention theres huge differnces in memory bandwidth & memory pool size.
Thats why developers have to make cut backs to get things running on the switch.



Number of days to reach 50M from 40M : 198 days
Number of days to reach 60M from 50M : 187 days
Number of days to reach 70M from 60M : 175 days
Number of days to reach 80M from 70M : 227 days

Necro-bump this 2020: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=229249

JRPGfan said:
TheBraveGallade said:
The switch is at least three quarters of an xbone at only 30 percent more expensive while being a portable with actual controllers. Try again apple.

In terms of Graphics performance:
Switch = ~393 Gflops (docked)
Xbox One = 1,310 Gflops (this is the non-S version, the weakest Xbox)

Differnce is like 300%+ when docked (x3 performance).

But if your argument is its a tablet thats 3/4ths as powerfull as a Xbox One......  Your wrong, when its in handheld mode its only ~157 Gflops.
Theres a massive differnce between the Switch as a handheld and a xbox one, it doesnt get close to 3/4ths the performance.

Differnce is like 800%+ when handheld (x8 performance).

 

3/4ths of 1310 Gflops = 982 Gflops.
The Switch doesnt do FP32 at that rate or anywhere close to it.

The Tegra X1 in Switch? No. 

This Apple A12X? Quite possibly. Wouldn't surprise me at all if its 3-5x stronger of a chip. Wouldn't surprise me either if Nvidia also has a similar chip to this in the prototype stages that Nintendo might want to take a look at. When Tegra X1 launched it was basically about as good as the Apple A9X (the equivalent chip at that time) only it was on less efficent node (20nm instead of 10nm). 



Most pointless information is that it's so much smaller and without power brick. There is already a smaller Xbox One X which is much more powerful or even an old standard PS4 without power brick. It's not as if the world will be like “wow, how could anyone beat the size of the Xbox One S that much“

Xbox and PS are already below 200 bucks with game(s) and a controller at Black Friday. We talk about pretty “cheap“ devices which could be at 150 bucks or even lower without games and controller (theoretically).

Sry Apple, too late to impress me with this information for the price you ask for.



Around the Network
Soundwave said:
JRPGfan said:

In terms of Graphics performance:
Switch = ~393 Gflops (docked)
Xbox One = 1,310 Gflops (this is the non-S version, the weakest Xbox)

Differnce is like 300%+ when docked (x3 performance).

But if your argument is its a tablet thats 3/4ths as powerfull as a Xbox One......  Your wrong, when its in handheld mode its only ~157 Gflops.
Theres a massive differnce between the Switch as a handheld and a xbox one, it doesnt get close to 3/4ths the performance.

Differnce is like 800%+ when handheld (x8 performance).

 

3/4ths of 1310 Gflops = 982 Gflops.
The Switch doesnt do FP32 at that rate or anywhere close to it.

The Tegra X1 in Switch? No. 

This Apple A12X? Quite possibly. Wouldn't surprise me at all if its 3-5x stronger of a chip. Wouldn't surprise me either if Nvidia also has a similar chip to this in the prototype stages that Nintendo might want to take a look at. When Tegra X1 launched it was basically about as good as the Apple A9X (the equivalent chip at that time) only it was on less efficent node (20nm instead of 10nm). 

Dude... did you read the guy I quoted?

He was saying "The switch is at least three quarters of an xbone" so this is to be expected.
Also Apple is without a doubt lying or twisting facts to get their tablet looking more powerfull than it is.

Mobile version of NBA 2k19.... who cares really?

Atmost I expect it ll beat the Switch version in terms of graphics, but suspect both the xbox one & PS4 will beat this apple tablet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjgutPrC_g



Number of days to reach 50M from 40M : 198 days
Number of days to reach 60M from 50M : 187 days
Number of days to reach 70M from 60M : 175 days
Number of days to reach 80M from 70M : 227 days

Necro-bump this 2020: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=229249

But can it run Crysis?



Visit my eBay stampers store: eims-stampers

Deus Ex (2000) - a game that pushes the boundaries of what the video game medium is capable of to a degree unmatched to this very day.

JRPGfan said:
Soundwave said:

The Tegra X1 in Switch? No. 

This Apple A12X? Quite possibly. Wouldn't surprise me at all if its 3-5x stronger of a chip. Wouldn't surprise me either if Nvidia also has a similar chip to this in the prototype stages that Nintendo might want to take a look at. When Tegra X1 launched it was basically about as good as the Apple A9X (the equivalent chip at that time) only it was on less efficent node (20nm instead of 10nm). 

Dude... did you read the guy I quoted?

He was saying "The switch is at least three quarters of an xbone" so this is to be expected.
Also Apple is without a doubt lying or twisting facts to get their tablet looking more powerfull than it is.

Mobile version of NBA 2k19.... who cares really?

Atmost I expect it ll beat the Switch version in terms of graphics, but suspect both the xbox one & PS4 will beat this apple tablet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjgutPrC_g

It doesn't just beat the Switch version in graphics ... it destroys it. 

60 frames per second at 2732x2048 resolution is double the frame rate of the Switch version and almost SIX times the resolution/pixels (undocked). 

In layman's terms that's a far bigger jump in resolution from SD (Wii) to 720p (PS3/XBox 360). 

It's running at a way higher resolution than the base PS4 and XBox One S as well and it looks about the same to me. The console versions maybe look a touch better in some spots, but the iPad version is running at a waaaaay higher resolution (almost 4K resolution). Both are 60 fps. Unfortunately Apple has removed the NBA 2K19 vid from Youtube so I can't link to it, but it looks very close to the PS4/XBox One S versions but at a faaaaar higher resolution. 

Also the CPU on this iPad Pro destroys the PS4/XB1, that much is clear, the Geekbench tests on it show it goes toe to toe with full blown high end Intel i7 CPUs which are way better than the junk inside a PS4 or XBox One. Apple is doing some impressive engineering with their chips. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 02 November 2018

Trumpstyle said:

Now you say that this new ipad pro model is twice as fast as the old one putting it about 6x of snapdragon 820/821 and you say this device has 410-520 gigaflops, so you are saying this new ipad pro has 2460-3120 gigaflops (6x410 and 6x520).

LOL

Where you got source that snapdragon calculates in fp32? From what I know it's fp16 but I can't find source on either.

Yeah, nah. Flops doesn't equate to a GPU's complete performance.

Trumpstyle said:

But we know from digitalfoundries fortnite analysis that switch in handheld mode beats the iphone X

The iPhone X actually beats the Switch in a few areas in that game. I.E. Resolution.
However... The Switch has lower overheads than the iPhone, the iPhone X's hardware is actually superior, especially in areas such as memory bandwidth, CPU. Etc'.

Trumpstyle said:


If that iPad is running that game at 60 fps, at 5.6 million pixels (2732x2048 resolution) .... that's waaaaaaaaaaaay past the XBox One's 1080p and Switch at 720p (undocked).

...You aren't getting it. More to graphics and performance than just resolution and framerate.

It's all well and good to promote big resolution and framerate numbers... But if it has compromised shadows, texturing, lighting, simplified geometry, physics and so on... Then it's going to present an inferior image overall.

Trumpstyle said:

That's impressive. The GeekBench scores on the CPU are freaking beastly too, the CPU destroys the PS4/XB1 and goes toe to toe with Intel i7s, it probably isn't a stretch accounting for all that the GPU is pretty solid.

Depends on the i7. - But that is certainly a bold claim... One that needs to be empirically proven across a slew of benchmarks rather than a few cherry picked results that leverage the chip in the best light.

Trumpstyle said:

I think this chip is easily 3x the Tegra X1 that's in the Switch (it is 3 1/2 years newer tech on a radically smaller 7nm node). If you put this chip into a Switch and let devs code right down to the metal, I think just about every PS4/XB1 game would doable on it, especially at a 720p resolution for undocked.

Beating the Switch isn't exactly an achievement though.
Nor is beating the base Xbox One for that matter... Keep in mind of how archaic that graphics architecture is.

JRPGfan said:

In terms of Graphics performance:
Switch = ~393 Gflops (docked)
Xbox One = 1,310 Gflops (this is the non-S version, the weakest Xbox)


No. That is in terms of FLOPS. Not graphics performance. Learn the difference.

Soundwave said:

It doesn't just beat the Switch version in graphics ... it destroys it. 

60 frames per second at 2732x2048 resolution is double the frame rate of the Switch version and almost SIX times the resolution/pixels (undocked). 

Again. Resolution and Framerate isn't everything.

The iPhone X version of Fortnite for example runs at a much higher resolution than the Switch. - But the Switch version is graphically superior.
Funny how that works, huh?

It's also rather ironic that resolution only became a more prominent issue during the 8th gen...



Wow, seems like only Soundwave is rational here.

This isn't complicated:

The iPhone X GPU already equaled the Switch's GPU. The iPhone XS is 1.5 faster. The iPad Pro GPU is 2x faster vs the XS (7 vs 4 cores, plus clock speed). That's a 3x performance bump vs the iPhone X from last year. That's about equal to an Xbox One. Apple doesn't sit around, the iPad GPU is about 3x faster than the iPhone X (2017 edition) GPU people were playing Fortnite on a month ago.

CPU wise we already know the Switch uses down clocked A57 cores, which even at high clocks perform about 1/5 the speed of the high performance cores in the new iPad (Basically 1000 vs 5000 in geekbench).

So 5 times faster CPU, and the same GPU as the Xbox. Not surprising since it is 7nm, 5 years later, and 10 billion transistors. The iPad APU is already larger than the Xbox One X, but built for efficiency, one of the largest CPU's ever made.