The Apple iPad 2 Review
by Brian Klug, Anand Lal Shimpi & Vivek Gowri on March 19, 2011 8:01 PM ESTThe iPad 2
We've already gone over the iPad 2's design in our preview so I won't spend a ton of time here. The first iPad was a pain to hold in your hand, the iPad 2 largely addresses that problem. The device is similarly sized to its predecessor but Apple removed significant volume by tapering the edges of the iPad 2. The tablet is thus more comfortable to hold, lighter and is significantly thinner than its predecessor. Apple likes to point out that the iPad 2 is now thinner than even the iPhone 4.
Apple iPad 2 (top), Apple iPad (bottom)
The Xoom to me was more pleasant to hold that the original iPad, however the iPad 2 takes the crown back from Motorola. I believe we'll see second generation Android tablets that rival the iPad 2's thickness but for now you have to keep in mind that we're comparing a second generation iOS tablet to first generation Android tablets. With smartphone internals and virtually nonexistent cooling requirements, building a thin tablet isn't an impossible task.
The front of the iPad 2 is pretty much unchanged from the original, with the exception of the new VGA front facing camera (720p rear camera). As we'll get to shortly, beneath the front of the iPad 2 are a number of magnets for use with Apple's new smart covers. The front bezel of the iPad 2 is available in both white and black. Surprisingly all of the AnandTech editors who contributed to this review opted for the white and all of us seemed to actually be pretty happy with the choice.
Apple iPad 2 (left), Apple iPad (right)
Flip the iPad 2 around and the back is a very familiar aluminum. Unfortunately with no protection back here you'll often find yourself laying the iPad 2 face down on a smart cover when it's not in use. Even on a clean desk I could hear tons of little particles grinding up against the aluminum. So far the iPad 2 has been pretty resilient, implying that it's made of a harder aluminum than what Apple uses in the MacBook Pro line. That being said, I still worry about scratching the back of the device. Apple makes beautiful products but their beauty isn't always durable.
The button setup hasn't changed since the original iPad. There's the familiar home button on the front (which feels a little softer than the original, but in a good way) and power/lock button up top.
Apple iPad 2 (left), Apple iPad (right)
Along the right side are the mute/rotation switch and the volume rocker. The ends of the volume rocker protrude out further in the iPad 2 than they did with the original - yet another welcome change.
Apple iPad 2 (bottom), Apple iPad (top)
The dock connector is arguably the biggest flaw in the design. Because of the angled edges of the new iPad, the dock connector actually finds itself located in the middle of a slope. As a result inserting a standard dock cable is a bit awkward. On the original iPad you could just line up the cable with the middle of the bottom edge and sneak it in, on the iPad 2 there's more of a guessing game - usually involving me scraping the cable side dock connector against the aluminum back looking for the mate.
Just like last time the iPad 2 is available in both WiFi and 3G versions. The 3G versions add A-GPS support will the WiFi version can only pinpoint your location using WiFi trilateration. Apple offers separate AT&T and Verizon editions of the iPad 2, both of which have the same black antenna bar along the top of the back face of the tablet.
| Apple iPad 2 Pricing Comparison | |||||
| 16GB | 32GB | 64GB | |||
| WiFi | $499 | $599 | $699 | ||
| AT&T 3G | $629 | $729 | $829 | ||
| Verizon 3G | $629 | $729 | $829 | ||
NAND capacities haven't increased, nor have prices. We likely won't see an increase in storage capacity until 25nm NAND ships in greater volume. The iPad 3 will probably start at 32GB and go all the way up to 128GB as a result.
Regardless of carrier, the 3G models require a $130 premium over the WiFi only models. Personally I'd say that some sort of cellular data connectivity is really necessary to make the iPad 2 as useful as possible. Whether that comes from a 3G model or through a MiFi/smartphone hotspot doesn't really matter.
The pricing as a whole is still absurd. Even if you opt for the $499 WiFi version you'll be out another $39 for a case, plus another $39 if you want the HDMI adapter and then there are all of the apps you will likely start buying. This is an expensive platform to buy into and rest assured that there will be an even faster version out next year. Apple hasn't had much pricing pressure from the competition, however as we mentioned in our CES 2011 coverage - ASUS will be shipping a $399 Honeycomb tablet this year that should start to change that.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
189 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
Considering the source (ARMflix), you need to take that video with a huge grain of salt. It looks like they're running some Linux variant on the two systems (maybe Chromium?), and while the build may be the same, that doesn't mean it's optimized equally well for Atom vs. A9.Single-core Atom at 1.6GHz vs. dual-core A9 at 500MHz surfing the web is fine and all, but when we discuss Atom being faster than A9 we're talking about raw performance potential. A properly optimized web browser and OS experience with high-speed Internet should be good on just about any modern platform. Throw in some video playback as well, give us something more than a script of web pages in a browser, etc.
Now, none of this means ARM's A9 is bad, but to show that it's as fast as Atom when browsing some web pages is potentially meaningless. What we really need to know is what one platform can do well that the other can't handle properly. Where does A9 fall flat? Where does Atom stumble?
For me, right now, Atom sucks at anything video related. Sorry, but YouTube and Hulu are pretty important tools for me. That also means iOS has some concerns, as it doesn't support Flash at all, and there are enough places where Flash is still used that it creates issues. Luckily, I have plenty of other devices for accessing the web. In the end, I mostly play Angry Birds on my iPod Touch while I'm waiting for someone. :-)
Wilco1 - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
The article is indeed wrong to suggest that the A9 has only half the performance of an Atom. There are cases where a netbook with a single core Atom might be faster, for example if it runs at a much higher frequency, uses hyperthreading, and has a fast DDR3 memory system. However in terms of raw CPU performance the out-of-order A9 is significantly faster than the in-order Atom. Benchmark results such as CoreMark confirm this, a single core Atom cannot beat an A9 at the same frequency - even with hyperthreading. So it would be good to clarify that netbooks are faster because they use higher frequency CPUs and a faster memory system - as well as a larger battery...somata - Sunday, March 27, 2011 - link
CoreMark is nearly as meaningless as MIPS. Right now the best cross-platform benchmark we have is Geekbench. It uses portable, multi-threaded, native code to perform real tasks. My experience with Geekbench on the Mac/PC over the years indicates that Geekbench scores correlate pretty well to average application performance (determined by my personal suite of app benchmarks). Of course there will be outliers, but Geekbench does a pretty good job at representing typical code.Given that, the fact that a single-core 1.6GHz Atom (with HT) scores about 28% higher than the IPad's dual-core 1GHz A9s in the integer suite leaves me little doubt that the Atom, despite being in-order, has as good or better per-clock performance than the A9s.
Even the oft-maligned PowerPC G4 totally outclasses the dual A9s, with 43% better integer performance at 1.42GHz... and that's just with a single core competing against two!
tcool93 - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
Tablets do have their advantages despite what the article claims. For one thing, their battery life far out lives any Netbook or Notebook. They also run a lot cooler, unlike Notebooks and Netbooks, which you can fry an egg on. Maybe they aren't as portable as a phone, but who wants to look at the super tiny print on a phone.Tablets don't replace computers, and never will. There are nice to sit in bed with at night and browse the web or read books on, or play a simple game on. Anything that doesn't require a lot of typing.
Even a 10" tablet screen isn't real big to read text, but its MUCH easier to zoom in on text to read it with tablets. Unlike any Notebook/'Netbook, which its a huge pain to get to zoom in.
tcool93 - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
I do think the benchmarks shown here do show that there is quite an improvement over the Ipad 1, despite what many seem to claim that there isn't much of an upgrade.secretmanofagent - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
Anand,Appreciate the article, and appreciating that you're responding to the readers as well. All three of you said that it didn't integrate into your workflow, and I have a similar problem (which has prevented me from purchasing one). One thing I'm very curious about: What is your opinion on what would have been the Courier concept? Do you feel that is the direction that tablets should have taken, or do you think that Apple's refining as opposed to paradigming is the way to go?
VivekGowri - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
I still despise Microsoft for killing the Courier project. Honestly, I'd have loved to see the tablet market go that direction - a lot more focused on content creation instead of a very consumption-centric device like the iPad. A $4-500 device running that UI, an ARM processor, and OneNote syncing ability would have sold like hotcakes to students. If only...tipoo - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
Me too, the Courier looked amazing. They cancel that, yet go ahead with something like the Kin? Hard to imagine where their heads are at.Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, March 21, 2011 - link
While I've seen the Courier video, and it definitely looked impressive, it's tough to say how that would've worked in practice.I feel like there are performance limitations that are at work here. Even though a pair of A9s are quick, they are by no means fast enough. I feel like as a result, evolutionary refinement is the only way to go about getting to where we need to be. Along the way Apple (and its competitors) can pick up early adopters to help fund the progress.
I'm really curious to see which company gets the gaming side of it down. Clearly that's a huge market.
Take care,
Anand
Azethoth - Monday, March 21, 2011 - link
Gaming side is a good question. Apple will have an advantage there due to limited hardware specs to code to. They are a lot more like a traditional console that way vs Android which will be anything but.Are actual game controls like in the psp phone necessary?
I am also curious what additional UI tech will eventually make it to the pad space:
* Speech, although it is forever not there yet.
* 3D maybe if its not a fad (glasses free)
* Some form of the Kinect maybe to manipulate the 3d stuff and do magical kinect gestures and incantations we haven't dreamed up yet.
* Haptic as mentioned earlier in the thread.
Speech could make a pad suitable for hip bloggers like the AnandTech posse.