The Apple iPad Pro Review
by Ryan Smith, Joshua Ho & Brandon Chester on January 22, 2016 8:10 AM ESTSystem Performance Cont'd
Continuing on with our more game-like benchmarks, tests like 3DMark and GFXBench are supposed to replicate gaming workloads to help determine relative performance in most common 3D games. In the case of the iPad Pro, the GPU is a 12 cluster variant of the PowerVR Series7XT GPU architecture. This is double the number of clusters relative to the A9’s GPU, which should prove to be quite impressive judging by the GPU performance that we saw in the iPhone 6s.
The iPad Pro manages to maintain superiority in 3DMark, but we're really starting to see the limitations of this test. The physics test generates non-sequential data structures with memory dependencies, which can penalize devices with lower core count and clock speed, but the workload is able to be spread across multiple cores to exploit TLP, which benefits devices with more real cores, or virtual ones (hyperthreading). We also see that the graphics test isn't really scaling well at this point as it's just too light to take advantage of the full potential of the A9X GPU. This likely also explains why the iPad Pro isn't closer to the Surface Pro 4 in performance on this benchmark, given what we know about A9X's GPU.
In GFXBench we can see the major benefits that really come with the larger GPU. It's pretty obvious here that clock speeds are basically identical when comparing the A9 GPU and A9X GPU as the scaling is almost perfectly double. In this benchmark the iPad Pro quite handily beats the Surface Pro 4, but it's important to keep in mind that the Surface Pro 4 is running a higher level of precision and that the iPad Pro is running OpenGL ES rather than OpenGL in this test, so it isn't strictly apples-to-apples (nor is such a thing truly possible at this time). Overall though the GPU of the iPad Pro is incredibly impressive, and I doubt that anyone will really have issues with gaming performance on this device.
NAND Performance
At this point it’s pretty well understood that storage performance can often be a gating factor in performance. Although caching is an amazingly effective method of hiding memory latency, for the first hit it’s mandatory to miss the cache unless you’ve managed to prefetch the data in question. The other issue where storage performance becomes obvious are cases where it’s necessary to commit data to storage first. Some cases where this is going to be obvious is app installation or iCloud restores, especially when network performance is at the point where installation can actually be gated by writing to disk rather than downloading from the network.
In the case of the iPad Pro, Apple claims that they’ve implemented a storage controller comparable to some desktop SSDs. It turns out that this controller is a familiar one, as the storage controller identifies itself as the APPLE SSD AP0128K in the case of this review unit. It turns out that everything about this SSD is identical to what we saw in the iPhone 6s as well, down the use of Hynix for at least one of the NAND vendors and the hybrid SLC/TLC architecture discussed in previous articles. In order to test how this storage solution performs we once again use Eric Patno’s StorageBench, which provides a rough analogue to AndroBench 3.6.
It turns out that in this test, performance is basically identical to the iPhone 6s. This isn’t quite the equal of something like the Surface Pro 4’s PM951 SSD, which has the advantage of more NAND dies working in parallel, but given that the iPad Pro PCB size isn’t going to be anywhere near that of the Surface Pro 4 it’s likely that this is a concession to gain better battery life. I definitely wonder what performance would be like relative to a Surface Pro 4 if the iPad Pro had a 512GB SKU, but given that the iPad Pro tops out at 128GB this isn’t really a question with a relevant answer.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
408 Comments
View All Comments
Valantar - Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - link
I have to say I'm a bit confused by the large portion of this review comparing the iPad Pro to the Pixel C, all the while nearly neglecting the Surface Pro 4. You have a long section praising the pen experience with the Pencil, without a single comparison to the (included) Surface Pen? That's just weird. Sure, the SP4 runs a full desktop OS, but it's a far more natural comparison in terms of size, weight, power and compatible accessories. I get that not all of your reviewers can get access to every product, but for the sake of that part of the review, acces to a SP4 would have been essential.Constructor - Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - link
I'm not defending this review necessarily, which is a bit odd and lacking in some regards, but there are various interesting Youtube demonstrations and reviews which make exactly that comparison.This is an interesting comparison of tracking accuracy and latency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niD1N1d4nTc
This is from a designer's perspective:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaO_ucAZ4dQ
And comparing iPad Pro, Surface Pro 3 and Wacom Cintiq:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlspvcF-DKs
glenn.tx - Wednesday, January 27, 2016 - link
I agree completely. It's quite disappointing. The comparisons seem to be cherry picked.bebby - Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - link
What I miss in the discussion and review so far is the fact that google obviously does not yet support the higher resolution of the ipad pro for their apps. I wonder if there is intent behind that. It is very annoying as a user.Google is getting more and more important as a software/app provider but so far they have not been successfull with any of their hardware ventures (motorola, google glass, tablets, etc.).
ipad pro would be perfect with working google apps.
Constructor - Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - link
Looks like Google doesn't want to be seen boosting the competition's platform even though that's where they make most of their money on mobile, ironically.(Can't say I'd miss any of their software, though. Apart from an occasional picture search I'm not using any of it.)
Not that Apple is falling all over themselves in making software for other platforms either (even if they sporadically do, for their own purposes).
Zingam - Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - link
A Chargeable Pen? Apple's sense of humor never fails to amaze me!Constructor - Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - link
Which other pen with the same capabilities (zero-calbration pixel-precise resolution + pressure + tilt + orientation, near-zero latency, near-zero parallax) a) even exists and then b) does not need its own power supply?phexac - Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - link
The only way I would call this device "Pro" is if I could actually use it at work. I drive a bulldozer and, though I've tried, digging ditches with iPad Pro is terribly inefficient, and that's a problem that I don't see software makers fixing any time soon for a touch only device. Furthermore, the charging port has compatibility issues and would not accept the hose I use to refuel the bulldozer. To add insult to injury, you cannot sit on the iPad while using it! I couldn't help chuckling at the expectation that Apple apparently has for its consumers to either stand or kneel while SUPPORTING THE IPAD'S weight and trying to use it to move a mound of gravel at the same time.Finally, I have found in my experiments that even adding a keyboard to this device does not solve the problem. I have tried both the Apple iPad Pro keyboard and a Bluetooth one I could use wirelessly while sitting on a stack of cement bags. iPad lacks the basic ability to self-propel around the construction site and requires me to carry it from one task to another.
Better luck next time, Apple! I will stick with my Caterpillar earthmover!
Constructor - Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - link
Yep. The exact same argumentation as above in many cases! B-)althaz - Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - link
What I don't understand is the constant comparisons to the Surface Pro 3 - particularly in terms of the keyboard which changed quite significantly with the Surface Pro 4 (the pen also changed significantly).