I'm glad to see they put a port to support charging on the HDMI adapter, lack of charge option is why I never bought the VGA adapter.
I'm glad to see they put a port to support charging on the HDMI adapter, lack of charge option is why I never bought the VGA adapter.
There is only one Return, and it's not Of The King, it is Of The Jedi.
Just left the Apple Store. Got my price difference and will be buying a set of speakers for my iPad 1 or a new charger cover for my iPhone 4. Love the new release of the iPad 2
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
2 x iPhone 4
1 x 32 GB iPad 3 w/4G LTE
Along with garage band n imovies app also wrkin on ipad1, i might just be able to hold out till ipad3
Actually I believe those benchmarks are correct, but you have to dive into it a little bit. The iPhone 4 and the iPhone 3GS are both running the exact same GPU. However, the iPhone 4 is running at a much higher resolution than the 3GS is. It makes sense that a benchmark running at each device's native resolution (pretty sure there is no other option anyhow) is going to give results like this. When it comes to apps that rely heavily on the GPU the lower resolution device is going to win.
I'm sure that the iPhone 4 is overall a much snappier device for overall usage, but when it comes to graphically intense apps it simply isn't going to push the frame rate as fast as a lower resolution device can.
Last edited by DaveSt; 03-03-2011 at 06:47 PM. Reason: Spelling
Nonsense. Whatever "benchmark" algorithm they used obviously is slanted against the A4 CPU. That is the only thing this asinine chart "proves."
Moreover every single graphical application for the iPhone 4 runs faster than on the 3GS. Trust me, I measured many as I own both. Go back to the iPhone 4's release to see just how "slow" it was... lol.
This is a classic example of benchmark testing runamuck.... or, more likely, run to achieve the results someone wanted to see.
Michael