Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Tablet Apple iPad (2017)
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Apple iPhone 7 (Klaus I211) | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Apple iPhone 7 (Klaus I211) | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 88 %
iluminação com acumulador: 514 cd/m²
Contraste: 1117:1 (Preto: 0.46 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.4 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 2.1 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
97.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.22
| Apple iPad (2017) IPS, 2048x1536, 9.7" | Apple iPad Air 1 2013 IPS, 2048x1536, 9.7" | Apple iPad Pro 9.7 IPS, 2048x1536, 9.7" | Apple iPad Pro 12.9 IPS, 2732x2048, 12.9" | Google Pixel C LTPS, 2560x1800, 10.2" | Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro IPS, 1920x1200, 10.1" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -10% | 10% | -11% | -75% | -79% | |
| Brightness middle | 514 | 473 -8% | 523 2% | 399 -22% | 487 -5% | 392 -24% |
| Brightness | 485 | 442 -9% | 500 3% | 393 -19% | 510 5% | 385 -21% |
| Brightness Distribution | 88 | 90 2% | 93 6% | 92 5% | 91 3% | 91 3% |
| Black Level * | 0.46 | 0.41 11% | 0.52 -13% | 0.22 52% | 0.39 15% | 0.59 -28% |
| Contrast | 1117 | 1154 3% | 1006 -10% | 1814 62% | 1249 12% | 664 -41% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.4 | 2.82 -101% | 1.1 21% | 2.96 -111% | 5.24 -274% | 4.5 -221% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 2.9 | 1.9 34% | 7.8 -169% | |||
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.1 | 1.45 31% | 1.4 33% | 3 -43% | 7.95 -279% | 4.8 -129% |
| Gamma | 2.22 99% | 2.47 89% | 2.11 104% | 2.21 100% | 2.16 102% | 2.47 89% |
| CCT | 6647 98% | 6768 96% | 6662 98% | 7049 92% | 6565 99% | 7426 88% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 62.97 | 71.15 | ||||
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 99.55 | 97.87 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected |  | ||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8746 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 26 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 15 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 11 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 59 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 40 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 23 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 17 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 57 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
| AnTuTu v6 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPad Pro 12.9 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Apple iPhone 7 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Google Pixel C | |
| Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL | |
| Apple iPhone 7 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 12.9 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Google Pixel C | |
| Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen | |
| Apple iPad Pro 12.9 | |
| Apple iPhone 7 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Google Pixel C | |
| Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen | |
| Apple iPhone 7 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 12.9 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Google Pixel C | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen | |
| Apple iPad Pro 12.9 | |
| Apple iPhone 7 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Google Pixel C | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score | |
| Apple iPad Pro 12.9 | |
| Apple iPhone 7 | |
| Apple iPhone 7 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Google Pixel C | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 7 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 12.9 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Google Pixel C | |
| Apple iPad Air 1 2013 | |
| Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro | |
| Apple iPad Air 1 2013 | |
| Google Pixel C | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 12.9 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Apple iPhone 7 | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 7 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 12.9 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Google Pixel C | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 12.9 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Apple iPhone 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Google Pixel C | |
| Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro | |
* ... smaller is better
| PassMark PerformanceTest Mobile V1 - Disk Tests | |
| Apple iPad Pro 12.9 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Apple iPhone 7 | |
| Apple iPad Air 1 2013 | |
| Google Pixel C | |
| BaseMark OS II - Memory | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 12.9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Apple iPhone 7 | |
| Google Pixel C | |
| Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro | |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.2 °C / 95 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F, ranging from 20.7 to 53.2 °C for the class Tablet.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 37.7 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 33.3 °C / 92 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31 °C / 88 F, compared to the device average of 30 °C / 86 F.
Apple iPad (2017) audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 17.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 46% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 48% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 129%
Compared to all devices tested
» 41% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 35% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 61% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 129%
Compared to all devices tested
» 26% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 67% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.07 / 0.13 Watt |
| Ocioso |  2.06 / 7.42 / 7.47 Watt |
| Carga |
9.45 / 12.31 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Apple iPad (2017) 8.827 mAh | Apple iPad Pro 9.7 7306 mAh | Apple iPad Pro 12.9 10307 mAh | Apple iPad Air 1 2013 mAh | Google Pixel C mAh | Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro 6600 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 5% | -31% | 15% | 16% | 34% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 2.06 | 1.71 17% | 2.69 -31% | 1.8 13% | 1.82 12% | 1.58 23% |
| Idle Average * | 7.42 | 7.55 -2% | 10.95 -48% | 5.9 20% | 4.26 43% | 4.12 44% |
| Idle Maximum * | 7.47 | 7.62 -2% | 11.14 -49% | 7.1 5% | 4.33 42% | 4.15 44% |
| Load Average * | 9.45 | 8.39 11% | 11.54 -22% | 7.5 21% | 9.82 -4% | 6.2 34% |
| Load Maximum * | 12.31 | 12.08 2% | 12.8 -4% | 10.4 16% | 13.99 -14% | 9.27 25% |
* ... smaller is better
| Apple iPad (2017) 8.827 mAh | Apple iPad Pro 9.7 7306 mAh | Apple iPad Pro 12.9 10307 mAh | Apple iPad Air 1 2013 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 6000 mAh | Google Pixel C mAh | Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro 6600 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -2% | -5% | -5% | 15% | 11% | -21% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1496 | 1850 24% | 1933 29% | 1425 -5% | 1903 27% | 2090 40% | 1230 -18% |
| H.264 | 845 | 708 -16% | 630 -25% | 644 -24% | 551 -35% | 740 -12% | 593 -30% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 764 | 779 2% | 695 -9% | 760 -1% | 638 -16% | 416 -46% | |
| Load | 225 | 186 -17% | 195 -13% | 257 14% | 375 67% | 294 31% | 248 10% |
| WiFi | 553 |
Pro
Contra
Vinho velho em garrafas novas – escutamos isso frequentemente quando um fabricante atualiza um produto supostamente antigo. Especialmente quando está equipado com tecnologia desatualizada. Este também é o caso do mais recente iPad da Apple. O tablet iOS de 2017 é apenas isso: hardware reciclado e datado em um chassi ainda mais antigo. No entanto, a versão de nível de entrada custa apenas 400 Euros ($329) em compensação, quase uma barganha para os tablets da Apple. O veredicto teoricamente poderia acabar neste ponto, quando você olha desde um ponto de vista superficial.
Uma olhada mais de perto, no entanto, irá remover rapidamente muitas das críticas iniciais. Sim, o SoC é antigo, mas o desempenho ainda é muito bom para o segmento de tablets. E sim, o chassi esteve por aqui durante um par de anos e já foi substituído por uma versão mais fina. No entanto, a qualidade de construção e os materiais ainda são de primeira categoria. Achamos que ninguém desejaria um iPad mais fino ou mais leve se não fosse o iPad Air 2 ou o iPad Pro 9.7.
A Apple também melhorou alguns aspectos do novo iPad, em comparação com o iPad Air original. A primeira coisa é o chip mais veloz. A tela também é muito mais brilhante, e as durações da bateria são ainda mais longas. Combinado com o veloz Wi-Fi, diversas bandas LTE, um excelente receptor GPS e câmera utilizável, o velho vinho de repente parece ser mais atraente.
NO entanto, ainda existem algumas falhas. A ausência de uma tela totalmente laminada traz de volta um antigo problema do tablet: A luz direta do sol irá transformar o tablet em um espelho. Este é um passo irritante para trás para todos os que já utilizaram um iPad Mini 4 ou Air 2. Que o novo iPad cubra "apenas" o espaço de cores sRGB – não é algo decisivo. E que você não tenha suporte para o Apple Pencil a 400 Euros – bom, é para isso que estão os modelos Pro mais caros.
Vamos resumir: O novo Apple iPad é quase enjoadamente bom. Quase não existe concorrência em termos de desempenho, exceto por outros tablets da Apple, apesar do hardware datado. A avaliação geral é quase um sonho para o "underdog", mas isto também deve-se , em parte, à fraca concorrência de tablets.
Let's sum it up: The new Apple iPad is almost boringly good. There is hardly any competition in terms of performance except for other Apple tablets, despite the dated hardware. The overall rating is almost dreamlike for the "underdog", but this is in part also a result of the weak tablet competition.
Apple iPad (2017)
- 03/31/2018 v6 (old)
Patrick Afschar Kaboli
Price comparison
