Breve Análise do Tablet Apple iPad Pro 10.5
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 | |
| Huawei MediaPad T3 10 | |
| Asus ZenPad 3S 10 Z500KL | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 | |
| Huawei MediaPad T3 10 | |
| Asus ZenPad 3S 10 Z500KL | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 87 %
iluminação com acumulador: 634 cd/m²
Contraste: 1626:1 (Preto: 0.39 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.9 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 2.8 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
Gamma: 2.26
| Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 IPS, 2224x1668, 10.5" | Apple iPad Pro 9.7 IPS, 2048x1536, 9.7" | Apple iPad (2017) IPS, 2048x1536, 9.7" | Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 Super AMOLED, 2048x1526, 9.7" | Huawei MediaPad T3 10 IPS, 1280x800, 9.6" | Asus ZenPad 3S 10 Z500KL IPS, 2048x1536, 9.7" | Lenovo Yoga Book Android YB1-X90F IPS, 1920x1080, 10.1" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 5% | -2% | -0% | -55% | -43% | -57% | |
| Brightness middle | 634 | 523 -18% | 514 -19% | 452 -29% | 410 -35% | 486 -23% | 449 -29% |
| Brightness | 625 | 500 -20% | 485 -22% | 468 -25% | 409 -35% | 457 -27% | 421 -33% |
| Brightness Distribution | 87 | 93 7% | 88 1% | 82 -6% | 92 6% | 88 1% | 86 -1% |
| Black Level * | 0.39 | 0.52 -33% | 0.46 -18% | 0.32 18% | 0.25 36% | 0.32 18% | |
| Contrast | 1626 | 1006 -38% | 1117 -31% | 1281 -21% | 1944 20% | 1403 -14% | |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.9 | 1.1 42% | 1.4 26% | 1.8 5% | 4.5 -137% | 5.2 -174% | 4.7 -147% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 3.9 | 1.9 51% | 2.9 26% | 4 -3% | 14.2 -264% | 9 -131% | 11.1 -185% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.8 | 1.4 50% | 2.1 25% | 1.2 57% | 2 29% | 4.1 -46% | 4.5 -61% |
| Gamma | 2.26 97% | 2.11 104% | 2.22 99% | 2.11 104% | 2.17 101% | 2.73 81% | 2.22 99% |
| CCT | 7027 93% | 6662 98% | 6647 98% | 6500 100% | 6930 94% | 6579 99% | 7122 91% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 62.97 | 82.32 | |||||
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 99.55 | 99.06 |
* ... 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 8715 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 17.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 11.6 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 36 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 39.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 19.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 20.4 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 (32.8 ms). | ||
| AnTuTu v6 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Book Android YB1-X90F | |
| Asus ZenPad 3S 10 Z500KL | |
| Geekbench 4.4 | |
| 64 Bit Single-Core Score | |
| Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Asus ZenPad 3S 10 Z500KL | |
| 64 Bit Multi-Core Score | |
| Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Asus ZenPad 3S 10 Z500KL | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL | |
| Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Book Android YB1-X90F | |
| Asus ZenPad 3S 10 Z500KL | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen | |
| Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Book Android YB1-X90F | |
| Asus ZenPad 3S 10 Z500KL | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen | |
| Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Lenovo Yoga Book Android YB1-X90F | |
| Asus ZenPad 3S 10 Z500KL | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen | |
| Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Asus ZenPad 3S 10 Z500KL | |
| Lenovo Yoga Book Android YB1-X90F | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Asus ZenPad 3S 10 Z500KL | |
| Lenovo Yoga Book Android YB1-X90F | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
| Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Lenovo Yoga Book Android YB1-X90F | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Lenovo Yoga Book Android YB1-X90F | |
| Asus ZenPad 3S 10 Z500KL | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 | |
| Apple iPad Pro 9.7 | |
| Apple iPad (2017) | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Asus ZenPad 3S 10 Z500KL | |
| Lenovo Yoga Book Android YB1-X90F | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 | |
* ... smaller is better
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.8 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33.7 °C / 93 F, ranging from 20.7 to 53.2 °C for the class Tablet.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 35.8 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 32.9 °C / 91 F, compared to the device average of 30 °C / 86 F.
Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 10.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.8% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.6% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 31% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 129%
Compared to all devices tested
» 23% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.1% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 39% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 54% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 129%
Compared to all devices tested
» 33% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 59% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Asus ZenPad 3S 10 Z500KL audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 52% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 129%
Compared to all devices tested
» 48% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 44% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.02 / 0.2 Watt |
| Ocioso |  1.44 / 6.12 / 6.14 Watt |
| Carga |
8.55 / 10.62 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 8134 mAh | Apple iPad Pro 9.7 7306 mAh | Google Pixel C mAh | Lenovo Yoga Book Android YB1-X90F 8500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 6000 mAh | Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro 6600 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -16% | -3% | 0% | 18% | 19% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 1.44 | 1.71 -19% | 1.82 -26% | 2.19 -52% | 2.08 -44% | 1.58 -10% |
| Idle Average * | 6.12 | 7.55 -23% | 4.26 30% | 4.3 30% | 3.5 43% | 4.12 33% |
| Idle Maximum * | 6.14 | 7.62 -24% | 4.33 29% | 4.37 29% | 3.58 42% | 4.15 32% |
| Load Average * | 8.55 | 8.39 2% | 9.82 -15% | 8.62 -1% | 6.97 18% | 6.2 27% |
| Load Maximum * | 10.62 | 12.08 -14% | 13.99 -32% | 11.26 -6% | 7.4 30% | 9.27 13% |
* ... smaller is better
| Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 8134 mAh | Apple iPad Pro 9.7 7306 mAh | Apple iPad (2017) 8.827 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 6000 mAh | Lenovo Yoga Book Android YB1-X90F 8500 mAh | Google Pixel C mAh | Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro 6600 mAh | Asus ZenPad 3S 10 Z500KL 7800 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 2% | 8% | 20% | 2% | 15% | -15% | -16% | |
| Reader / Idle | 2036 | 1850 -9% | 1496 -27% | 1903 -7% | 1985 -3% | 2090 3% | 1230 -40% | |
| H.264 | 629 | 708 13% | 845 34% | 551 -12% | 702 12% | 740 18% | 593 -6% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 693 | 779 12% | 764 10% | 760 10% | 602 -13% | 638 -8% | 416 -40% | 579 -16% |
| Load | 199 | 186 -7% | 225 13% | 375 88% | 222 12% | 294 48% | 248 25% |
Pro
Contra
A Apple decidiu não fazer uma reengenharia completa do iPad Pro 10.5 e envez disso fez melhorias reais onde mais importa. Particularmente a nova tela é impressionante - suas ótimas propriedades refletivas e capacidades HDR serão particularmente interessantes para os fanáticos dos filmes, séries de TV e jogos. Infelizmente, não conseguimos medir o espaço de cores P3 prometido, mas apenas o espaço de cores sRGB menor.
O tablet possui módulos de comunicação de alta qualidade mas ainda não suporta o posicionamento Galileo Europeu. A Apple não tentou economizar a memória, que é mais lenta que a do predecessor, mas isto não pe notório no uso diário.
Muitos pequenos detalhes do Apple iPad Pro 10,5 foram melhorados, e definitivamente é um dos melhores tablets disponível atualmente.
No geral, a Apple conseguiu criar um excelente produto e estabeleceu um padrão muito alto para os tablets. Seu único concorrente real é o Samsung Galaxy Tab S3, que, no entanto, possui um SoC antigo e menos armazenamento. A capacidade de armazenamento foi amentada, mas também o preço inicial: $649. O modelo menor (64 GB) será totalmente suficiente para a maioria dos usuários, especialmente porque áudio e vídeo são reproduzidos frequentemente hoje em dia. Sentimos que um segundo modelo com 256 GB é a melhor opção e é inclusive um pouco mais barato que o seu predecessor com a mesma capacidade de armazenamento. O modelo de 512-GB pode ser recomendado para usuários que desejem ter sua própria coleção multimídia disponível offline ou quem desejar usar o seu tablet para editar vídeos ou processar imagens.
O iPad Pro 10.5 tem um desempenho tão grande que você inclusive pode pensar em usa-lo como um substituto de portátil completo. Seja para a edição de vídeo de material UHD ou o processamento de imagens com Adobe Lightroom, o iPad Pro 10.5 funciona de forma rápida e eficiente, embora sintamos que o teclado Smart não é flexível o suficiente e funciona bem apenas sobre superfícies duras. Os problemas do navegador Safari com CMSs e ouros aplicativos web são perturbantes e o gerenciamento de arquivos é muito inflexível. Portanto, consideramos o iPad Pro um ótimo tablet, mas não para substituir um portátil.
Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017
- 06/26/2017 v6 (old)
Daniel Schmidt
Price comparison
