Not in all performance aspects of course. I was mainly referring to this post from warmi regarding fillrate:
Under normal conditions all performance characteristics scale with higher frequencies on a chip. The SGX535 in the iPad is obviously clocked higher than the one in the 3GS and thus will inevitably also have a higher fill-rate amongst others.
iPhone3GS = 153600 pixelsSo in regards to fillrate running at native resolution: iPhone = iPhone 3G = iPad = iPhone 4th-gen
Totally simplified of course (and assuming the iPhone 4th-gen uses an (slightly slower) A4 and has a 960x640 resolution).
iPad = 786432 pixels
(your) iPhone"next" = 614400 pixels
Under that reasoning and assuming Apple will use the 535 again, they could clock it lower than in the iPad. I still don't see any "anomaly" or better don't understand what you really mean. I said a long time ago that IMHO the iPhone3GS has too much fill-rate. If you look at all other smartphones of the 3GS class containing SGX you'll see that the widest majority contains a SGX530 and not a 535.
And as most know already:
SGX530 = 1 TMU
SGX535 = 2 TMUs
SGX54x = 2 TMUs
In other words going above a 53x for Apple wouldn't had gotten them more texel fill-rate per MHz and in my mind confidentially the 535 in the 3GS has one TMU too much. One license though for multiple devices is always cheaper though
In any case if you meant something along that line I totally agree. Other than that I don't see anything weird.
I think that the 65nm SGX535 in the iPhone 3GS is clocked at 200Mhz.
Which could mean that the frequency for the 535 in the iPad is quite a bit higher than 250MHz, which I don't think so.
iPhone3GS = 153600 pixels to fill = 105185 kTexels/s multi-textured (SGX535 = 2 pixels/clock)
iPad = 786432 pixels to fill = 236559 kTexels/s multi-textured (SGX535 = 2 pixels/clock)
iPhone3G = 153600 pixels to fill = 28508 kTexels/s multi-textured (MBX Lite = 1 pixel/2 clocks)
My personal estimate for the above is in that order 150, 250, 100MHz.