Nvidia's mid-2014 Tegra K1 Shield Tablet has a 1920x1200 screen.
Edit: I'll link to GFXBench's Shield Tablet page too.
The first result is offscreen, the second onscreen (2048*1536)
iPad Air 2: 32.4/24.6fps
Shield tablet: 31.0/29.7fps
First K1 onscreen results in Manhattan were below 20 fps.
For additional reference, the iPad Air scored (13.0/8.8) (off/on), so those numbers are encouraging. It's a shame that Engadget doesn't have a link to the full results.
http://www.futuremark.com/pressrele...results-from-the-apple-iphone-5s-and-ipad-airCompared to the iPhone 6/Plus's scores, the iPad Air 2 does 20-25% better in 3DMark IS Unlimited. That scaling is much worse than the other benchmarks and is bizarrely anemic for a chip that physically has 50% more of everything along with slightly higher clocks.
I wish that Futuremark would make post somewhere stating "this is what we do, how we do it, and we are 100% right". Right now, though, I'm quite willing to assume that 3DMark's code has a bottleneck that doesn't apply to any other game/benchmark.
They do disclose that to reviewers and partners. Imho their approach is correct and just demonstrates a real-world bottleneck.Compared to the iPhone 6/Plus's scores, the iPad Air 2 does 20-25% better in 3DMark IS Unlimited. That scaling is much worse than the other benchmarks and is bizarrely anemic for a chip that physically has 50% more of everything along with slightly higher clocks.
I wish that Futuremark would make post somewhere stating "this is what we do, how we do it, and we are 100% right". Right now, though, I'm quite willing to assume that 3DMark's code has a bottleneck that doesn't apply to any other game/benchmark.
http://www.futuremark.com/pressrele...results-from-the-apple-iphone-5s-and-ipad-air
They've tried to explaining why 3DMark Physics seems to be a poor match for Cyclone before. Basically, Cyclone's memory controller has much improved in order data reads, but is no better than Swift at out of order data reads, which the Bullet Library mainly uses. Bullet's processing is also structured in a way that can't take full advantage of Cyclone's additional out-of-order execution resources.
They do disclose that to reviewers and partners. Imho their approach is correct and just demonstrates a real-world bottleneck.
GFXBench results. http://gfxbench.com/compare.jsp?ben...ir+2&os1=iOS&api1=gl&D2=Apple+iPhone+6&cols=2
2x in offscreen and fill. Hex core + 30% clock or octo core?
Could the iPhone 6 be running into memory bandwidth bottlenecks?, if the iPad Air 2 has a 128-bit memory interface, that could potentially aid the fillrate.
Do none of the geekbench memory tests, test random reads ?, or does out-of-order mean something different in this context ?Feel happy to educate someone that has no knowledge of this !
Serious question: is that "real-world" bottleneck something that developers are struggling with or is it something game engines have already worked around without much fuss?
iOS is a self-contained platform. Things that A* chips can't do become things that game developers won't do, so at what point do pathological, worse-case scenarios become ivory-tower trivia unrelated to the actual market?
I mean, let's not forget that 3DMark's results are now consistently contrary to other CPU and GPU benchmarks's results.
These benchmarks are meant to try to mimic real-world games and go as far to use tools also used by game developers (Unity, that physics engine, etc). I don't think the point is to benchmark optimized performance on each platform, for that we have more synthetic suites such as GFXBench.Without wanting to touch the specific case of the 3DMark physics test, you make a good point, and put the finger on a fundamental problem of cross-platform benchmarking. They cannot model well the performance of code targeted to a specific platform, unless the architecture of the platforms are very similar. As a well known example, comparing the performance of the Playstation3 CPU with an x86 processor using cross platform benchmarking.
Stuff like Metal could conceivably cause some additional thorny issues in terms of mobile graphics benchmark relevance.
Cross platform benchmarking is difficult and any results should be taken with liberal heaps of salt. Making comparisons within an architectural family is a lot safer, but even there you can be tripped up - as the 3DMark physics test shows.
To no small amount the difficulty of scaling DRAM performance, no doubt? CPU performance goes up 1000-fold in a decade more or less, while DRAM performance increases like 10x, if that much...I could write dissertations about why the memory subsystems are undervalued in benchmarking generally. There are a number of reasons.