Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Hints Point to iPad 3 With 'Retina Display' Res

By - Source: Tom's Guide US | B 41 comments

The iPhone 4 has a very high-resolution screen (for a smartphone) packed into a small space. The intense pixel density of 326 ppi means that the dots are so small that they're almost imperceptible. Apple markets this as Retina Display, and it's a key differentiation point when comparing iPhone hardware against other handsets.

Some figured that Apple would be bringing a Retina Display to the iPad 2, but that didn't happen and the current iPad still has the same 1024x768 resolution as the original model.

New hints have been discovered in the iOS 5 developer beta software that strongly suggests that Apple is prepping for something that has four times the resolution of the current iPad.

Graphics for the Apple's Newstand application on the iPad come in both the current 1024x768 resolution as well as 1536x2048. Artwork for the new Twitter framework also reference the new resolution. See screenshots of it at Techunwrapped.

Reuters this week also cited sources saying that the next iPad will have a new screen with five to six times the resolution.

These graphics could be just a test for Apple, but it wouldn't be a far leap to assume that iPad 3 will be launched with a high-resolution screen sometime during iOS 5's shelf life.

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Streaming Video & TVs forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 11 Hide
    nebun , June 17, 2011 12:16 PM
    why such high resolution for this pad? they better have a fast gpu for that thing
  • 10 Hide
    burnley14 , June 17, 2011 12:54 PM
    This is a major selling point in my mind. Tablets can only have so many differences in hardware, with screen quality (including resolution) being the most important (in my opinion).
Other Comments
  • 11 Hide
    nebun , June 17, 2011 12:16 PM
    why such high resolution for this pad? they better have a fast gpu for that thing
  • Display all 41 comments.
  • 10 Hide
    burnley14 , June 17, 2011 12:54 PM
    This is a major selling point in my mind. Tablets can only have so many differences in hardware, with screen quality (including resolution) being the most important (in my opinion).
  • -1 Hide
    alidan , June 17, 2011 1:38 PM
    nebunwhy such high resolution for this pad? they better have a fast gpu for that thing


    they dont. look at the majority of the games, most could run that resolution at current hardware
  • -4 Hide
    Anonymous , June 17, 2011 1:46 PM
    AMD fusion is going in the ipad3, which will allow these resolutions at decent frame rates. I have a test unit with quad core in it
  • -6 Hide
    happyballz , June 17, 2011 1:52 PM
    You better have some skinny-ass fingers to navigate that resolution on a small screen. Either that or icons should be 200% larger then they are now.

    @Alidan
    A lot of GPUs can run "higher-resolution" but at what FPS and if you actually use many textures or triangles in models etc then you need more power fo-sho.
  • 1 Hide
    noblerabbit , June 17, 2011 2:00 PM
    screw Apple, I'm getting as Asus EEE Transformer.
  • 1 Hide
    daniel123244 , June 17, 2011 2:21 PM
    im happy. Nothing that boasts technology and competition is bad.
  • -3 Hide
    ares1214 , June 17, 2011 2:23 PM
    Thats overkill, soooo much. Thats better than my 24" monitor. Is that really needed for a 10" tablet? Maybe like 1280x960, or something to that effect, but I mean...thats such a waste. Not to mention it will have a rough time playing games. ARM CPU's are advancing incredibly fast, and a Tegra 3 CPU can actually handle this res (it could do 30 FPS+ playback on a 2560x1600...), but its just not needed. Maybe not even possible.
  • 1 Hide
    Dark Comet , June 17, 2011 2:56 PM
    happyballzYou better have some skinny-ass fingers to navigate that resolution on a small screen. Either that or icons should be 200% larger then they are now.@Alidan A lot of GPUs can run "higher-resolution" but at what FPS and if you actually use many textures or triangles in models etc then you need more power fo-sho.


    I'd assume the icons would be higher resolution, or stretched more to be the same size. So there would be no problem there. Only problem is how are IPAD1/2 games/apps gonna look on it?

    Personally, if I had the money I'd buy a Asus Transformer.
  • -2 Hide
    lamorpa , June 17, 2011 2:57 PM
    Let's not wet our pants over this Apple 'retina' display stuff again. The (small by today's standards) iphone display at 3.54" (1.96" x 2.94") has a pixel density of 326ppi. A phone with a 480x800 display at this same size has a pixel density of 264ppi. The difference is less than 24%. It's not as though it's double or something like the marketing would have you believe. I'm happier with a larger display in any case. I don't hold the phone 6" from my face, so I can't see the difference.
  • 1 Hide
    icemunk , June 17, 2011 3:17 PM
    nebunwhy such high resolution for this pad? they better have a fast gpu for that thing

    Kal-El hopefully
  • 0 Hide
    back_by_demand , June 17, 2011 3:41 PM
    How about they make the resolution 1920x1080
    And widescreen
    DUH!
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , June 17, 2011 4:23 PM
    yum hi res display, unfortunately the higher the res the faster the battery drain
  • 3 Hide
    molo9000 , June 17, 2011 4:58 PM
    back_by_demandHow about they make the resolution 1920x1080And widescreenDUH!

    Widescreen, especially 16:9, isn't really an advantage on displays this small.
    4:3 is better for surfing the web and reading documents.
  • 0 Hide
    upgrade_1977 , June 17, 2011 5:05 PM
    They said that about ipad 2.... I'll believe it when I see it.
    So much hype around new products lately..
    Untrue rumors just make customers feel let down..
  • 0 Hide
    headscratcher , June 17, 2011 5:09 PM
    I was hoping that they could actually display stuff on my retina
  • 1 Hide
    proxy711 , June 17, 2011 5:43 PM
    molo9000Widescreen, especially 16:9, isn't really an advantage on displays this small.4:3 is better for surfing the web and reading documents.


    Agreed. 16:10 > 4:3 > 16:9 as far as monitors go that display anything other then movies.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , June 17, 2011 5:53 PM
    why so many haters???
    2048x1536 in 10" is GREAT!!!!!!! two full web pages side by side with NO zooming! + smooth as silk font. apple knows how to scale things
  • 4 Hide
    agnickolov , June 17, 2011 6:02 PM
    Forget tablets, when are we going to see higher density desktop monitors? 2048x1536 existed in the CRT era yet we use lower resolutions today. The highest screen resolution available only on 30" monitors sold for insane prices is 2560x1600, which is only 64 lines higher and completely unaffordable. The newer 30" models are actually worse at 2560x1440! If it's going to be 16:9 (which I hate BTW), it should have progressed closer to 3840x2160 by now and become affordable... I don't care about movie playback, higher resolution is for better work experience.

    Say what you will about Apple, their Macs are actually at the forefront of monitor technology with 2560x1440 on 27" monitors in their AIO iMac...
  • 3 Hide
    dragonsqrrl , June 17, 2011 6:14 PM
    I didn't realize 10in 2048x1536 panels exist... is there any word on a manufacturer?
Display more comments
Tom’s guide in the world
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Ireland
  • UK
Follow Tom’s guide
Subscribe to our newsletter
  • add to twitter
  • add to facebook
  • ajouter un flux RSS