iPad 4 review

IPad 4 review and yet I bought it

ipad, review

Despite the fact that I already had an iPad 2, buying another tablet has been brewing for a long time. After all, when writing iPad app reviews, you constantly need to devote some time to them. But as soon as you sit down and start going through some game, you are already “above your soul”. The wife suddenly needed to urgently collect savings in the Natives, or his son was impatient to play the Little Engine, because he ate porridge, did his homework and generally behaved well. As a result, I was thinking about another tablet all the time, but I was still in no hurry with this matter. He managed somehow, didn’t put aside money, and even managed to hit the road on vacation to Thailand. I thought, well, maybe the fifth iPad will come out, so the fourth will immediately fall in price. Or even then I’ll take the fifth, if it really turns out cool.

And then suddenly a new version of the firmware appears. iOS 6.1.3, completely unjailbroken. I can’t call myself a vile pirate. I have a lot of purchased apps, some of which are quite expensive (for example, Infinity Blade II, which now, although it costs 99 rubles, but once I paid off 8 for it) and even more apps received for promo codes. It’s just that the App Store doesn’t have everything. Therefore, I had to hurry up a little, while there were still lots with old firmware versions in the warehouses.


I settled on the following configuration: Apple iPad A1458 Retina display Wi-Fi 64GB White. I did not take it with 4G. I have an iPad 2 version with 3G (they gave it to me), so I have never used it for two years. Wi-Fi only. I chose white color so that the iPads could be immediately distinguished, otherwise they look like twins and the new one is issued only by the Lightning connector. In addition, now there will be no problems when recording video when the camera could not aim the Focus in moments of complete blackout. Well, in general, white looks cool, no worse than black 🙂 Here they are, two brothers-acrobats.

The new iPad cost me about 700, since this is a gray delivery, and therefore only a month of warranty and then from the seller. A similar but official tablet would cost 200 more. it is not worth it. In addition to the lack of a normal guarantee, the second problem here is the non-standard outlet. Here she is, on the right.

Turning on the iPad 4 wasn’t as trivial as I thought. I remember the iPad 2 demanded to be connected to iTunes (the image of the USB cable on a black screen) and did not react to anything. And here text immediately floated across the screen and I was asked to choose a language. Well, then make the rest of the settings. choose a geographic location, connect to Wi-Fi, etc.

After setting up the first thing I did. This, of course, looked at the firmware version. Everything was in order here. 6.0.1. It is a pity, of course, that it is not 6.1.2, but on the other hand, it is good that it is not 6.1.3.

It was possible to jailbreak and I did it. How wonderful it is when there is an instruction that I myself once wrote. As a result, the whole procedure took about five minutes. And most importantly, not a single mistake (with a shudder I remember the day evasi0n was released).

I connected iPad 4 to iTunes and he immediately asked what I wanted. restore data or initialize the tablet as a new device. I chose the latter and threw myself several applications for testing. The purchased games also chipped in with a bang, now at least I know how the “Shared Account” works.

Finally, a few words about my impressions of the new tablet (finally). It seems to work faster, but not so that it is very noticeable. But the screen is, yes, much better. And this applies not only to the clarity of the picture, but also to the brightness with color rendition. These photos were taken with maximum brightness settings on both devices. Clickable.

The difference, in my opinion, is obvious. I even had doubts, maybe the iPad screen burns out ?

And the same thing, but in an enlarged version. Left. iPad 2, right. iPad 4.

Since I now have two iPads, I can now play some games together via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth. We drove with our son to the War of the Mushrooms. Works great 🙂 Before that I had a nickname MadCat. On iPad 4, I took the nickname madeforipad_ru.

Well, of course, the forces here are too unequal, so I went in search of worthy rivals. If you’ve played online in the last couple of days, then I think you’ve seen me 🙂

In general, I am very pleased with the purchase. There was even a desire to replay some games, especially since the save games remained on the old device. And most importantly. this iPad is just mine, I can take it whenever I like, which means there are still many interesting reviews awaiting you. And don’t forget to check out the Mushroom War. Let’s fight;)


iPad 4 has a 5-megapixel main camera that allows you to take photos with a maximum resolution of 2592×1944 pixels, with autofocus, face detection, geo-tagging, but no LED flash. Photos taken with a tablet come out very good for a 5MP camera. natural colors, good clarity. Examples of photos can be seen below.

The camera can record videos in Full HD format at 30 frames per second. Video bitrate is about 18 Mbps, and for audio. 65Kbps with a sampling rate of 44 kHz for mono.

IPad 4 has a 1.2MP front camera capable of capturing HD video for video calling.


The tablet computer is equipped with a 9.7-inch touch-sensitive LED-backlit IPS TFT Retina display with a resolution of 2048×1536 pixels (density 264 ppi) and 16 million colors.

The screen is the same as that used in iPad 3, so the image quality remains at the same high level. beautiful, natural colors, sharp pictures, excellent sensitivity.

IPad 4 review

Apple decided to set a record this year by releasing three tablets at once. iPad 4, iPad Mini and iPad 3. And November for fans of the American company’s products became a month of double release.

Immediately, we note that the new iPad has not received any serious modernization: it has a camera, display and design from the previous generation of tablets, and from the innovations we note. a chipset, a Lightning port, a front-facing HD camera. Overall, this tablet is similar to the iPad 3 released in March with a best-in-class Retina display plus a welcome boost in computing power. In addition, the new Lightning port will provide full compatibility with the popular iPhone 5.

Performance and software

The iPad 4 is powered by a 1.4GHz dual-core Apple A6X SoC, a 4-core PowerVR SGX554MP4 graphics chip, and 1GB of RAM. Thus, the new tablet received a more powerful processor than the iPad3, which, of course, will allow it to work quietly with the latest resource-intensive games with spectacular graphics. The device operates under the operating system iOS 6.

Below we will give several so-called synthetic tests that allow you to evaluate the characteristics of a new gadget.

And so, let’s start with the Geekbench 2 test, in which our subject lost to the Samsung Galaxy S III smartphone, but bypassed the Google Nexus 7 and the 4-core LG Optimus G.

In the GLBenchmark 2.5 off-screen test, you can see a huge gap between the new GPU and the chips used in older Apple models, including the iPad Mini. Also, the iPad 4 is significantly ahead of the new Adreno 320 in the LG Optimus G.

In the GLBenchmark 2.5 on-screen test, graphics are reproduced in the “native” display resolution, and not in Full HD resolution, as in the GLBenchmark 2.5 off-screen test. Even though the Retina display has a higher resolution, the new tablet is still a winner.

Browser performance tests also confirmed the emerging trend. iPad 4 scores top in JavaScript and HTML 5 benchmarks.

Depending on the modification, the tablet has 16, 32 or 64 GB of permanent memory, which, like other Apple products, cannot be expanded using microSD cards.

The device supports Wi-Fi, which is capable of delivering up to 150 Mbps, Bluetooth 4.0 A2DP, GPS / A-GPS and GLONASS, 3G networks and LTE networks (depending on modification). But note that in Russia, LTE networks will not work, since the communication standards do not match.

The following software is preinstalled in the tablet: browser, email client, audio and video players, integration with some social services (, etc.), organizer and some other games and programs.


iPad 4 outwardly differs little from iPad 3, that is, it is practically its clone. The slight difference is the new Lightning port. The rest of the tablets are identical.

The Retina display occupies almost the entire front surface of the device, above it is the front camera, and below it is the Home button. On the back you can find the main camera and the logo of the device.

The aluminum body is sleek as always. In general, the tablet is very convenient to use. The assembly is perfect. no extraneous creaks during operation and backlash.

The dimensions of the device are 241.2×185.7×9.4 mm, and the weight is 652 g. (662 gr. For the LTE version of the device).


The gadget received a lithium-polymer battery with a capacity of 11560 mAh, which, according to the manufacturer, should be enough for 9 hours of battery life when using 3G communications and 720 hours of standby time. It takes about 6 hours to charge the device thanks to the high-power charger, as the iPad 3 took more than 7 hours to charge the battery.


The rear camera in iPad 4 is identical in resolution and aperture to the third generation iPad: 5MP and f / 2.4. But the front camera of the iPad 4 has a resolution of 1.2 megapixels, which is higher than that of the iPad 3. In addition, the front camera supports 720p video transmission with FaceTime video calls. Overall, in terms of cameras, the iPad 4 is identical to the iPad mini. This, of course, is very strange, since the iPad 4 is a top device, and one could expect from it the same camera as the iPhone 5. On the other hand, hardly anyone will use a 10-inch tablet for taking photos often, but for occasional shooting, the rear camera is very good.

Полноценный честный обзор на iPad 4. Как показывает себя в 2019 году?!

Let’s start with a 100% fragment of the shot from the window of a building, on a cloudy day. Hereinafter, there will be a frame of iPad 4 on top, and iPad 3 below.

As you can see, the pictures are almost indistinguishable, the only slight difference is in the white balance. Recall that almost all shooting parameters (including white balance) are set automatically by the cameras of iOS devices, and the user does not have the ability to adjust them manually.

Here, too, the results are very similar in terms of the picture and the same in terms of shooting parameters. both tablets set ISO 800 and shutter speed 1/15 s. But the result, oddly enough, the iPad 3 turned out even a little better (the noise is more noticeable, but there are more details).

The last photo test. capturing text. both devices passed without problems.

This test shot leaves no doubt that the slight difference in the picture is due to the differently set white balance, and not due to the shooting conditions (which might have changed slightly over the time between shots). It’s a shame that the iPad camera’s white balance can’t be adjusted, but the color distortion is by no means catastrophic.

When shooting video, we still have no complaints about the iPad. The rear cameras of both tablets shoot in Full HD, with very good clarity and color reproduction. But here’s what’s interesting: iPad 3 has a higher video bitrate! Here are examples of iPad 4 (66.7 MB, 31 seconds), iPad 3 (77.9 MB, 30 seconds).

In general, the iPad 4 camera left a good impression, but it is embarrassing that the cameras in Apple tablets of the 3rd and 4th generations, while the known characteristics are identical, still behave a little differently. In particular, video from iPad 4 has a lower bitrate, and the color rendition when shooting a photo is slightly different.

Packaging and equipment

The packaging of the iPad 4 is practically the same as the packaging of the previous generation tablet.

As for the package bundle, everything is predictable here too (the set of plugs for charging depends on the region in which the device was purchased, so you shouldn’t pay attention to this). The only difference is the Lightning cable instead of the traditional one. As you can see, not only the iPhone and iPad mini, but also the “adult” iPad got a new connector.


As a matter of fact, the Lightning connector is the only external difference between iPad 4 and iPad 3. Therefore, if you buy a new product from your hands, pay attention that the connector is small oval (Lightning), as in the photo below, and not long and narrow (traditional 30.pin connector).

As we remember, iPad 3 also did not differ very much from iPad 2. However, there were still some design changes. And the main one is an increase (albeit small) in mass and thickness. In the case of the iPad 4, there is no change in size and weight, or any other external nuances. Again, the only thing that visually differs iPad 4 from iPad 3 is Lightning instead of 30-pin dock connector.

It would be strange to draw any conclusions regarding the iPad’s design (for obvious reasons). But note that since the release of the iPad 3, this design has not become outdated at all and still looks relevant (though not much time has passed).


Here we come to the main difference between iPad 3 and iPad 4. This is performance. The previous model ran on the Apple A5X SoC, which contained two ARM Cortex-A9 CPU cores at 1 GHz, as well as a quad-core PowerVR SGX 543MP4 GPU at 250 MHz. In the new SoC, the frequency of processor cores increased to 1.4 GHz, while the frequency of the GPU. up to 300 MHz. The number of cores in both cases remained unchanged. However, if in the case of the Apple A5X, the Cortex-A9 CPU cores were used, now (starting with the Apple A6) Apple itself has created the CPU cores based on the ARMv7s architecture.

Let’s see how the SoC change affected the iPad 4’s performance as the rest of the specs (RAM, screen resolution) remained unchanged.

Let’s start with the synthetic Linpack benchmark, which reflects CPU performance. It will allow us to understand how effective the new architecture of CPU cores is.

Well, we see that the difference is gigantic. Obviously, this cannot be explained solely by the increased CPU frequency. Apparently the updated architecture is really highly efficient.

Next we will have the SunSpider 0.9.1 browser benchmark. It checks the speed of the JavaScript engine in the browser and can be useful both for testing the CPU and for determining how comfortable it will be to view Internet pages on a given device. Note that we tested the iPad 3 with the current version of iOS 6, so the operating system itself and the browser were the same on both devices. On each device (previously cleared of cookies and loaded pages, as well as rebooted), the test was run three times. The table shows the best results.

Apple iPad fourth generation (Apple A6X) Apple iPad third generation (Apple A5X)
SunSpider 0.9.1 (less is better) 867.0 ms 1794.6 ms

So, the iPad 4 is more than twice as fast as the iPad 3. Note that this is pretty close to the iPhone 5, but even better. Thus, at the moment, iPad 4 is the absolute record holder among ARM devices in this test. For comparison, here are the results of the main Android competitors.

Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (Samsung Exynos 4412) Asus Transformer Pad Infinity (NVIDIA Tegra 3 T33) Asus Padfone (Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Plus)
SunSpider 0.9.1 (less is better) 2292.0 ms 1926.0 ms 1568.7 ms

In the GeekBench 2.3.6 multiplatform test, the iPad 4 also completely defeated its predecessor, but the competitors from the Android camp were generally no worse.

Apple iPad fourth generation (Apple A6X) Asus Padfone (Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Plus) Asus Transformer Pad Infinity (NVIDIA Tegra 3 T33) Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (Samsung Exynos 4412) Apple iPad third generation (Apple A5X)
Geekbench 2 (more is better) 1766 1561 1957 1809 758

Perhaps the point is that Geekbench is sensitive to the number of CPU cores. And according to this parameter, both NVIDIA Tegra 3 and Samsung Exynos 4412 overtake Apple A6X. However, do not forget that this is a benchmark, but real applications, as a rule, do not use all four cores. Therefore, the victory of Asus and Samsung tablets in this benchmark does not mean that it will be more comfortable to perform any operations on them.

Let’s say more: at the moment, there are not even such areas of application of tablets, in which a large computing power of the CPU is regularly required. Compilation, 3D modeling, rendering, archiving, professional graphics and the like, which we usually test processors for PCs, on tablets, no one does. Yes, from time to time there is a need for computing power. for example, for indexing a new dictionary or database of a cartographic program, but these are one-time needs and are almost always not critical to the speed of execution. At the same time, games for mobile devices are mainly written so as not to overstrain the processor, and when playing video, the GPU is much more important (provided that the video player can use hardware acceleration). Perhaps this is why Apple does not increase the number of CPU cores in its SoCs, like competitors, but makes Accent for GPU performance. iPad 4 is another proof of this.

To answer the question of how much the GPU performance has increased, we used GLBenchmark 2.5.1, which simulates scenes from 3D games (Egypt HD and Egypt Classic). In the first table, you will see the results of the iPad 3 and iPad 4, and in the second, the results of the competitors. Recall that since the screen resolution of Android tablets is different from that of the iPad, it makes sense to look first of all at the graphs with the word Offscreen. they show the performance when starting a game scene at a fixed resolution of 720p. As for the rest of the graphs, they show the performance at the maximum display resolution. and therefore, both iPads with a resolution of 2048×1536 are in worse conditions than Android devices with 1280×800.

GLBenchmark 2.5 Egypt HD (C24Z16)

GLBenchmark 2.5 Egypt HD (C24Z16 Offscreen)

GLBenchmark 2.5 Egypt HD (C24Z24MS4)

GLBenchmark 2.5 Egypt HD (C24Z24MS4 Offscreen)

GLBenchmark 2.5 Egypt HD (C24Z16 Fixed time)

GLBenchmark 2.5 Egypt HD (C24Z16 Fixed time Offscreen)

GLBenchmark 2.1 Egypt Classic (C16Z16)

GLBenchmark 2.1 Egypt Classic (C16Z16 Offscreen)

4th generation iPad 3rd generation iPad
41 fps 22 fps
48 fps 27 fps
34 fps 21 fps
Offscreen MSAA not supported Offscreen MSAA not supported
35 fps 18 fps
39 fps 22 fps
59 fps 53 fps
122 fps 87 fps

So, we see that PowerVR SGX 554MP4 (iPad 4) outperforms PowerVR SGX 543MP4 (iPad 3) by an average of 1.5 times. As for the Android rivals, they are not even up to the iPad 3 yet.

GLBenchmark 2.5 Egypt HD (C24Z16)

GLBenchmark 2.5 Egypt HD (C24Z16 Offscreen)

GLBenchmark 2.5 Egypt HD (C24Z24MS4)

GLBenchmark 2.5 Egypt HD (C24Z24MS4 Offscreen)

GLBenchmark 2.5 Egypt HD (C24Z16 Fixed time)

GLBenchmark 2.5 Egypt HD (C24Z16 Fixed time Offscreen)

GLBenchmark 2.5 Egypt Classic (C16Z16)

GLBenchmark 2.5 Egypt Classic (C16Z16 Offscreen)

Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 Asus Eee Pad Transformer Prime Asus Padfone (in tablet module)
16 fps 16 fps 18 fps
15 fps 11 fps 11 fps
16 fps 12 fps
11 fps 14 fps 16 fps
11 fps 9.3 fps 9.8 fps
58 fps 54 fps 44 fps
58 fps 33 fps 23 fps

What does this mean in practice? First of all. that games for iPad can be more beautiful than for Android tablets. True, the key word here is “may”. And it is not at all a fact that they really will be. First, most of the major publishers are now looking to create multiplatform projects. And they are unlikely to draw significantly more beautiful graphics for the iPad than for top-end Android tablets. Most likely, Android tablets will be the benchmark. Consequently, the potential of the iPad 4 GPU will remain (at least for the first time) undisclosed. Secondly, even if you look at the situation within the framework of one platform (iOS), it is unlikely that in the next year and a half, developers will create games that require the performance of iPad 4 and for which the performance of iPad 3 is not enough. Of course, in two years, when the iPad 5 and iPad 6 are released, the system requirements will be written: “iPad 4 and newer.” But it will be in a couple of years. And today, you probably won’t be able to feel the difference in real-world applications between iPad 3 and iPad 4, despite the impressive difference in benchmarks.

Autonomous work

IPads have always had very decent battery life. iPad 4 is no exception. over, with maximum GPU load and maximum screen brightness, it will work even longer than iPad 3. this was shown by GLBenchmark 2.5.1. An Egypt HD scene fired at 60 fps, the iPad 4 was able to play at 100% screen brightness for 5 hours. The iPad 3 had a worse result. about 4 hours. From which we can conclude that the new SoC is not only more efficient, but also more energy efficient.

With other uses, the duration of the iPad 4 battery life has not changed compared to the iPad 3: about 10 hours when reading or quiet (without too frequent page refresh and downloading heavy content) web surfing via Wi-Fi, about 5, 5 hours of online video playback via browser. The identity of the results is clear: the battery is the same here (Apple traditionally does not report its capacity, however, such a conclusion can be drawn from the data on the operating time provided by the company), the screen is the same, therefore, during normal use, which does not imply an increased load on the SoC, there will be no difference maybe.

Reading mode

Play YouTube videos via browser

GLBenchmark 2.5.1 Battery Test (Egypt HD, 60 fps, maximum brightness)

4th generation iPad 3rd generation iPad
about 10 hours about 10 hours
about 5.5 hours about 5.5 hours
about 5 hours about 4 hours

Review and testing Apple iPad 4

At the end of October, along with the iPad mini, Apple introduced a new generation of iPad. Amid the hype around the iPad mini, this unexpected announcement went almost unnoticed. Of course, this is also a consequence of the fact that the updated iPad, judging by what was said at the presentation, does not offer anything revolutionary. But. let’s not rush to conclusions and we will understand everything in detail.

Let’s start with the terminology. Apple hasn’t given the new iPad its original name. it’s just iPad (with Retina display). Unofficially, it was called the iPad 4, since it is the fourth generation of the iPad. However, as we remember, the previous generation also did not have a number in the name. At the presentation, it was called The New iPad, and although later information appeared that The New iPad is not a proper name, but simply “the new iPad”, the third generation of Apple tablets began to be called that way.

Now the company’s marketers have completely confused buyers and the press. Calling the “new” iPad of the previous generation is somehow strange, and most importantly. it is not clear how to call the iPad of the fourth generation. If not for the previous The New iPad, one could call new every next generation. But over the past months, the word “new” has stuck very much to the iPad of the third generation.

Why this leapfrog? Why couldn’t the numbering be left as in the case of the iPhone? Apparently, Apple marketers have decided to follow the same path as with laptops. As we know, MacBook Pro and MacBook Air also do not have numbers, and generations are designated by phrases like “Late 2011” or “Mid 2012”. Well, let’s see how this affects sales. For the sake of simplicity and to avoid confusion, in this article we will still call our new product iPad 4, and the previous model. iPad 3.

So let’s take a look at the specs of the iPad 4 versus the iPad 3 and major competitors.


SoC (processor)


Flash memory


Memory card support




Operating system

Dimensions (mm)

Weight (g)


4th generation iPad 3rd generation iPad Asus Transformer Pad Infinity Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1
9.7 ″, IPS, 2048 × 1536 (264 ppi) 9.7 ″, IPS, 2048 × 1536 (264 ppi) 10.1 ″, Super IPS, 1920 × 1200 (224 ppi) 10.1 ″, PLS, 1280 × 800 (149 ppi)
Apple A6X @ 1.4 GHz (2 cores of Apple’s own architecture based on ARMv7s) Apple A5X @ 1 GHz (2 cores, ARM Cortex-A9) NVIDIA Tegra 3 T33 @ 1.6 GHz (4 cores 1 auxiliary, ARM Cortex-A9) or Qualcomm MSM 8960 Snapdragon S4 Plus @ 1.5 GHz (2 Krait cores, ARMv7 ISA) Samsung Exynos 4412 @ 1.4 GHz (4 cores, ARM Cortex-A9)
PowerVR SGX 554MP4 @ 300 MHz PowerVR SGX 543MP4 @ 250 MHz GeForce ULP @ 520 MHz or Adreno 225 @ 400 MHz ARM Mali-400 MP4
from 16 to 64 GB from 16 to 64 GB from 16 to 64 GB 8 GB cloud storage from 16 to 64 GB
Lightning dock connector, 3.5mm headphone jack dock connector, 3.5 mm headphone jack Micro-HDMI 1.4а, 2 docking connectors (one at the docking station), 3.5 mm headphone jack, USB 2.0 (at the docking station) dock connector, 3.5 mm headphone jack
No No microSD (up to 64 GB), SD / SDHC (up to 64 GB, on docking station) microSD (up to 64 GB)
1 GB 1 GB 1 GB 2 GB
rear (5 Mp; video shooting. 1920 × 1080), front (1.2 Mp photo, 720p video via FaceTime) rear (5 Mp; video shooting. 1920 × 1080), front (0.3 Mp) rear (8 Mp) and front (2 Mp) rear (5 Mp; video shooting. 1280 × 720) and front (1.9 Mp)
Wi-Fi (optional. 3G, as well as 4G LTE without support for Russian networks) Wi-Fi (optional. 3G, as well as 4G LTE without support for Russian networks) Wi-Fi (optional. 3G and 4G) Wi-Fi 3G
Apple iOS 6.0.1 Apple iOS 5.1 (update to version 6.0.1 available) Google Android 4.0 (update to version 4.1.1 available) Google Android 4.0
241.2 x 185.7 x 9.4 241.2 x 185.7 x 9.4 263 × 180.8 × 8.5 262 × 180 × 8.9
652 652 597 600
699 N / A (0) 406 (2) 452 (2)

As for the characteristics, as we can see, the changes compared to the iPad 3 relate exclusively to the internal components: a new SoC, a new front camera But a comparison with competitors is hardly possible based on this table alone. At least, there are no such characteristics on which the iPad 3 would be inferior to competitors, and the iPad 4 would surpass them, so it is difficult to draw any preliminary conclusions here. Let’s move on to face-to-face introduction and testing instead.

Screen and software

Like the iPad 3, iPad 4 features a remarkable Retina display. The 2048×1536 resolution at the time the iPad 4 was released was not surpassed by competitors, and in other respects, the iPad 4 screen is great. True, in mid-November, a 10-inch Google Nexus 10 tablet with a resolution of 2560×1600 (and a pixel density of 300 ppi) appeared on sale in some Western countries, and this is more than the iPad 3 and 4. But the Nexus 10 screen we have not yet been able to evaluate (but we will definitely do it!).

As for the iPad 4, we didn’t notice any differences compared to the iPad 3 screen. Apparently, this is the same display. But this is good, because, we repeat, at the moment this is almost the best display in 10-inch tablets.

Here is a detailed examination of the Retina screen, carried out earlier by the editor of the “Monitors” and “Projectors and TV” sections, Alexei Kudryavtsev.

The front surface of the tablet is covered with a glass plate with a mirror-smooth surface. Resistance to scratches is available. The anti-glare filter, judging by the reflection of bright light sources, or not, or it is not very effective (the first iPad has about the same). On the outer surface of the screen there is a special oleophobic coating, which to some extent prevents the appearance of fingerprints and facilitates their removal. Although, for example, the same Asus Eee Pad Transformer Prime had an oleophobic coating more effective, this can only be confirmed by direct comparison (the old iPad has an oleophobic coating or not, or it is very “weak”).

With manual brightness control, its maximum value was 330 cd / m² (iPad 2. 280 cd / m²), minimum. 2.8 cd / m² (25.2 cd / m²). As a result, at maximum brightness in bright daylight, it will be possible to see something on the screen, and in complete darkness, the brightness can be lowered to a comfortable level. Automatic brightness control works “in the style of Apple”, which is thoughtlessly copied by other manufacturers (it does not apply to Samsung): in the “Auto” mode, when the level of ambient light increases, the brightness increases, but when it decreases, it remains unchanged, and the corresponding decrease in the brightness of the screen we did not wait. However, if you put the tablet into sleep mode and turn it on again, then the brightness will be set in accordance with the ambient light level. The minimum and maximum levels in Auto mode depend on the position of the brightness adjustment slider. So, when the slider is set to the maximum, the automatic adjustment in bright light sets the brightness to the maximum. 330 cd / m², in the dark. at 300 cd / m² (which is a lot). If the slider is located approximately in the middle, then in bright light it will be about 250 cd / m² (optimal), in the dark. 4.5 (which, of course, is too little). In general, the creators of the iPad need to discard their dogmas, allow the brightness not only to increase, but also to decrease automatically, and at the same time, bring the matter to the end. to allow the user himself and explicitly to set the limits of automatic brightness adjustment. The brightness control is apparently carried out by adjusting the voltage on the backlight LEDs. Most likely, it was not without pulse-width modulation (with its help it is more economical to regulate the voltage), but it has a high frequency and there is a smoothing filter in front of the LEDs. As a result, the backlight, regardless of its intensity, has a barely pronounced modulation with a frequency of slightly less than 16 kHz. For example, this is how the brightness versus time graph looks like in a 2 ms window (along the vertical axis. brightness in arbitrary units):

Most manufacturers in their devices with LED backlighting (tablets, laptops, monitors) adjust the brightness using pulse width modulation (PWM) with a change in amplitude from 0 to 100% with rectangular pulses. And although the negative effect of PWM backlighting with a sufficiently high frequency (from 180 Hz and above) still needs to be confirmed, Apple still needs to be given credit for its devices (at least, the ones we tested. iMac, Apple LED Cinema Display. Apple Thunderbolt Display, MacBook Air and iPad), the backlight does not flicker. The “old” iPad also lacks PWM brightness, and automatic brightness adjustment works in a similar way.

The New iPad uses an IPS-type matrix, so the screen has very good viewing angles without inverting shades and without significant color shift, even with large gaze deviations from the perpendicular to the screen. True, which is typical for any IPS-matrix, the black field is lightened when deviated diagonally: the left corners (when oriented downward with the Home button) remain close to neutral gray when deviated to the right, but when deviated to the left, the right corners acquire a pronounced violet tint. With a perpendicular gaze, the uniformity of the black field, with the exception of a couple of local areas on the border of the screen, is good (the first i Pads also have an IPS matrix, but with a more pronounced purple tint when the gaze deviates to the corners). Black-white-black response time is 14.4 ms (7.8 ms on, 6.6 ms off). The transition between midtones of 25% and 75% (based on the numerical value of the color) takes 25.1 ms in total. The matrix is ​​significantly faster than typical IPS solutions used in tablets (we did not measure the response time for the first two iPads.) For the 32-point gamma curve, the exponent of the approximating power function is 2.19, which corresponds to 2.2, while the real gamma curve practically coincides with the power dependence.

The first two iPads have a similarly good gamma curve.

The contrast is quite high. 830: 1 (the “old”. 740: 1). The color gamut is exactly sRGB:

The iPad 2 is getting worse: like the vast majority of tablet IPS screens, the color gamut is noticeably narrower than sRGB:

The Sony Tablet P is also close to sRGB coverage, but perhaps this dual-screen tablet uses VA matrices, and not IPS, as we suggested in the article. While this question remains open.

The spectra of the “new” iPad confirm what was said about the color gamut:

For comparison, the spectra of the iPad 1 and 2 screen:

It can be seen that in the “old” iPad the matrix light filters mix the components together. This technique allows you to increase the brightness of the screen with the same energy consumption for the backlight. In the new iPad, blending is exactly what should result in standard coverage.

The color temperature balance is good. shades of gray have a color temperature of about 7000 K. but the deviation from Spectra of a black body (delta E) is relatively large (due to some excess of green component), although below 10, which is considered acceptable for a non-professional device.

The screen of iPad 1 and 2 is at least somewhat better than the new one, albeit in small details: the color temperature is a little closer to the standard 6500 K, the delta E changes less and less when going from white to shades of gray.

In total, the screen of The New iPad is distinguished not only by its high resolution, but also by excellent color reproduction. in particular, an almost perfect gamma curve and standard color gamut. As a result, photos and videos on this tablet will look exactly as they should be displayed on a “consumer” device. Those who are paranoid about PWM in the backlight will be glad that Apple has not changed its tradition in this device either. the backlight flicker is not detected even by a hardware test. Well, with the peculiarity of the algorithm for automatically adjusting the screen brightness, the owners of this gadget will have to put up with it. or, even easier and more pleasant, convince themselves that this is how everything should work 🙂

Exact screen dimensions: 24.6 cm (9.68 inches) diagonal, 19.8 cm wide, 14.9 cm narrow.

In terms of software, the iPad 4 is also nothing new. Except for the fact that the iPad 4 comes with iOS 6 preinstalled, while the previous model ships out of the factories with iOS 5. But it can be upgraded to iOS 6.

The main question that arises for everyone after the release of a new iPad or iPhone: is it necessary to purchase it if there is a model of the previous generation? And if there is no previous model, then it may be worth taking advantage of the price reduction for it and take it, and not the newest one.?


The declared parameters of the iPad mini 4 screen do not differ from those of its predecessor: it is an IPS-matrix with a resolution of 2048 × 1536 and a screen diagonal of 7.9 ″. However, the fact that the key parameters are identical does not mean that the screens are exactly the same in all their properties. There really are differences! Detailed screen testing was performed by Alexey Kudryavtsev, editor of the Monitors and Projectors and TV sections. Below is his conclusion.

The front surface of the screen is made in the form of a glass plate with a mirror-smooth surface that is resistant to scratches. Judging by the reflection of objects, the anti-glare properties of the screen are much better than that of the Google Nexus 7 (2013) (hereinafter simply Nexus 7). At the same time, some shade of the screen surface, which appears at large angles, suggests that in the case of the iPad mini 4, some kind of anti-reflective coating is used. For clarity, here is a photo in which a white surface is reflected in the turned off screens (on the left. Nexus 7, on the right. iPad mini 4, then in all comparative photos the tested tablet is located below the Nexus 7:

The screen on the iPad mini 4 is noticeably darker (photo brightness is 66 versus 111 for the Nexus 7). The doubling of reflected objects in the iPad mini 4 screen is very weak, which indicates that there is no air gap between the layers of the screen (more specifically, between the outer glass and the surface of the LCD matrix) (OGS type screen. One Glass Solution). Due to the smaller number of boundaries (such as glass / air) with very different refractive indices, such screens look better in conditions of strong external illumination, but their repair in case of cracked outer glass is much more expensive, since the entire screen has to be changed. On the outer surface of the screen there is a special oleophobic (grease-repellent) coating (effective, but still worse than that of the Nexus 7), so fingerprints are much easier to remove, and appear at a slower rate than in the case of ordinary glass.

With manual brightness control and with the display of the white field on the whole screen, the maximum brightness value was about 430 cd / m², the minimum. 4.8 cd / m². The maximum brightness is not very high, however, given the excellent anti-glare properties, readability even on a sunny day outdoors will be at a decent level. In complete darkness, the brightness can be lowered to a comfortable value. In the presence of automatic brightness control by light sensors (there are two of them, they are located in the upper corners (in portrait orientation), masked by a white coating on the inside of the glass, while taking into account the readings of the sensor that produces a higher value). In automatic mode, when the ambient light conditions change, the screen brightness both increases and decreases. The operation of this function depends on the position of the brightness adjustment slider. with it the user sets the desired brightness level for the current conditions. If in an office illuminated with artificial light (about 400 lx) the slider is moved to the maximum (we assume that it is 100%), then in complete darkness the automatic brightness adjustment function reduces the brightness to 4.8 cd / m2 (a bit dark, but something visible), in an office illuminated with artificial light (about 400 lux), the brightness rises to 440 cd / m2 (very bright), in a very bright environment (corresponds to lighting on a clear day outdoors, but without direct sunlight. 20,000 lux or slightly more) installed on the same 440 cd / m² (as it should be). The brightness slider in the “office” is 50%. the values ​​are as follows: 8.3, 110-130 and 440 cd / m2 (normal), at 0%. 4.8, 4.8 and 31 cd / m2 (dark, but the trend expected). It turns out that the automatic brightness control function works more or less adequately, and it is possible to adjust the nature of the brightness change to the user’s requirements, although there are some not obvious features in its work. At any brightness level, there is practically no backlight modulation, so there is no screen flicker either.

This tablet uses an IPS type matrix. The micrographs show the typical IPS subpixel structure:

For comparison, you can see the gallery of photomicrographs of screens used in mobile technology.

The screen has good viewing angles without significant color shift, even with large gaze deviations from the perpendicular to the screen, and without tint inversion. For comparison, we present photographs in which the screens of iPad mini 4 and Nexus 7 display the same images, while the brightness of the screens was initially set to about 200 cd / m2 (along the white field in full screen, on iPad mini 4 this corresponds to 65% brightness at using third-party programs), and the color balance on the camera is forcibly switched to 6500 K. Perpendicular to the screens, a white field:

Note the good uniformity of brightness and color tone of the white field. And the test picture:

The color balance is slightly different, the color saturation is normal. Now at an angle of approximately 45 degrees to the plane and to the side of the screen:

It can be seen that the colors did not change much on both screens and the contrast remained at a high level. And white box:

The brightness at the angle of the screens decreased (at least 5 times, based on the difference in exposure), but in the case of iPad mini 4, the drop in brightness is less. The black field, when deviated along the diagonal, is lightened weakly and acquires a violet or red-violet hue. The photos below demonstrate this (the brightness of the white areas in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the screens is about the same!):

With a perpendicular view, the uniformity of the black field is imperfect:

Contrast (approximately in the center of the screen) is normal. about 760: 1. Black-white-black response time is 21 ms (12 ms on 9 ms off). The transition between gray tones of 25% and 75% (by the numerical value of the color) and back in total takes the same 21 ms (but already 9 ms on 12 ms off). Such an unusual ratio of response times is explained by the fact that for transitions between halftones, a small acceleration of the matrix works. on the fronts of some transitions, brightness bursts are clearly visible:

This does not lead to noticeable artifacts, but the speed of the matrix increases. The gamma curve, plotted using 32 points with equal intervals in terms of the numerical value of the shade of gray, did not reveal a blockage in either the highlights or the shadows. The exponent of the approximating power function is 1.70, which is below the standard value of 2.2. In this case, the real gamma curve strongly deviates from the power dependence:

Usually, such a deviation is associated with the work of dynamically adjusting the brightness of the backlight in accordance with the nature of the displayed image, but in this case, we did not reveal any signs of it.

Apparently, the matrix filters mix the components to each other to a moderate extent. The spectra confirm this:

As a result, the colors visually have a natural saturation. The grayscale balance is good, as the color temperature is slightly above the standard 6500 K, and the deviation from Spectra of absolute black body (ΔE) is less than 10, which is considered an acceptable indicator for a consumer device. At the same time, the color temperature and ΔE vary little from shade to shade. this has a positive effect on the visual assessment of the color balance. (The darkest areas of the gray scale can be ignored, since the color balance there is not very important, and the error in measuring color characteristics at low brightness is large.)

Let’s summarize. The screen does not have a very high maximum brightness, but it has excellent anti-reflective properties, so the device can be used outdoors without any problems, even on a sunny summer day. In complete darkness, the brightness can be lowered to a comfortable level. It is also permissible to use the mode with automatic brightness adjustment, which works quite adequately. The advantages of the screen include an effective oleophobic coating, no air gap in the layers of the screen and no flicker, high stability of black to deviation of the gaze from the perpendicular to the plane of the screen, as well as sRGB color gamut and good color balance. There are no significant shortcomings. This is probably the best display among small-screen tablets at the moment.

Summing up the testing of the iPad mini 4 screen, we can note that a big step forward has been made here compared to the iPad mini 3: firstly, it is getting rid of the air gap between the matrix and the glass; secondly, improved color gamut and anti-glare properties. But you need to understand that if the iPad mini 4 screen is damaged, it will be much more expensive to replace it than if it was iPad mini 3.

A detailed review and testing of the Apple iPad mini 4 tablet

At the September presentation, Apple, among other things, announced a new version of iPad mini. the fourth. However, she got the least attention: both Apple representatives and the press made Accent on the iPad Pro and the new generation of iPhone. In principle, it is understandable: there is nothing really innovative in the iPad mini 4. But the differences from the iPad mini 3 are much greater here than the iPad mini 3 had compared to the iPad mini 2. A year ago, Apple only equipped the Retina version of its mini-tablet with a fingerprint scanner and a new body color. Now, both the filling and the case itself have been updated. this is not counting improvements in terms of software.

Apparently, due to the fact that the iPad mini 4 does not have some kind of technological innovation, Apple was able to release the tablet earlier than the rest of the new items announced on September 9. over, the iPad mini 4 immediately went on sale in many countries, including Russia (while the official start date for the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus is still unknown to us, we did not get into the first wave of sales). Thus, today we have the opportunity to get acquainted with the iPad mini 4 and figure out how it differs from other current iPad models.

Let’s look at the technical characteristics of the new item.

Specifications Apple iPad mini 4

  • SoC Apple A8 1.5 GHz 64 bits (2 cores, Typhoon architecture based on ARMv8-A)
  • GPU PowerVR GX6450
  • Apple M8 motion coprocessor including GPS, barometer, accelerometer, gyroscope and COMPASS
  • RAM 2 GB
  • Flash memory 16/64/128 GB
  • No memory card support
  • Operating system iOS 9.0
  • Touch display IPS, 7.9 ″, 2048 × 1536 (326 ppi), capacitive, multitouch
  • Cameras: front (1.2 Mp, 720p video via FaceTime) and rear (8 Mp, 1080p video)
  • Wi-Fi 802.11b / g / n / ac (2.4 and 5 GHz; MIMO support)
  • Cellular (optional): UMTS / HSPA / HSPA / DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1700/2100, 1900, 2100 MHz); GSM / EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), LTE Bands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26
  • Bluetooth 4.2
  • Touch ID Fingerprint Scanner
  • 3.5mm stereo headset jack, Lightning dock
  • Li-polymer battery 19.1 Wh
  • A-GPS (in version with cellular module)
  • Dimensions 203 × 135 × 6.1 mm
  • Weight 299 g (manufacturer declared weight of version without honeycomb module) / 307 g (our measurement of version with honeycomb module)

For clarity, let’s compare the characteristics of the novelty with the iPad mini of the previous generation (we will consider the second and third versions as one generation) and with the iPad Air 2.


SoC (processor)


Flash memory


Memory card support




Battery capacity (Wh)

Operating system

Dimensions (mm)

Weight (g)

iPad mini 4 iPad mini 2/3 iPad Air 2
IPS, 7.9 ″, 2048 × 1536 (326 ppi) IPS, 7.9 ″, 2048 × 1536 (326 ppi) IPS, 9.7 ″, 2048 × 1536 (264 ppi)
Apple A8 @ 1.5 GHz (2 cores, 64 bits, Typhoon architecture based on ARMv8-A) M8 coprocessor Apple A7 @ 1.3 GHz (2 Cyclone cores, 64 bits) Apple A8X @ 1.5 GHz (3 cores, 64 bits, Typhoon architecture based on ARMv8-A) M8 coprocessor
PowerVR GX6450 PowerVR G6430 PowerVR GXA6850
16/64/128 GB 16/64/128 GB 16/64/128 GB
Lightning, 3.5mm headphone jack Lightning, 3.5mm headphone jack Lightning, 3.5mm headphone jack
No No No
2 GB 1 GB 2 GB
front (1.2 Mp, 720p video over FaceTime) and rear (8 Mp, 1080p video) front (1.2 Mp) and rear (5 Mp; video 1080p) front (1.2 Mp, 720p video via FaceTime) and rear (8 Mp, 1080p video)
Wi-Fi 802.11 a / b / g / n / ac MIMO (2.4 GHz 5 GHz), optional 3G / 4G LTE Wi-Fi 802.11 a / b / g / n MIMO (2.4 GHz 5 GHz), optional 3G / 4G LTE Wi-Fi 802.11 a / b / g / n / ac MIMO (2.4 GHz 5 GHz), optional 3G / 4G LTE
19.1 24.3 27.62
Apple iOS 9.0 Apple iOS 7/8 (update to iOS 9.0 available) Apple iOS 8.1 (update available to iOS 9.0)
203 × 135 × 6.1 200 × 134 × 7.5 240 x 170 x 6.1
307 339 451
average price T-12859393 T-11153500 T-11153497
IPad mini 4 retail deals
iPad mini 4 16GB Wi-Fi. T-12859393 iPad mini 4 16GB Wi-Fi 4G. T-12859394
L-12859393-5 L-12859394-5
iPad mini 4 64GB Wi-Fi. T-12859391 iPad mini 4 64GB Wi-Fi 4G. T-12859396
L-12859391-5 L-12859396-5
iPad mini 4 128GB Wi-Fi. T-12859392 iPad mini 4 128GB Wi-Fi 4G. T-12859395
L-12859392-5 L-12859395-5

So what should you pay attention to? First, on the SoC. The iPad mini 4 has an Apple A8, and compared to the processor of the same model in the iPhone 6, this is an overclocked version (1.5 GHz versus 1.4 GHz). However, this is not an Apple A8X, as in the iPad Air 2. The differences are in the GPU and the number of CPU cores (three for the iPad Air 2 and two for the iPad mini 4).

As for the comparison with the iPad mini 2 and 3, here it is worth paying attention, of course, to the Apple A8 SoC instead of the Apple A7 and the presence of 2 GB of RAM instead of 1 GB. However, the new iPad mini has a smaller battery than the old one. Apparently Apple expects battery life to be maintained through the power efficiency of the new SoC. Whether it is true or not, we will check in our testing.

Video playback

To test the output of video files on the screen of the device itself, we used a set of test files with an arrow and a rectangle moving one division per frame (see “Methodology for testing video playback and display devices. Version 1 (for mobile devices)”). Screenshots with a shutter speed of 1 s helped to determine the nature of the frame output of video files with various parameters: the resolution varied (1280 by 720 (720p), 1920 by 1080 (1080p) and 3840 by 2160 (4K) pixels) and the frame rate (24, 25, 30, 50 and 60 fps). In our tests, we used a standard video player that can be launched from direct links to files. The test results are summarized in the table:

File Uniformity Skips
4K / 30p Great No
4K / 25p Great No
4K / 24p Great No
1080 / 60p Great No
1080 / 50p Great No
1080 / 30p Great No
1080 / 25p Great No
1080 / 24p Great No
720 / 60p Great No
720 / 50p Great No
720 / 30p Great No
720 / 25p Great No
720 / 24p Great No

Note: If both the Uniformity and Gaps columns have green ratings, this means that, most likely, when watching movies, artifacts caused by uneven interleaving and skipping of frames will either not be visible at all, or their number and visibility will not affect the comfort viewing. Red marks indicate possible problems with the playback of the respective files.

According to the criterion for outputting frames, the quality of video files playback on the screen of the device itself is nowhere better, since frames (or groups of frames) are always (under the conditions of this test) output with a uniform alternation of intervals and without frame drops. When playing video files with a resolution of 1920 by 1080 pixels (1080p) on the tablet screen, the image of the video file itself is displayed exactly along the wide border of the screen, albeit with the inevitable interpolation, which somewhat reduces the clarity. The brightness range displayed on the screen corresponds to the actual range of the video file.

Packaging and equipment

IPad mini 4 packaging is traditional for Apple tablets and practically does not differ from the packaging of the previous generation tablet.

As for the package bundle, there are no surprises here either: flyers, a charger (10 W, 2.1 A, 5.1 V), a Lightning cable, stickers and a key for removing the SIM card cradle.


Externally, iPad mini 4 does not differ much from its predecessor: all the buttons remain in the same places, the appearance of the front panel has not changed either. However, when you take iPad mini 4 in your hand, you immediately feel the difference: the body has become thinner by almost one and a half millimeters and lighter by about 10% (the exact figure depends on the compared versions. with or without a cellular module), and this can be noticed even without the »Comparisons (of course, provided that you have used iPad mini before).

The rest of the design differences are so insignificant and of such little importance that they are worth mentioning only for the sake of accuracy and completeness of the description. So, the speaker grilles located on the bottom edge are now one row of holes, not two. At the same time, the number of holes in a single row is also less, but the holes themselves are larger.

This hardly affects the sound quality. In general, we are not inclined to attribute the sound of the iPad mini 4 speakers to either the advantages or disadvantages of the tablet. The advantage here is quite legible speech and relatively good (as far as possible under such conditions) vocal transmission, and the disadvantage is the location of the speakers: it turns out that the sound comes from only one side of the device. We are not talking about the obvious (the missing low frequencies, coupled with slightly rattling mids). this is the problem of almost all tablets and smartphones.

On the back surface, despite the brushed aluminum, fingerprints are noticeable. This is especially true of the mirrored apple, which almost always looks stained (with daily use of the tablet). On the rest of the surface area, the prints are visible at an angle, but they do not catch the eye and are quite easy to remove.

There are two microphone holes next to the camera. In iPad mini 3, there was only one microphone and it was located in the center of the upper edge. Now iPad mini is completely similar to iPad Air 2 in design and placement of microphones and speakers. But there was no flash near the camera, and no. But there is a fingerprint sensor located in the Home button and inherited from iPad mini 3.

In general, we can say that iPad mini 4 is just a smaller iPad Air 2. By the way, the thickness of the case of these two tablets is identical. As well as placing absolutely all elements.


The iPad mini 4 is powered by the Apple A8 SoC, built using the 20nm process technology. The single-chip system includes a dual-core 64-bit CPU with Typhoon architecture based on ARMv8-A, PowerVR GX6450 GPU and Apple M8 motion coprocessor. The difference between the Apple M8 and the Apple M7, used in previous generations of iPad mini, is the presence of a barometer.

As for the SoC as a whole, we already saw it in the iPhone 6/6 Plus, but there the CPU worked at a lower frequency. On top of that, the amount of RAM was half the size.

Let’s compare the performance of iPad mini 4 versus iPad Air 2, iPad mini 3, and iPhone 6 Plus. IOS 9.0 was installed on iPad mini 4, iOS 9.1 beta on iPad Air 2, and iOS 8.0 on other devices.

Let’s start with browser benchmarks: SunSpider 1.0, Octane Benchmark, and Kraken Benchmark. We will also add JetStream to our standard set. a new browser benchmark recommended by the creators of SunSpider as a replacement for it.

Apple iPad mini 4 (Apple A8) Apple iPad Air 2 (Apple A8X) Apple iPad mini 3 (Apple A7) Apple iPhone 6 Plus (Apple A8)
SunSpider 1.0.2 (less is better) 328.7 ms 291.3 ms 436.6 ms 365.7 ms
Octane 2.0 (bigger is better) 10066 points 10408 points 6339 points 7056 points
Kraken Benchmark 1.1 (less is better) 2542.3 ms 2330.7 ms 5439.2 ms 4506.3 ms
JetStream (bigger is better) 76,150 points 82,534 points

Browser tests show that the iPad mini 4 outperforms both its immediate predecessor and the iPhone 6 Plus, and the gap is significant (apparently, it’s about RAM). But the absolute leader is still the iPad Air 2, although its superiority is far from so significant. It is unlikely that it will be noticeable in real use.

Now let’s see how iPad mini 4 performs in Geekbench 3. a multi-platform benchmark that measures CPU and RAM performance.

Apple iPad mini 4 (Apple A8) Apple iPad Air 2 (Apple A8X) Apple iPad mini 3 (Apple A7) Apple iPhone 6 Plus (Apple A8)
Geekbench 3 Single-Core Score (more is better) 1713 points 1831 points 1377 points 1613 points
Geekbench 3 Multi-Core Score (more is better) 3110 points 4587 points 2481 points 2899 points

A similar picture is here. The layout is the same, but the gap between iPad mini 4 and iPhone 6 Plus is already minimal. But the difference with the iPad Air 2 in multi-core mode is just the same strongly noticeable.

The last group of benchmarks is dedicated to GPU performance testing. We used 3DMark, GFXBench 3.1, and the new Basemark Metal benchmark, created specifically for devices with Metal technology. In addition, we launched GFXBench Metal on iPad mini 4 (a benchmark variant optimized for Metal devices). We present the results through a slash with the results of the usual version (3.1). For some unknown reason, GFXBench did not start in any version on the iPad Air 2. perhaps it is the beta version of iOS. So in the table below you can see the results for the iPad Air 2, which were at the time of our first testing of this tablet (respectively, on iOS 8).

Recall that Offscreen tests are displaying a 1080p picture regardless of the actual screen resolution. And tests without Offscreen. this is the output of the picture exactly in the resolution that corresponds to the screen resolution of the device. That is, Offscreen tests are indicative from the point of view of abstract SoC performance, and real tests. from the point of view of the comfort of the game on a specific device.

GFXBenchmark Manhattan (Onscreen)

GFXBenchmark Manhattan (1080p Offscreen)

GFXBenchmark T-Rex (Onscreen)

GFXBenchmark T-Rex (1080p Offscreen)

Apple iPad mini 4 (Apple A8) Apple iPad Air 2 (Apple A8X) Apple iPad mini 3 (Apple A7) Apple iPhone 6 Plus (Apple A8)
15.2 / 16.0 fps 24.5 fps 8.9 fps 18.6 fps
21.5 / 22.5 fps 32.8 fps 13.2 fps 31.2 fps
37.0 / 38.2 fps 52.5 fps 22.7 fps 44.7 fps
47.5 / 50.2 fps 70.6 fps 28.5 fps 52.1 fps

So, iPad mini 4 demonstrates unambiguously better results than the tablet of the previous generation. in particular, the T-Rex scene now runs at a frequency higher than 30 fps, and therefore, a game with such a level of graphics will run comfortably on iPad mini 4 and uncomfortable. on iPad mini 3. At the same time, iPad Air 2 is still far ahead. So it is he who remains the best gaming solution. As for the results of the iPad mini 4 in comparison with the iPhone 6 Plus, here it should be borne in mind that the screen resolution of the iPhone 6 Plus is smaller than that of the iPad mini 4, so in Onscreen mode the smartphone’s results are slightly better, although the GPU is the same.

Next test: 3DMark. Here we are only interested in the Unlimited mode, because in other modes these devices exceed the maximum.

3DMark (Ice Storm Unlimited Mode)

Apple iPad mini 4 (Apple A8) Apple iPad Air 2 (Apple A8X) Apple iPad mini 3 (Apple A7) Apple iPhone 6 Plus (Apple A8)
18626 points 21651 points 14544 points 17954 points

And again the picture is very predictable. with the only difference that the gap between iPad mini 4 and iPad mini 3 is not as great here as in GFXBench.

Finally. Basemark Metal. Since we do not have results on it for iPad mini 3 and iPhone 6 Plus, we present only data on iPad mini 4 and iPad Air 2.

During the display of the test scene, there was a fps counter in the upper left corner. In the case of the iPad mini 4, it showed 5 fps, in the case of the iPad Air 2. 9-10 fps.

An interesting result, once again proving that the iPad Air 2 can still be considered the unrivaled gaming solution among Apple’s mobile devices (well, at least until the iPad Pro was released). In general, testing confirmed our assumptions: iPad mini 4 is noticeably faster than its predecessor and slightly faster than iPhone 6 Plus (although it won’t be felt in games), but slower than iPad Air 2. However, all this (and the difference between iPad mini of different generations, and the difference between iPad Air 2 and iPad mini 4) will be felt only in two years, not earlier. when games aimed at fundamentally more powerful SoC appear.

Autonomous work and heating

We conducted detailed battery life tests on both tablets. In them, both new iPads performed excellently. So, in 3D games you can play them for more than five and a half hours. This is significantly better than the Nvidia Shield Tablet, although the latter is positioned specifically as a gaming tablet. We emphasize that we checked the battery life in games both with the help of the Epic Citadel test scene (it is on the Unreal engine used in games such as Infinity Blade III, Dark Meadow and Horn), and with the help of a real game. Asphalt 8.

Watching online videos (YouTube, 720p, brightness 100 cd / m²)

Epic Citadel (Guided Tour, 100 cd / m² brightness)

Play Asphalt 8 for 1 hour (100 cd / m² brightness)

Apple iPad mini 4 (Apple A8) Apple iPad Air 2 (Apple A8X) Apple iPad mini 3 (Apple A7)
about 11 hours 20 minutes about 11 hours 20 minutes about 10 hours 30 minutes
6 hours 10 minutes a little over 6 hours about 5 hours 30 minutes
discharged by 16% discharged by 16% discharged by 17%

The time to fully charge the tablet battery from the included charger is three hours. A little too much!

As for the ergonomics of the iPad mini 4, the Apple tablet remained barely warm during the game in Asphalt 8 and the Epic Citadel scene. This is a great result.!

Below is a thermal image of the rear surface taken after 10 minutes of running the battery test in the GFXBenchmark program:

It can be seen that the heating is a little more localized on the right side of the device, which, apparently, corresponds to the location of the SoC chip. According to the heat chamber, the maximum heating was 38 degrees (at an ambient temperature of 24 degrees), this is not very much.