something kinda interesting I just learned about the new iPad

13

I was just talking with one of my TA’s (who worked for a display company) about the new iPad and he said that 120Hz is only worth the trouble if the display is OLED or Plasma, LCD’s do not have the response time to make the most of 120Hz refresh rate, the response time of LCD is its ‘bottleneck’ , not it’s refresh rate. But for display technologies that have a very fast response time, such as Plasma or OLED, you will actually notice an improvement if it’s at 120Hz. So if you can, wait until the OLED iPad and you will notice a real improvement in speed and smoothness (smooth scrolling)

Comments (13)

13 responses to “something kinda interesting I just learned about the new iPad”

  1. rameshthanikodi

    Lots of people who experienced using the iPad Pro at the event are saying it looks smoother though. The 120hz screen is also how Apple is able to improve the responsiveness of the Pencil. I hope to judge for myself one day when I see one in person.

  2. jimchamplin

    But you're still going to see a difference. A marked one. I think the fact that iPad will intelligently render at lower frame rates when 120hz isn't needed is more noteworthy than the panel itself.

  3. wunderbar

    um... what?


    you can buy 120hz and 240hz TV's all over the place, and the differnece on them compared to 60hz is noticeable and real.


    Most high end monitors today are 120 or 144hz, and again, the difference between that and a 60hz panel is noticeable and real.

  4. Patrick3D

    LCD displays can handle 120Hz with a sub-8ms response time quite easily and are common in PC gaming and high-end 4K TVs.

  5. FreeJAC

    OP, something is a miss with this information. I don't know about OLED, but Plasma natively already has a refresh rate much higher than 120 Hz. See Plasma advantages here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_display


  6. jimchamplin

    The kinda interesting thing you just learned about the new iPad is that it's really fscking awesome and represents the future of desktop UI way more than Windows 10 or macOS.

    The actually cool think about the iPad Pro running iOS 11. That shit is the fucking future.

    • Roger Ramjet

      In reply to jimchamplin:

      I don't get the iPad future thing. I saw Thurrott also make this comment. What does iOS have that Windows 10 does not? (I mean this question sincerely). An actual App store that is populated is the obvious one. But heck, half the complaints here about Microsoft are that they are trying to build an actual App store that is populated, often from folks who say they are developers, so, if one goes by that developers wont switch from MacOS/Win 10 to iOS  (with pro apps that is). Although, I get the arguement that they wont have a choice since iOS App store is already successful, you either go, or your competitor goes. Somewhat likely, I guess. In that case, Microsoft better get going on either a successful App store, or reverse to a clearly defined continued freeware model that undercuts other actual and potential desktop App stores (I think Google is sneakily implementing such a strategy against Microsoft on Windows via Chrome browser).

      But, that aside, what else does iOS have that isn't available on Windows 10?


      edit: I guess iOS obviously also is ARM based, with the several advantages (and drawbacks) that come with that, but also obviously Microsoft will launch their WoRM initiative before Apple can get to whatever the ready for productivity iOS is, Intel withstanding.

  7. Paul Thurrott

    So this obviously isn't true, by the way.

Leave a Reply