Apple iPad Air vs Microsoft Surface 2: Tablet Comparison

The holiday season is almost upon us, and so the biggest players in the tablet market finally have their latest flagships already available. The iPad Air, from Apple, and Microsoft's Surface 2 are some of the most interesting tablet flagships this holiday season. Considering how Windows RT and the original Surface have both failed to gain significant market share in the tablet market, it'll be interesting to see how the second generation Surface fares. Both tablets have very high-end specs, including high-resolution displays and very powerful processors, along with a high price tag. But which one is worth your money the most?

	Apple iPad Air	Microsoft Surface 2
Body	240 x 169.5 x 7.5mm, 469g (Wi-Fi)/478 (LTE)	275 x 172.5 x 8.9mm, 676g
Display	9.7" IPS LCD 2048 x 1536 (264ppi)	10.6" ClearType TFT LCD 1920 x 1080 (208ppi)
Storage	16/32/64 GB, 1 GB RAM	32/64 GB (microSD expandable), 2 GB RAM
Connectivity	Wi-Fi, GSM (2G), HSDPA (3G), LTE (4G)	Wi-Fi
Camera (Rear)	5 MP with face detection, F/2.4 lens aperture, HDR and 1080p@30fps video	5 MP with LED flash and 1080p@30fps video
Camera (Front)	1.2 MP with face detection and 720p@30fps video	3.5 MP with 1080p@30fps video
OS	iOS 7	Windows 8.1 RT
Processor	Apple A7 (Dual-core Cyclone @ 1.4GHz + PowerVR G6430)	NVIDIA Tegra 4 (Quad-core Cortex-A15 @ 1.7GHz + 72-core ULP GeForce)
Battery	Non-removable Li-Ion 32.4Wh  Usage time: Up to 10hrs	Non-removable Li-Po 31.5Wh  Usage time: Up to 10hrs
Accessories	--	Optional keyboard covers:  - Touch Cover 2 ($119)  - Type Cover 2 ($129)  - Power Cover ($199)
Price	$499 (16 GB, Wi-Fi only)	$449 (32GB)

Design

Build and material quality is absolutely top-notch with these two tablets. The iPad Air has an aluminium unibody frame that's available in either "space" gray or silver. The Surface 2 is encased by silver-colored magnesium, or as Microsoft calls it, VaporMg. But what really sets the Surface 2 apart from all of its competitors is the built-in kickstand at the back, which this time around, stops at two different angles. It's also not very hard to notice that the iPad has some very thin bezels compared to the Surface 2, but that shouldn't really matter that much for most users, unless the looks of your tablet matter a lot to you.  

While in terms of materials the Surface 2 is on par with the iPad, and the kickstand is a very delightful feature, the Surface 2 falls behind severely in terms of dimensions and weight. It's actually not that thick, really. Measuring 8.9mm, it's on par with the ASUS Transformer Pad TF701T and the Lumia 2520, but it's still significantly thicker than the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014 Edition) and the iPad Air. The weight is what really bothers me. At 676g, not only is the Surface 2 not significantly lighter than its predecessor, it's also the heaviest tablet we've seen this year. In fact, it's almost as heavy as the first-generation iPad, and is about 200g heavier than the iPad Air. The fact that the Surface 2 has a larger display than its competitors partially justifies the below average weight, and the larger area of the device also means that, due to the weight distribution, the Surface 2 might not feel as heavy as its weight suggests. 

We must, of course consider that the iPad Air and the Surface 2 have completely different purposes. While the iPad air is a device geared towards entertainment, the Surface 2 has productivity written all over it, considering that the official keyboard covers are an essential part of the Surface experience. There are three different keyboard covers available for the Surface 2, all of which attach to the magnetic connector on the tablet's bottom and double as a cover for the tablet's screen. There's the Touch Cover 2, which is 2.75mm thin and whose keyboard has capacitive buttons, not physical ones, and the keys are backlit. I'm not sure how Microsoft managed to put backlighting on such a thin keyboard, but it's very impressive. Then there's the Type Cover 2, which swaps the capacitive buttons for physical ones, thus providing a much better typing experience, but with the trade-off that the thickness increases to 5.4mm. Finally, there's the Power Cover, which is yet to be released, and is just like the Type Cover 2, but adds an integrated battery that extends the tablet's battery life, but it should be considerably thicker than the Type Cover 2. All of the covers provide an excellent typing experience and, together with the inclusion of Microsoft Office 2013 Home and Student, puts the Surface's productivity potential way ahead of the iPad Air. 

Display

The Surface 2 and the iPad Air both feature excellent displays. With the iPad Air it's the usual 9.7" 2048 x 1536 "Retina" display, which is very crisp thanks to its 264ppi pixel density. The use of IPS technology attributes wide viewing angles to the display, and colors are both bright and accurate. The 4:3 aspect ratio of the iPad is great for browsing the web and reading e-books, but is known for causing letterboxing when viewing videos and movies. 

The Surface 2 has a much larger 10.6" display, but unlike its predecessor is suited with a good screen resolution. 1920 x 1080 pixels give the Surface 2 a pixel density of 208ppi, which is obviously less than the iPad Air's 264ppi. Both displays are very sharp, though, and the iPad Air's higher ppi is only significant enough to be slightly noticeable, and is likely to only make a difference when viewing very small text. The display also presents us with wide viewing angles and good color reproduction. The 16:9 aspect ratio of the Surface 2 is great for watching videos, but it does make use in portrait mode almost unbearable, because the screen is too long and too narrow, so keep in mind that you'll want to use the Surface 2 in landscape mode most of the time. 

In terms of sharpness and color reproduction, the two displays are quite close, even though the iPad Air is a tad sharper, but it all comes down to display size and aspect ratio. The Surface 2 displays might be a bit too large for you, and the choice in aspect ratio will depend on what you'll use your tablet for the most. 

Performance

These two tablets are powered by some of the best silicon available currently. With the Surface 2 it's an NVIDIA Tegra 4 processor, which consists of four Cortex-A15 CPU cores with a 1.7GHz clock speed plus a low-power shadow A15 core designed to help keep power consumption low. The Surface 2's high-resolution display is fitted with a large 72-core ULP GeForce GPU. While the Tegra 4's GPU's benchmark scores are decent, the actual architecture the GPU is built on might disappoint you, especially considering it's an NVIDIA GPU. You get 72 discrete shader cores, which separate into 48 pixel shader units and 24 vertex shader units. This discrete pixel and vertex shader architecture was abandoned many years ago in favor of the more efficient unified shader architecture, which all current mobile and PC GPUs use, save for the Tegra 4. But as long as the benchmark scores are good enough, the older architecture won't really affect the user's experience. But, even though it's based on old architecture, the Tegra 4 has a very good GPU and yields some great gaming experience out of the small (but increasing) number of 3D intensive games on the Microsoft Store. Just know that the iPad Air will be a bit smoother most of the time. 

The iPad Air is powered by Apple's latest A7 processor. The A7's CPU consists of two Cyclone cores clocked at 1.4GHz. The Cyclone CPU is a custom ARM CPU designed by Apple, which is the first commercially available mobile CPU based on the ARMv8 64-bit architecture. While 64-bit's benefits lie mostly on larger RAM capacity, which isn't a concern for Apple devices, which are still on the 1 GB range, the architecture's larger memory registers does improve the overall efficiency of the CPU. Not only that, but the Cyclone core is just about the widest mobile CPU ever created, so we can expect to see single-threaded performance that's far ahead of any of its competitors, and is probably why Apple didn't need to go quad-core to keep its SoC offering competitive. The A7 is also fitted with a beefy PowerVR G6430 GPU, which, unlike the Tegra 4, is the pinnacle of contemporary mobile GPU architecture, with OpenGL ES 3.0 support and a unified shader architecture. So aside from the A7's higher benchmark scores compared to the Tegra 4, the A7 also has more potential for future-proofing.

But since babbling about architectures probably doesn't matter to you, let's get to the benchmarks. First up is Geekbench 3, which measures CPU and memory speed. Note that since the Geekbench 3 app isn't available for Windows RT, I had to use the results from the closest match to the Surface 2 I could find running Android: The 1.9GHz Tegra 4-powered ASUS Transformer Pad. Since the clock speed here is 200MHz higher than on the Surface 2, keep in mind that the Surface 2's performance should be lower, however, since I'm comparing devices from completely different OSes, the difference between the Surface 2 and the Transformer Pad results I used here might account for more than just the 200MHz clock speed difference. Don't expect a huge performance gap between the two Tegra 4 devices, though.

This chart illustrates how the A7 has much better single-threaded performance compared to its rivals, and how that allows the SoC to offer competitive multi-threaded performance with half the core count of its competitors and a much lower clock speed. The A7 actually even beats the Transformer Pad (and probably beats the Surface 2 by a slightly larger margin) in multi-threaded performance, but not by much. It's a bit more complex than that though. It's still true that the Surface 2 has double the thread count compared to the A7, so it should be noted that, while having strong single-threaded performance is more important for overall performance, having more threads is better for things like multi-tasking, something that, coincidentally, is an important aspect of the Surface 2's productivity potential. 

 Moving on to graphics tests, the Surface 2's results don't look so good. The Surface 2 is actually one of the slowest Tegra 4 implementations available, maybe because of the OS it runs on, or maybe because the graphics clock is reduced along with the CPU core. The iPad Air, along with Samsung and Qualcomm's latest offerings, trumps the Surface 2 in this test. In fact, the Surface 2's performance in this specific test is almost identical to the iPad 4.

Moving on to the Onscreen T-Rex HD test, which is run on the devices' native resolutions, we see the iPad Air's higher pixel count holding it back, so that the 1080p Samsung Galaxy Note III outperforms it. Even though it has to power approximately 700 thousand more pixels than the Surface 2, the iPad Air still manages to beat it by a moderately large margin.

The lighter Egypt HD test now causes the Surface 2 to fall way behind all of its competitors, while the iPad Air sits comfortably between the Snapdragon 800 and the Exynos 5420.

Finally, the Egypt HD test run on native resolution shows the iPad Air once again falling behind the Note IIIs slightly, but still far ahead of the Surface 2.

Microsoft clearly doesn't care as much about gaming performance as Apple, otherwise they would've worked on optimizing the OS for its processor a bit better to at least yield benchmark scores that are close to other Tegra 4 implementations on Android. Then again, given that the Surface 2 is more of a working device than a playing device, I can understand why Microsoft wasn't too concerned about the GPU. 

Power Consumption

It's a bit strange that the iPad Air is so much thinner and lighter than the Surface 2 and yet has a bigger battery. The latest iPad comes with a 32.4Wh battery, which is slightly larger than Surface 2's 31.5Wh battery. Both are very large batteries, and should keep these devices running for quite some time on a single charge. However, the iPad Air does have more pixels to power, which increases overall power consumption compared to the Surface 2. As for how much power the SoC draws, both tablets have processors built on 28nm circuitry. The A7 has less CPU cores to power versus the Tegra 4, but the T4's shadow A15 core saves it in that regard. When running intensive tasks, however, the Dual-core Cyclones are likely to draw less power than the Quad-core A15s. Anyways, both Microsoft and Apple claim the same 10 hour battery life.

Conclusion

It's actually very easy to choose whether the Surface 2 or the iPad Air is better for you. If you want a tablet that offers the best productivity in the tablet market, pick the Surface 2. On the entertainment side Microsoft is making strides with Windows RT, as the 8.1 update improves the OS significantly and the Windows Store is improving on a daily basis, and with decent gaming performance and a bright, sharp display, the Surface 2 is not bad at all for entertainment, but the iPad Air is certainly better on this front. With almost unmatched gaming performance and one of the best displays in the mobile market, as well as what is just about the best app selection in existence, the iPad Air tackles your entertainment needs with near perfection. Of course, if you're fine with third-party bluetooth keyboards, the iPad Air, with its iWork app suite, also can also be used for productivity. While not as good as Microsoft's keyboard Covers, the third-party iPad keyboards are decent alternatives.

There's also the pricing factor. The Surface 2 undercuts the iPad Air with a starting price of $449 for 32 GB of storage, compared to the iPad Air, which sells for $499 with 16 GB of storage (Note: Windows 8.1 RT takes quite a lot of space out of the Surface 2's 32 GB capacity, and with Office included you'll only have about 15/16 GB available). The pricing is still similar though, and it'll almost definitely come down to whether you want a device for work or for entertainment.

Apple iPad Air vs ASUS Transformer Pad TF701T: Tablet Comparison

The holiday season is almost upon us, and so the biggest players in the tablet market finally have their latest flagships already available. The iPad Air, from Apple, and the Transformer Pad TF701T, from ASUS, are some of the most interesting tablet flagships this holiday season. Both of them have very high-end specs, including high-resolution displays and very powerful processors, along with a high price tag. But which one is worth your money the most?

	Apple iPad Air	ASUS Transformer Pad
Body	240 x 169.5 x 7.5mm, 469g (Wi-Fi)/478g (LTE)	263 x 181 x 8.9mm, 585g
Display	9.7" IPS LCD 2048 x 1536 (264ppi)	10.1" IPS LCD 2560 x 1600 (299ppi)
Storage	16/32/64 GB, 1 GB RAM	32/64 GB (microSD expandable), 2GB RAM
Connectivity	Wi-Fi, GSM (2G), HSDPA (3G), LTE (4G)	Wi-Fi
Camera (Rear)	5 MP with F/2.4 aperture, face detection, HDR and 1080p@30fps video	5 MP with 1080p@30fps video
Camera (Front)	1.2 MP with face detection and 720p@30fps video	1.2 MP with 720p@30fps video
OS	iOS 7	Android 4.3 Jelly Bean
Processor	Apple A7 (Dual-core Cyclone @ 1.4GHz + PowerVR G6430 @ 450MHz GPU)	NVIDIA Tegra 4 T40X (Quad-core Cortex-A15 @ 1.9GHz + 72-core ULP GeForce)
Battery	Li-Po 32.4 Wh	Li-Po 31 Wh
Accessories	--	- Keyboard dock
Starting Price	$499 (16GB)	$449 (32GB)

Design

The iPad and Transformer lines of tablets have had the most distinguished tablet designs for a long time, and the trend continues with the TF701T and the iPad Air. Unfortunately though, the TF701T has fallen behind the competition in terms of size and weight. While 2013 has ushered in a new trend of thinner and lighter tablets with narrower bezels, the Transformer tablet is still about as thin as light as its predecessors, and the bezel continues to be as wide as it can get. Of course, the unchanged bezel width is a design choice, rather than a technological incapacity to reduce it, and it at least brings the benefit of having lots of room where you can rest your thumbs without them touching the screen. 

The Transformer Pad is noticeably thicker than the iPad Air (8.9mm vs 7.5mm), but the Transformer Pad isn't exactly thick either, as it's at least slightly thinner than last year's iPad 4. The TF701T is also much heavier, weighing 585g, versus the iPad Air's 469g. Again, that doesn't mean that the TF701T is too heavy, and it's significantly lighter than the iPad 4, but it's undeniable that the iPad Air's lighter body makes it less tiring to hold and use for extended periods of time compared to the Transformer Pad. 

The Transformer Pad and the iPad Air are among the few tablets that have an aluminium construction, so they're on the same page in terms of the quality of its materials. The iPad Air, adopting the same design as the iPad mini, has an aluminium back, available in two colors: 'Space' gray and silver. The Transformer Pad also has a gray-colored aluminium back, but with a finish of concentric circles, a signature ASUS design. Like the LTE version of the iPad Air, the Transformer Pad has a plastic RF strip on the top.

Display

The iPad Air and the ASUS Transformer Pad have some of the best displays ever seen on a tablet. Both have extremely high resolutions, both get pretty bright and colors look vivid on both. 

The iPad Air has the usual 9.7" IPS display, and has a resolution of 2048 x 1536, resulting in a pixel density of 264ppi, so as expected text is razor sharp. The IPS technology also ensures a near 178-degree viewing angle and bright colors. The 4:3 aspect ratio of the display is very good for reading and web browsing, but isn't so great for watching videos because the 16:9 aspect ratio of most movies and videos result in a lot of letterboxing in the iPad's 4:3 screen. 

The Transformer Pad has a 10.1" IPS display with power-efficient IGZO technology manufactured by Sharp, with a 2560 x 1600 resolution. This resolution gives the tablet a 299ppi pixel density. While you may think that 299ppi is much sharper than 264ppi, the difference in sharpness between the two screens is barely noticeable, at least at normal viewing distances. Much like the iPad Air, the TF701T's use of IPS display technology gives it wide viewing angles and nicely saturated colors. The 16:10 aspect ratio of the Transformer Pad's screen is great for watching movies, but it makes use in portrait mode a bit awkward. 

And let's not forget about what gives the Transformer Pad its name. While the iPad Air is almost definitely a device geared towards entertainment rather than productivity, the Transformer Pad goes the other way. That's because the Transformer Pad is actually a hybrid tablet/notebook. The optional keyboard dock that ASUS sells for about $149 attaches to the tablet via the dock connector at the bottom and turns the Transformer Pad into a sort of 10.1in Android notebook. The presence of a physical keyboard obviously makes writing documents a lot easier than using onscreen keyboards, and the device's small footprint makes it very portable, so if you're into writing documents while on the go, the Transformer Pad is perfect for you.

The keyboard itself isn't very different from previous iterations. This time around it's made of plastic, unlike the aluminum-built tablet. The dock doesn't look super sturdy, but I don't expect it to break very easily, however, when docked the tablet has a bit too much space to wobble, which is a bit of a concern to me. In fact, I've been seeing many complaints that some of the first units manufactured had some problems with the tablet-to-dock connection, so be aware of that. Other changes include a USB 3.0 port (up from USB 2.0 in the last generation). The keyboard dock also features a 16Wh battery that charges the tablet's battery when docked, giving it a little extra juice on a single charge.

Performance

As flagship tablets, both the iPad Air and the Transformer Pad feature top of the line processors. The iPad Air is powered by an Apple A7 processor, while the Transformer Pad sports an NVIDIA Tegra 4 SoC. 

The Apple A7 is a remarkable processor, in the sense that it's CPU core, dubbed Cyclone, is the first to be based on the ARMv8 architecture, which also happens to be the first mobile 64-bit architecture. While the main advantage of 64-bit is support for more than 4GB of RAM, an advantage that won't be useful for iOS devices for a long time, since they're still on 1GB, the 64-bit architecture also boosts the CPU's performance because it can handle much larger memory addresses than conventional 32-bit CPUs. That alone boosts single-threaded performance significantly. Not only that, but Apple's Cyclone core is also much wider than its predecessor, the Swift. In fact, it's the widest mobile CPU architecture ever seen so far. The wider machine plus the 64-bit architecture boost single-threaded performance ahead of all of its competitors. With so much power on a single core, the A7 needs only two of these Cyclone cores clocked at 1.4GHz to be competitive with the latest quad-cores.

The Tegra 4's CPU is a bit more mundane than the A7's, but it still performs admirably well. It has four Cortex-A15 cores clocked at 1.9GHz, plus a shadow A15 core that can go all the way to 825MHz. This is the same 4-PLUS-1 architecture seen on last year's Tegra 3, and is quite similar in function to ARM's big.LITTLE technology. Basically, in situations where the performance demand from the CPU is low, for example, when your device is locked or idling, the quad-core A15 is power gated and all processing is transfered to the shadow A15, which consumes much less power than the other A15 cores. When the demand on the CPU increases beyond the shadow A15's capabilities, the processing transfers back to the quad-core A15 seamlessly. The only function of this architecture is to increase battery life. 

Looking at the GeekBench 3 results for the Apple A7 and the Tegra 4, it's clear that the A7 is much ahead of its competition in single-threaded performance. However, moving to multi-threaded applications, the A7 has the disadvantage of having less cores than its competitors, but it can still achieve a score close to its quad-core competitors. 

In theory, the Apple A7 really is on par with the Tegra 4 and the other high-end SoCs, but the A7 may have the upper hand due to its strong single-threaded performance. Mobile OSes and most of the applications available for them usually rely more on single-threaded performance, so in this sense the A7 may turn out to be faster for most uses than its competitors. However, having more cores = more threads, so the A7's quad-core competitors may be better for multitasking, something that OEMs have been craving to perfect on tablets. But as far as theory goes, the Apple A7 is just as good as the Tegra 4. 

Moving on to the GPU, the A7 continues Apple's tradition of licensing GPUs from ImgTech, and this time it's the PowerVR G6430. This is a very powerful GPU that boasts of OpenGL ES 3.0 support.

As you may have imagined, the Tegra 4 features NVIDIA's own GPU core, which they like to call the 72-core ULP GeForce. Unfortunately, the Tegra 4 uses an ancient shader architecture, which is composed of discrete pixel and vertex shaders, a much more limited architecture compared to the unified shader architecture in the PowerVR G6430. The Tegra 4 also does not support OpenGL ES 3.0, and only goes as far as OpenGL ES 2.0. For now, this is not a problem as there aren't any games that require OpenGL ES 3.0, but in a year or two it may be. 

To see how these two tablets compete in terms of GPU performance we turn to GFXBench. Note that the first two tests are rendered offscreen at a fixed 1080p resolution, so the Transformer Pad's higher resolution doesn't penalize it there.

While the iPad Air reigns supreme in the T-Rex HD Offscreen test, the Transformer Pad is left as the slowest flagship tablet this holiday season. The difference in framerate between the two tablets isn't enormous, but it's still a very tangible difference. 

Once again, there is quite a gap between the Transformer Pad and the iPad Air here.

Next up are the Onscreen tests, which are run at the device's native resolution. The Transformer Pad really falters here because it has to render at a higher resolution than the iPad Air. Also, the Onscreen tests are the most representative of real-world graphics performance.

The Transformer Pad's higher resolution increases the gap between it and the iPad Air quite tangibly.

Now the Transformer Pad is way below its main competitors, even the Galaxy Note 10.1, which has the same screen resolution. The difference in performance between the iPad Air and the Transformer Pad are pretty big here.

<geek talk> I suspect that the Transformer Pad falters so badly in the Egypt HD Onscreen test because of its fill rate limitations. Since the Egypt HD test is less shader bound than the T-Rex HD test and is therefore probably more fill rate bound, and the Tegra 4 in the Transformer Pad is tasked with powering A LOT of pixels, together with the Tegra 4's average fill rate score, I think it's probable that what we're seeing here is a performance bottleneck due to having few ROPs in the Tegra 4's GPU die. </geek talk>

Power Consumption

As flagship tablets that pack a lot of punch, the iPad Air and the Transformer Pad are expected to have relatively high power consumption. The high-resolution displays themselves draw a lot of power, and when at full power the tablets' processors should be power hungry as well, however, since the processors are both based on 28nm technology it shouldn't be a huge concern. The Tegra 4's 4-PLUS-1 architecture helps the Transformer Pad last a little longer on a single charge, too. 

Both tablets have large batteries to sustain their power hungry systems, and on the Transformer Pad it's a 31Wh unit, slightly smaller than the iPad Air's 32.4Wh battery (So yeah, the Transformer Pad is thicker AND has a smaller battery. Come on ASUS). And the iPad Air does in fact last considerably longer on a single charge than the Transformer Pad. However, don't forget that the Transformer's keyboard dock has a 16Wh battery that can give the Transformer Pad up to 4 hours of extra usage. With the keyboard dock, the Transformer Pad can outlast the iPad Air quite easily. 

Conclusion

Many times I call a tie in these comparisons, but this time I have to say that for most uses the iPad Air is clearly the better tablet. It has a much sleeker, lighter frame, significantly better performance and even better battery life than the Transformer Pad TF701T. Of course, if you want to have a tablet on which you can be productive, then that changes everything. The iPad Air is simply not a very good device for work. Of course you can always use a third-party bluetooth keyboard with iWork apps and call the iPad productive, but ASUS' integration of the keyboard dock and the tablet/notebook convertible concept makes the Transformer offering better for productivity than any iPad + bluetooth keyboard combination. If. however, you only want a tablet for playing games, watching movies, browsing the web, etc., then the iPad Air is probably a better offering than the Transformer Pad.

In truth, the Transformer Pad would've been much better had it launched a few months earlier. It's much more of a close match to the iPad 4 rather than the iPad Air, so basically the Transformer Pad is a tablet that feels one generation old. 

However, I can't just say that the iPad Air is superior to the Transformer Pad and leave it at that, as these two are competing at very different price points. The 32GB Transformer Pad costs $449, $150 less than the 32GB iPad Air ($599), and even the entry-level 16GB iPad Air ($499) costs $50 more. The Transformer Pad with the keyboard dock would match the price of the iPad Air at the same storage capacity, actually. Compared to other offerings in the $449 price range, the Transformer Pad fares much better, competing with the Surface 2 and the Xperia Tablet Z.

So who would I recommend the ASUS Transformer Pad to? Obviously, I highly recommend it for who likes to work while on the go. If the iPad Air's $499 starting price is a bit too much for you, the Transformer Pad is generally the best tablet in the $449 range. However, if you want a tablet for entertainment rather than productivity, or if can do with bluetooth keyboards for the iPad and you can afford $499 the iPad Air is almost definitely the better tablet.

Apple iPad Air vs Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014 Edition): Tablet Comparison

The holiday season is almost upon us, and so the biggest players in the tablet market finally have their latest flagships already available. The iPad Air, from Apple, and the Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition, by Samsung, are some of the most interesting tablet flagships this holiday season. Both of them have very high-end specs, including high-resolution displays and very powerful processors, along with a (perhaps too) high price tag. But which one is worth your money the most?

	Apple iPad Air	Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014)
Body	240 x 169.5 x 7.5mm, 469g (Wi-Fi)/478g (LTE)	243 x 171 x 7.9mm, 540g (Wi-Fi)/547g (LTE)
Display	9.7" IPS LCD 2048 x 1536 (264ppi)	10.1" TFT LCD 2560 x 1600 (299ppi)
Storage	16/32/64 GB, 1 GB RAM	16/32 GB, 3 GB RAM
Connectivity	Wi-Fi, GSM (2G), HSDPA (3G), LTE (4G)	Wi-Fi, GSM (2G), HSDPA (3G), LTE (4G)
Camera (Rear)	5 MP with 1080p@30fps video, F/2.4 aperture, HDR, face detection	8 MP with LED flash, face detection and 1080p@60fps video
Camera (Front)	1.2 MP with 720p@30fps video and face detection	2 MP with 1080p@30fps video
OS	iOS 7	Android 4.3 Jelly Bean
Processor	Apple A7 (Dual-core Cyclone @ 1.4GHz + PowerVR G6430 @ 450MHz)	-Wi-Fi: Exynos 5420 (Quad-core Cortex-A15 @ 1.9GHz + Quad-core Cortex-A7 @ 1.3GHz + Mali-T628) -LTE: Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 MSM8974 (Quad-core Krait 400 @ 2.3GHz + Adreno 330 @ 450MHz)
Battery	Non-removable Li-Po 8,820 mAh Video playback time: 10hrs	Non-removable Li-Po 8,220 mAh Video playback time: 10hrs
Starting  Price	$499 (16GB, Wi-Fi)	$549 (16GB, Wi-Fi)
Accessories	--	S Pen

Design

Both Samsung and Apple have produced good designs for their flagship tablets, but it'll come down to the usual plastic vs aluminium debate, or in this case faux leather vs aluminium. While the iPad Air maintains its all-aluminium design, this time inspired on the iPad mini rather than the previous iPad, Samsung has done the same as it did with the Note III, replacing glossy plastic with a back casing that is still plastic, but is now disguised as leather. I'm not sure I appreciate the faux leather design at all. Personally, not only do I prefer the iPad's aluminium construction, but I think the faux leather looks so old-fashioned that even the glossy plastic they used previously may look better. That's just my opinion though, and ultimately it'll come down to personal taste. At least the faux leather gives the Galaxy Note 10.1 more grip than the iPad Air. The Galaxy Note 10.1 is available in black and white (bezel color included), and the iPad Air is similarly available in "Space" gray and silver. 

Both the Galaxy Note 10.1 and the iPad Air are remarkably thin and light. They are in fact one of the thinnest and lightest tablets available, but the iPad Air is definitely the winner in this department. It's technically thinner than the Note 10.1 (7.5mm vs 7.9mm), but the difference is so small it's practically unnoticeable to the user. While their thickness is one the same level, the iPad Air is significantly lighter than the Note 10.1 (469g vs 540g). In this case the difference in weight is definitely noticeable. The Note 10.1 is still lighter than most other tablets, though. 

Display

The display is possibly the area where these two tablets fare the best. Both are large, crisp, bright, and colorful. The iPad Air, much like two of its predecessors, has a 9.7" display with a 4:3 aspect ratio and a resolution of 2048 x 1536, which gives the screen 264ppi pixel density. The Note 10.1 has, like the name implies, a 10.1" display with a 16:10 aspect ratio that packs 2560 x 1600 pixels and has a pixel density of 299ppi.

Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the displays is the aspect ratio. The almost-square 4:3 display in the iPad Air makes it better to use in portrait mode, and is more suited for reading and web browsing, while the wide 16:10 display in the Note 10.1 makes it better suited for usage in landscape mode, and frankly makes portrait mode use a bit awkward, but is generally better for watching videos. 

You may think that the difference between 264ppi and 299ppi is huge, but honestly, it's hard to notice the Galaxy Note 10.1 being any crisper than the iPad Air, especially at the usual viewing distance. The difference is there, however, and any eagle-eyed person would probably notice a slight difference in sharpness. 

Leaving the numbers and quantitative data aside, both the Note 10.1's and the iPad Air's displays are sufficiently bright. Viewing angles are good, as is expected of any half-decent tablet these days, and colors are accurate and satisfyingly saturated in both tablets. 

Performance

Both of these tablets have the most powerful processors available to handle their ultra high-resolution duties. On the iPad Air we have the same A7 SoC found in the iPhone 5s and the Retina iPad mini, and on the Galaxy Note 10.1 we have either the Snapdragon 800 or a rare Exynos 5 Octa (5420) SoC for the LTE and Wi-FI models, respectively. All of these SoCs are built on 28nm process node to keep power consumption lower. 

The A7's CPU technology has gained quite a bit of popularity since its launch back in September. That's because its the first CPU to utilize the ARMv8 ISA, which happens to be a 64-bit architecture, hence also making it the first 64-bit mobile SoC. Apart from the new ISA, Apple made its new Cyclone CPU core the widest mobile CPU ever seen. With all that power packed into a single core, Apple needed no more than two of those cores with a relatively low 1.4GHz clock speed to match its competitors' performance. As benchmarks show, the dual-core Cyclone CPU @ 1.4GHz is perfectly capable of competing with the latest quad-core beasts, and since it packs much more power on a single core, the A7 really stands out from its competitors in single-threaded CPU benchmarks.

The CPU in the Exynos 5420 SoC in the Wi-Fi Galaxy Note 10.1 is one of the few CPUs to ultilize ARM's big.LITTLE technology. Based on the ARMv7 32-bit ISA, the Exynos 5420 contains two CPU clusters, one high-performance cluster to handle demanding tasks, and a low-power cluster for handling lighter tasks while reducing power consumption.The high-performance cluster contains four Cortex-A15 cores clocked at 1.9GHz, while the low-power cluster has four Cortex-A7 cores @ 1.3GHz. 

The Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 variant of the Galaxy Note 10.1 (the LTE version) has, like Apple, a custom CPU core dubbed Krait 400, based on the ARMv7 32-bit ISA. The Snapdragon 800 has four Krait 400 cores with an insane 2.3GHz clock speed. 

Like I said before, since the A7's Cyclone CPU has a 64-bit architecture and is wider than all of its competitors, it manages a much higher score in single-threaded CPU benchmarks. However, in multi-threaded applications the A7 has the disadvantage of having fewer cores compared to its competitors, however it can still definitely keep up with its quad-core competition. The multi-threaded test puts the A7 very close to the Exynos 5420, but both processors lag behind the Snapdragon 800.

With the CPU out of the way, let's focus on the GPU of the Galaxy Note 10.1 and the iPad Air. The A7 SoC follows Apple's tradition of licensing GPUs only from ImgTech, and so we have a PowerVR G6430 graphics processor in the A7. On the Wi-Fi Note 10.1's Exynos 5420 processor there's an ARM Mali-T628 GPU, and the LTE Note 10.1 has an Adreno 330 GPU. All of these GPUs are among the most powerful mobile GPUs available, so we turn to GFXBench to tell us which of these GPUs is the most powerful.

Note: Unfortunately there are no benchmark scores yet available for the Snapdragon 800-based Note 10.1, so I'm taking data from the closest match I could find, the Galaxy Note III with Snapdragon 800. However, I'll omit the Note III scores from the Onscreen tests due to the difference in resolution between the Note III and the Note 10.1.

The T-Rex HD Offscreen test shows the PowerVR G6430 in the iPad Air remarkably close to the Adreno 330, however the Mali-T628 GPU in the Wi-Fi Note 10.1 lags behind them both, but at least outperforms the NVIDIA Tegra 4 SoC in the ASUS Transformer Pad.

The lighter Egypt HD Offscreen test shows the iPad Air's GPU falling behing both the Wi-Fi Galaxy Note 10.1 and the Snapdragon 800-powered Galaxy Note III and puts the Snapdragon 800 at the top of the chart.

Note that since these two tests are rendered at a fixed, non-native resolution, the difference between the resolution of the Note 10.1 and the iPad Air don't affect the scores here. 

The Onscreen tests illustrate how the 1 million more pixels that these two Android flagships have to push versus the iPad Air bog down their performance. The T-Rex HD test shows that the iPad Air managed a much higher score compared to the Exynos-based Galaxy Note 10.1 and the Tegra 4 ASUS Transformer Pad TF701T. 

Since the Egypt HD test is much lighter than T-Rex HD the margin between the iPad Air and its competitors becomes narrower. However, it's still clear that the iPad Air, due to its significantly lower resolution, can push more frames than its 1600p Android competitors. 

Until the Snapdragon 800-based LTE Galaxy Note 10.1 gets released there's no data to indicate how it compares to the iPad Air in the Onscreen tests, although if I were to guess, I'd say that, even though the Adreno 330 is slightly more powerful than the PowerVR G6430 in the Apple A7, its performance advantage still won't be able to offset the resolution difference between it and the iPad Air.

Usually, the Onscreen tests would mimic most accurately real world gaming performance, given that Android and iOS games tend to run at the device's native screen resolution, but since the iPad 3 developers have been going another way: For specific ultra high-res devices, in order to avoid performance issues, the game runs at a lower-than-native resolution and then upscales to the device's screen resolution.  For example, a developer might program a game to run at 1920 x 1200 and then scale to 2560 x 1600 on the Galaxy Note 10.1 to keep framerates high. Given how the Galaxy Note 10.1's higher resolution obviously puts it behind its iPad competitor, it might be necessary for this sort of optimization to be made to keep a decent framerate in very demanding 3D games.

Conclusion

The Galaxy Note 10.1 and the iPad Air are in fact similar in many ways. They both have thin, light designs (although the plastic vs metal war continues with these flagships), displays with a very high resolution, large batteries and some of the best-performing SoCs available. 

In hardware terms, the iPad Air and the Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition are indeed very similar, so it'll probably come down to software to determine which one is best for you. With the Note 10.1, we have Android 4.3 (and soon enough 4.4) with Samsung's TouchWiz UI added on top, and the iPad Air obviously runs iOS 7. 

The addition of the S Pen digitizer might make you choose the Note 10.1 over the iPad Air, but that'll be only if you really value the advantages that a stylus brings.

Selling for the usual $499 for the 16GB Wi-Fi version, the iPad Air is an expensive tablet, although not as expensive as the Galaxy Note 10.1, which sells for $549 for the 16GB Wi-Fi version. $549 is asking for a lot, so unless the S Pen is really useful for you or you really prefer the Android ecosystem, the iPad Air offers more bang for your buck than the Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition.

Apple A7 vs NVIDIA Tegra 4 vs Snapdragon 800: SoC Wars

Mobile SoC performance has become one of the most competitive aspects in the mobile sector. Since 2010, when the iPad made it clear how important processing power is for mobile devices, performance in mobile devices has had exponential growth, and SoC vendors began to compete more and more. In 2013, the main SoC manufacturers can be narrowed down to Qualcomm, Apple, NVIDIA, and to a lesser extent, Samsung. TI used to be a big player in the SoC market, but this year it practically disappeared from the SoC sector. Now that these companies have their latest silicon shipping in commercially available products, in time for the holiday season, it's time to put their best offerings to the test and see who has the best offering.

	Apple A7	NVIDIA Tegra 4	Snapdragon 800
Process Node	28nm HKMG	28nm HPL	28nm HPM
Die Size	102mm2	~80mm2	118.3mm2
Instruction Set	ARMv8 (64-bit)	ARMv7 (32-bit)	ARMv7 (32-bit)
CPU	Dual-core Cyclone @ 1.3/1.4GHz	Quad-core Cortex-A15 @ 1.9GHz + Low Power Cortex-A15 @ 825MHz	Quad-core Krait 400 @ 2.3GHz
GPU	PowerVR G6430 @ 450MHz	72-core ULP GeForce @ 672MHz	Adreno 330 @ max 550MHz
RAM	32-bit Dual-channel LPDDR3-1600 (12.8GB/s)	32-bit Dual-channel LPDDR3/DDR3L-1866 (14.9GB/s)	32-bit Dual-channel LPDDR3-1866 (14.9GB/s)

The CPU: Dual-core vs Quad-core

Apple's most impressive feat on the mobile performance sector so far is that, in an age of quad-cores with insane clock speeds, Apple has not once shipped a device with more than two CPU cores and with a relatively low clock speed, and has still managed to at least keep up with the latest competition. Let's see how Apple's latest CPU, the dual-core Cyclone with a max clock speed of 1.4GHz, stacks up against NVIDIA's latest offering, the Tegra 4's four Cortex-A15s @ 1.9GHz and the Snapdragon 800's four Krait 400 cores @ 2.3GHz

Architecturally speaking, Apple's CPU is far superior to the Cortex-A15 and the Krait 400. That's because the A7 CPU runs on a brand new 64-bit ARMv8 architecture. The luxury of 64-bit allows the Cyclone CPU to be able to address memory much faster, giving it a tangible performance gain in some cases over traditional 32-bit solutions. Not only that, but Apple has made the Cyclone core much wider than its predecessor, the Swift core. In fact, I think it's the widest mobile CPU so far. The wider architecture plus 64-bit give the Cyclone cores much better single-threaded performance over any of its competitors, and remember that in most use cases single-threaded performance is the most important. Kudos to Apple for competing against monstrous quad-cores with only a dual-core. 

The NVIDIA Tegra 4's CPU uses NVIDIA's Variable Symmetric Multi-Processing architecture, which was introduced with the Tegra 3. Like ARM's big.LITTLE architecture, the Tegra 4 consists of a main CPU cluster, composed of four high-performance Cortex-A15 cores running at a max 1.9GHz, and a shadow A15 core than can go up to 825MHz. When CPU demand is low, the Quad-core A15 cluster is power-gated, and all processing transfers to the shadow A15 core, and it remains like this as long as demand from the CPU is low enough. The advantage of this is, of course, reduced power consumption.

Qualcomm's Snapdragon 800 uses Qualcomm's own modification of the Cortex-A15 core, dubbed Krait 400. Since Qualcomm likes to keep its mouth shut about its CPU architectures, not much is known about the Krait 400. What we know is that the Krait 400 is mostly the Krait 300 core in a 28nm HPm process. However, the move from 28nm LP in the Krait 300 and 28nm HPm in the Krait 400 means that there's been some relayout in the Krait 400. Other differences from Krait 300 include lower memory latency. Apart from that, we only know that, like the Cortex-A15 upon which it's based on, the Krait 400 is a 3-wide machine with OoO (Out-of-Order) processing capabilities. The move to HPm means the Krait 400 can achieve higher clocks than its predecessor, which accounts for the insane 2.3GHz max clock speed. Put that four of those monster cores together and you potentially have the most powerful mobile CPU to date. Unfortunately, it still remains that it also lags behind the Apple A7 in single-threaded performance, which is also very important in mobile OSes. 

Now let's put in some quantitative information to see how these CPUs compare in their actual performance: 

What I said before about single-threaded performance shows here. Apple's Cyclone cores can deliver at least 50% more performance on a single core than any of its competitors. But due to the fact that the A7 has only two cores while all of its main competitors have four of them, in multi-threaded situations the A7 loses its advantage, but can still keep up with all of its competitors. It's very impressive how Apple always manages to match quad-core performance with only two cores. 

The GPU and Memory

Apple has always put more emphasis on the GPU rather than the CPU on its SoCs, and the A7 is no different. Apple continues to license GPUs from Imagination Technologies, like it has been doing since its first iPhone. This time around, Apple is using a PowerVR "Rogue" series GPU, which is based on ImgTech's latest technology and, of course, supports OpenGL ES 3.0. The exact model of the new PowerVR GPU in the A7 is the G6430 variant, which contains four GPU modules with 32 unified shader units on each module. That equates to a total of 128 shader units with at a clock speed of 450MHz. 

Ironically, the NVIDIA Tegra 4's GPU is the least fancy of the current high-end mobile GPUs. Designed by NVIDIA, the GPU in the Tegra 4 is based on the ancient NV40 architecture (the same used in the GeForce 6000 series), hence, its the only modern GPU that uses discrete pixel and vertex shaders. In this case, there are a total of 72 shader units, 48 of which are pixel shaders and the remaining 24 are vertex shaders. The GPU runs on a max clock speed of 672MHz. The biggest limitation of the Tegra 4's GeForce GPU is that it only supports OpenGL ES 2.0. Right now, this isn't really a problem, as game developers haven't yet migrated to OpenGL ES 3.0 for their games, but that practically destroys the future-proofing of the Tegra 4.

Finally, we have the Snapdragon 800 with its Adreno 330 GPU. Like I said before, Qualcomm likes to reveal as little information as possible about its SoCs, and the Adreno line of GPUs are probably the biggest mysteries I'm faced with now. All I can say is that it's a unified shader architecture compatible with the latest OpenGL ES 3.0 API. The Adreno 330, in its highest configuration, runs at 550MHz, but the vast majority of Snapdragon 800 devices have their GPUs clocked at 450MHz. By the way, the benchmark results I'll show later on reflect the Adreno 330's performance at 450MHz, since no devices have released yet with the 550MHz bin of the Adreno 330. 

	Snapdragon 800	Apple A7	NVIDIA Tegra 4	NVIDIA Tegra 4i
GPU Name	Adreno 330	PowerVR G6430	72-core GeForce	72-core GeForce
Shader Cores	?	4	4 Pixel; 6 Vertex	2 Pixel; 3 Vertex
ALUs/Core	?	32	12 Pixel; 4 Vertex	24 Pixel; 4 Vertex
Total ALUs	?	128	72 (48 Pixel, 24 Vertex)	60 (48 Pixel; 12 Vertex)
Max Clock Speed	550MHz	450MHz	672MHz	660MHz
Peak GFLOPS	?	115.2	96.8	79.2

Peak theoretical compute power puts the Tegra 4 behind the A7, but the Tegra 4 is still close enough to the A7 to call it competitive. However, be aware that, while the A7's unified shader architecture allows it to have its peak 115.2 GFLOPS performance available to it in any situation (the same applies to the Adreno 330), the story is quite different with the Tegra 4. The discrete pixel shader architecture means that the GPU's peak 96.8 GFLOPS can only be achieved when the mix of pixel and vertex shader requests matches the ratio between pixel and vertex shader hardware (2:1), so most of the time the GPU achieves less than 96.8 GFLOPS.

There may not be a huge gap in theoretical compute between the A7's and Tegra 4's GPU, but the architectural difference is astounding. You can hardly put a unified shader architecture that supports OpenGL ES 3.0 in the same league as a discrete pixel and vertex shader architecture that is limited to OpenGL ES 2.0. While these differences may not affect real-world performance, the omission of OpenGL ES 3.0 is bad for future-proofing. 

Interestingly, every current high-end SoC uses pretty much the same memory interface. The Tegra 4, Apple A7 and Snapdragon 800 have dual-channel DDR3L solution, except that the Tegra 4 and the Snapdragon 800 allow for a slightly higher clock speed (933MHz) versus the A7 (800MHz), giving the A7 12.8 GB/s peak theoretical memory bandwidth, versus 14.9 GB/s on the Tegra 4 and Snapdragon 800. While the A7 has technically less theoretical memory bandwidth than its competitors, it counteracts this with a very interesting solution. It turns out the A7 has 4 MB of SRAM on-die, acting as a L3 cache, which can be used to unload instructions off the main memory interface and hence increase the bandwidth. You may recall that a similar solution is used in the Xbox One's SoC to increase memory bandwidth. 

Considering the 4MB SRAM on the A7's die, it may turn out that the A7 can deliver significantly more memory bandwidth than the Tegra 4, but still, both have enough memory bandwidth to power ultra high-resolution (>1080p) tablets comfortably. 

The T-Rex HD test shows the Tegra 4 significantly behind the Apple A7 and also puts it as the slowest of the high-end mobile GPUs. The Apple A7, however, is only beaten by the Snapdragon 800, however only by a very small margin. 

The less intensive Egypt HD test also shows the Tegra 4 behind the A7 and other high-end mobile SoCs, but by a smaller margin. The A7 is the second slowest of these SoCs in this test, achieving slightly lower scores than the Mali-T628 in the Exynos 5420 and the Adreno 330 in the Snapdragon 800. Both tests show the Snapdragon 800 as the supreme mobile GPU.

ImgTech GPUs have always had industry leading fill rate capabilities, and it shows in the A7. The PowerVR G6430 GPU has a much higher fill rate than any of its competitors. On the ther end of the spectrum, we have the Tegra 4. Tegra GPUs have a tendency of being substandard in terms of fill rate, and it shows. The Tegra 4 manages a significantly lower fill rate score than every one of its competitors, especially the Apple A7. That's a problem, because the Tegra 4 is currently used to power some of the few tablets which boast 1600p displays, for example, the ASUS Transformer Pad TF701T. On devices with 1080p screens or less however, even the Tegra 4 probably won't run into any bottlenecking due to the limited fill rate. The Snapdragon 800 also doesn't do very well, as it's also outperformed by the Mali-T628 in the Exynos 5420.

Here, the Tegra 4 and the Apple A7 are in the lead, with the Apple A7 pulling ahead slightly.

Adding lighting per vertex for some reason causes the Apple A7 to lag behind all of its competitors, leaving the Tegra 4 on the lead.

When using per pixel lighting, the A7 once again falls behind everyone else, and this time the Tegra 4 also joins it with the second lowest score.

Even though in some cases the Apple A7 lags behind its competition severely, I highly doubt this is going to make performance suffer in any way, since most mobile games aren't very geometry bound. 

The Snapdragon 800, while not at the top spot in most of these tests, shows strong scores across the board, outperforming the whole competition by a significant margin in the fragment lit test. 

Power Consumption

All of the current high-end SoCs should have low enough power consumption, since they all use 28nm silicon. On the CPU side, the A7 enjoys a low core count as well as a low clock speed, so I don't expect the CPU to draw too much power. The Tegra 4, on the other side, has four power-hungry Cortex-A15 cores with a much higher clock speed, however, the shadow A15 core has potential to counteract the extra power consumed when the main A15 cluster is active. The S800 doesn't have any extra low power cores, and relies on the efficiency of the main Krait 400 cores to yield good battery life. But given Qualcomm's record of making CPUs with low idle power, this is definitely not a problem.

One optimization that Qualcomm makes to reduce power consumption is that it can have different clock speeds on each active core. The competitors' architectures only allow them to run every active core at the same clock speed, even if unnecessary. So, for example, if there are two cores active, one of them fully loaded and the other running a much lighter task, the Krait 400 will have the first core on its max clock speed, while the second core could have a much lower clock, while its competing CPUs will run both cores at the max clock speed, even if the second core doesn't really need it. This is one of the many optimizations that make the Krait 400 core very power efficient. 

I can't really tell whether it's the 72-core GeForce GPU, the PowerVR G6430 or the Adreno 330 that consumes less power, but given ImgTech's record of making the most power efficient mobile GPUs, it's not a stretch to assume that the G6430 is the GPU that draws less power. 



Conclusion

While the Tegra 4, the Apple A7 and the Snapdragon 800 have completely different architectures, I'd say that they're pretty close to each other, based on the performance they've showed on synthetic benchmarks. The differences between the CPUs are the most astounding. While Apple focused on keeping core count and clock speed low while driving up single-core performance, NVIDIA's (or rather, ARM's) and Qualcomm's solution offsets the relatively lower single-threaded performance by using more cores at a higher clock speed. While the former is probably better for overall system performance, as mobile OSes tend to rely much more on single-threaded performance, the latter is probably better for multi-tasking. In any case, it's evident that all current high-end SoCs are surprisingly close together when it comes to peak multi-threaded performance.

Comparing the Tegra 4, Apple A7 and the Snapdragon 800 as well as the rest of the high-end competition, it's clear that the only one that is truly distinguished is the A7. The Tegra 4 and the Exynos 5420, for instance, both have four Cortex-A15 cores with a similar clock speeds (1.9GHz vs 1.8GHz, respectively), and they also have a separate CPU cluster for handling light tasks with low power (the Tegra 4 has a single A15 core at its disposal, while the Exynos 5420 uses a quad-core Cortex-A7 cluster for the same purpose). The Snapdragon 800 uses a unique architecture, the Krait 400, in a quad-core configuration and even takes the clock speed beyond the norm with an insane 2.3GHz, but unlike two of its competitors, it doesn't need extra low power cores, but has other solutions to keep idle power consumption low.

In GFXBench's high-level GPU benchmarks, it seems that all four main high-end SoCs are more or less on the same level, with only the Snapdragon 800 slightly pulling head of the A7. In both high-level tests, however, we can see the Tegra 4 lagging behind all of its competition. How ironic.

GFXBench's Low-level tests show a huge difference between the current high-end mobile GPUs, however. In the fill rate department we see the Apple A7 blowing all of its competitors out of the water, and we also see the Tegra 4 on the bottom of the chart and the Snapdragon 800 slightly ahead of the Tegra 4, but still behind the Exynos 5420 and the Apple A7.

The verdict of this comparison is that, while pretty much all of the current flagship SoCs are pretty close in terms of CPU power, the Tegra 4 falters slightly when the GPU is put to the test. The Apple A7 does very well on the GPU side, but it's just slightly outperformed by the Adreno 330 GPU on the Snapdragon 800. But really, they're all so close it's hard to pick one as a definite winner. You could call the Snapdragon 800 the overall inner, but I say it's too close to call.