Notebookcheck

Apple iPad (2017) Tablet Review

Patrick Afschar Kaboli (translated by Andreas Osthoff), 04/05/2017

Just recycling? Apple did not even hold a keynote for its latest tablet model. All we got was a press release. We think: That is enough for the Apple iPad (2017), because it is a very good tablet – and finally for a fair price.

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Currently wanted: 
News Editor - Details here

For the original German review, see here.

If you wanted to spend a maximum of 400 Euros for an Apple iPad so far, it had to be one of the Mini models. However, the current generation iPad Mini 4 costs at least 480 Euros ($399) – because you can only get the 128 GB model right now. Apple now launches a new tablet for price-conscious users. The name: iPad. The price: starting at 400 Euros ($329). This will get you a 9.7-inch tablet with Wi-Fi, 32 GB storage and somewhat dated components. The A9 SoC, which debuted in the iPhone 6S, is already 1.5 years old. Apple also uses the same camera modules for quite a while now. Potential buyers also have to make two more compromises: Apple does not equip its latest tablet with a fully laminated panel, so you can expect reflections. The 2017 iPad is not compatible with the Apple Pencil, either. This feature is still reserved for the Pro models. There are no visual changes compared to the "predecessor" iPad Air 2, which has already been removed from the Apple Store. This is where we bought our test model; it is the high-end SKU with 128 GB storage + Cellular for 659 Euros ($559).

We will call the new tablet from Cupertino Apple iPad (2017) to avoid mix-ups.

Apple iPad (2017) (iPad Series)
Processor
Memory
2048 MB 
Display
9.7 inch 4:3, 2048 x 1536 pixel 264 PPI, Multi-touch, IPS, glossy: yes
Storage
128 GB NVMe, 128 GB 
, 122 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, 1 HDMI, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm stereo jack, 1 Fingerprint Reader, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Brightness sensor, Sensors: 3-axis gyroscope, ambient light, accelerometer, barometer
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.2, LTE Cat.6 (Bands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 38, 39, 40, 41), LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 7.5 x 240 x 169.5 ( = 0.3 x 9.45 x 6.67 in)
Battery
32.4 Wh, 8.827 mAh Lithium-Polymer, Battery runtime (according to manufacturer): 10 h
Operating System
Apple iOS 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 8 MPix ƒ/2.4 aperture
Secondary Camera: 1.2 MPix FaceTime HD Kamera, ƒ/2.2 aperture
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo speakers, Keyboard: virtual, 12 Months Warranty, Power adapter, Lightning cable, quick-start guide, Apple SIM and Nano SIM, fanless
Weight
478 g ( = 16.86 oz / 1.05 pounds) ( = 0 oz / 0 pounds)
Price
659 Euro

 

Case

The latest Apple iPad has a 9.7-inch screen and looks … just like its two predecessors, the iPad Air & iPad Air 2. To make it short: It is the case of the first-generation iPad Air. We cannot see any changes even if there are any. Our colleagues from iFixit share this opinion and give the new iPad a better reparability score compared to the models with fully laminated panels. The case dimensions are also identical to the iPad Air at 7.5 x 240 x 169.5 millimeters (~0.3 x 9.4 x 6.7 in). The slightly higher weight (additional 5 grams/~0.18 oz) is probably a result of the fingerprint scanner Touch ID – one of the few new features on the iPad (2017). Otherwise, the chassis characteristics are identical to the first iPad Air: It is still one of the slimmest and lightest tablets without making compromises in terms of stability or build quality. Quite the contrary: Materials and build quality are still top-notch, even though the aluminum unibody design is almost four years old. There is no criticism for the stability, either. Only a lot of pressure will warp the case, and the liquid crystal display shows ripples only when you twist the device.

Size Comparison

Connectivity

Apple sells the new iPad for a comparatively low price, so we should notice some "shortcuts" in this section. It already starts with the SoC. Instead of the current A10 or at least the most powerful iPad chip right now, the A9X, Apple only equips its new "budget tablet" with the Apple A9 – it debuted in autumn 2015 and powered the iPhone 6S and 6S Plus. This means the iPad will not be able to compete with the performance of the iPad Pros and the iPhone 7 models, but the power of the A9 chip should still ensure a good spot in the tablet performance ranking. This is also the case for the graphics adapter PowerVR GT7600.

Customers can choose between 32 and 128 GB storage. As per usual, it is not possible to expand the internal storage. You also have to choose whether you need LTE or not, because the new iPad is available as "Wi-Fi" or "Wi-Fi + Cellular". The additional price is fair at 100 Euros ($100) for the larger storage and hefty at 160 Euros ($130) for the LTE module.

The iPad (2017) is obviously equipped with a Lightning connector to charge the tablet and transfer data. However, Apple still uses USB 2.0 in 2017. The iPad is at least still equipped with a 3.5 mm stereo jack.

Left side: No ports
Left side: No ports
Right side: Volume buttons, SIM slot
Right side: Volume buttons, SIM slot
Top: 3.5 mm stereo jack, power button
Top: 3.5 mm stereo jack, power button
Bottom: Speakers, Lightning connector
Bottom: Speakers, Lightning connector

Software

The current Apple operating system is iOS 10, which was launched on September 13, 2016. The iPad (2017) is obviously shipped with this version as well, and the minor release now carries the number 10.3 and was launched on March 27th. The focus of the latest update is the new Apple file system APFS, which is already used for the installation of iOS 10.3, so the internal storage is reformatted. You should therefore not forget to create a backup before the update. The new file system, which will be used on all Apple devices, replaces HFS+ or HFS, respectively, which is already 30 years old. The new system is optimized for fast flash storage according to the manufacturer, and it is supposed to improve the handling with encrypted files.

Reports also speculated about a theater mode, which is already available on the Apple Watch. It will stop the activation of the screen when you lift the device and mute all sources of noise. It is unfortunately not included in iOS 10.3, but you get modifiable app symbols in return. Developers of third-party software can change the symbols of their apps or offer a collection of alternative symbols. 10.3 will most likely be the last major release for iOS 10. Apple launched a small update to 10.3.1 during the review period, but iOS 11 is already in the works. However, some models will once again be left out. The minimum requirement for iOS 11 is a 64-bit processor, which is the case for all iPhones since the 5S. This will probably rule out the original iPad Air as well as the predecessors.

The first devices with iOS 10 were the Apple iPhone 7 and 7 Plus, so we refer to these reviews for more information about the current iOS release. There is not much to add for the 2017 iPad, except: iOS 10 also runs smoothly on the latest tablet from Cupertino and does not affect the workflow.

Communication and GPS

The wireless communication modules are still up to date, despite their somewhat old technology. The dual-band Wi-Fi module supports the 802.11 standards a/b/g/n/ac as well as the MIMO technology, so the theoretical maximum transfer rate is 866 Mbps. The cellular connection is not quite as fast. LTE at up to 300 Mbps downstream and 50 Mbps upstream, respectively, should still be more than sufficient for Internet on the go, though, especially since these transfer rates are still not common among mobile carriers. The number of bands is more important, and the iPad does not cause any criticism with 21 bands. The Apple SIM is supported as well. The SIM card standard is – as per usual – "nano". Bluetooth 4.2 is still up to date, even though the successor Bluetooth 5 was already announced a couple of months ago.

We check the performance of the Wi-Fi module with our reference router Linksys EA8500. The performance of the iPad is very good, but cannot quite keep up with the iPhone 7. 465 Mbps receive and 389 Mbps send is still clearly ahead of the Samsung Galaxy S7. The new iPad can therefore benefit from very fast Internet connections and will usually not be the bottleneck.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe (Klaus I211)
532 MBit/s ∼100% +14%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
465 MBit/s ∼87%
Samsung Galaxy S7
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
281 MBit/s ∼53% -40%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe (Klaus I211)
485 MBit/s ∼100% +25%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
389 MBit/s ∼80%
Samsung Galaxy S7
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
335 MBit/s ∼69% -14%

Our test model of the Apple iPad is equipped with an LTE module. Only this SKU is also equipped with a receiver for GPS & GLONASS signals. We compare the quality on an 8 km (~5 mile) long mountain bike ride through a mixed terrain. We also have the reference navigation device Garmin Edge 500 with us. The new iPad performs – similar to so many other iOS devices before – very well. The whole track length is just 100 meters (~328 feet) shorter on the Apple tablet, which is a very small difference. The forest section in particular shows that the iPad only takes minor "shortcuts" compared to the special navigation system. The initial satellite connection is also established within seconds, even indoors (but only close to a window). All in all, the Apple iPad 2017 is an excellent choice for navigation purposes, both on-road and off-road.

GPS Test: Overview
GPS Test: Overview
GPS Test: Forest section
GPS Test: Forest section
GPS Test: Bridge
GPS Test: Bridge
GPS-Test: Overview Garmin
GPS-Test: Overview Garmin
GPS Test: Forest section Garmin
GPS Test: Forest section Garmin
GPS Test: Bridge Garmin
GPS Test: Bridge Garmin

Cameras

Picture front camera
Picture front camera

No changes for the camera modules: We already know the two sensors from the iPad Mini 4, iPad Pro 12.9, and iPad Air 2. The main camera takes pictures at 8 MP and has a maximum aperture of f/2.4. This is nothing special anymore, not even for a tablet. This is even more the case for the front camera, which is called FaceTime HD camera by Apple. Nobody will be impressed by the 1.2 MP sensor, but the results are actually decent in good lighting conditions. Colors appear vivid, but it lacks details and sharpness. The front camera works well for video calls – which is also supported by experiences with other iOS products. This is also the case for the new iPad. Only low-light situations will quickly show the limitations of the sensor and videos suffer from a lot of picture noise.

You can take much better pictures with the main camera. This sensor provides vivid colors as well, but the contrast range is superior to the FaceTime camera. The higher resolution (8 MP) also ensures crisper results, but you will also notice weaknesses when you start to zoom in: Details like leafs, roof tiles and the like are very blurry. The new iPad still has one of the best tablet cameras.

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images

A comparison between the CalMAN Passport and our pictures shows that the camera of the new iPad records colors slightly too saturated. This results in very vivid pictures, but does not represent reality. Overall, however, the colors are close to their respective references, and we cannot notice a color cast. That 8 MP do not necessarily ensure a very sharp result is evident when you see the picture of the reference chart. The edges in particular are a bit blurry, and we can see frayed edges at the numbers and letters. The central segment confirms this impression.

ColorChecker Passport: The reference color is displayed in the lower half of each patch.
ColorChecker Passport: The reference color is displayed in the lower half of each patch.
Reference chart: Overview
Reference chart: Overview
Reference chart: Central segment
Reference chart: Central segment

Accessories and Warranty

The scope of delivery does not offer any surprises, but we did not expect any to begin with. Besides the mandatory power adapter (10 W) and the Lightning-to-USB cable, the LTE model is also shipped with the typical Apple SIM-card tool. You also get some service brochures.

The Apple Store offers many optional accessories. You can find almost everything starting with covers, cases, cables, and adapters all the way up to wall mounts.

Apple only grants a 12-month warranty, but offers an additional hardware protection called AppleCare+ for 99 Euros ($99), which must be added within 60 days of the purchase. It will extend the service period to two years and covers two accidental repairs, each subject to a 49 Euros ($49) service fee. 24 months phone support is included as well.

Input Devices and Handling

This is probably the section with the least amount of new information. The input devices, more precisely the touchscreen and the physical buttons, hardly changed on the iPad models over the last couple of years. The Apple iPad (2017) does not support the Apple Pencil, so we cannot say anything about that, either. The touchscreen of the new iPad works as usual: quick, reliable, precise. The physical buttons are carefully implemented and provide a good pressure point. The fingerprint scanner Touch ID is also available for the 2017 iPad and works flawlessly.

Display

Neither the size nor the resolution – once again – changed compared to the previous models, but Apple still claims they have changed or improved it, respectively. The new screen is primarily supposed to be brighter compared to the iPad Air & iPad Air 2. Not a bad idea in general, but it seems Apple wants to use the higher luminance to hide a drawback compared to the current generation: The display of the new iPad is not fully laminated, which was still the case for the iPad Air 2. Apple could reduce annoying reflections to a minimum with this technology, and it was one of the big advantages over the competition. The wide color gamut from the iPad Air 2 and the Pro model is also gone, although this is probably not a deal-breaker for most users, especially considering the affordable price.

But let's get back to the measurement results for the 9.7-inch screen with the 4:3 aspect ratio. The panel is based on the IPS technology, but we did not expect anything else at this price point. The resolution is also unchanged at 2048x1536 pixels, which results in a pixel density of 264 PPI. This does not set any records anymore, but it is still sufficient for crisp contents. We cannot confirm the supposedly grease repellant display coating; it did not really work for the predecessors, either.

One thing that works is the increased luminance compared to the iPad Air, just as Apple promised. The maximum luminance is now 514 nits vs. 473 nits on the Air. The average luminance for the new model is still 485 nits – about 10 percent more compared to the previous model. The brightness distribution took a small hit, but 88 percent is still a decent result, just like the contrast ratio (1117:1), which is also just beaten by the iPad Air. This is due to the slightly increased black value (0.46); other devices perform better in this respect.

464
cd/m²
478
cd/m²
494
cd/m²
454
cd/m²
514
cd/m²
498
cd/m²
468
cd/m²
491
cd/m²
508
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 514 cd/m² Average: 485.4 cd/m² Minimum: 4.1 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 88 %
Center on Battery: 514 cd/m²
Contrast: 1117:1 (Black: 0.46 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.4 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.3
ΔE Greyscale 2.1 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
97.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.22
Apple iPad (2017)
IPS, 2048x1536, 9.7
Apple iPad Air
IPS, 2048x1536, 9.7
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
IPS, 2048x1536, 9.7
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
IPS, 2732x2048, 12.9
Google Pixel C
LTPS, 2560x1800, 10.2
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
IPS, 1920x1200, 10.1
Screen
-10%
10%
-11%
-75%
-79%
Brightness middle
514
473
-8%
523
2%
399
-22%
487
-5%
392
-24%
Brightness
485
442
-9%
500
3%
393
-19%
510
5%
385
-21%
Brightness Distribution
88
90
2%
93
6%
92
5%
91
3%
91
3%
Black Level *
0.46
0.41
11%
0.52
-13%
0.22
52%
0.39
15%
0.59
-28%
Contrast
1117
1154
3%
1006
-10%
1814
62%
1249
12%
664
-41%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
1.4
2.82
-101%
1.1
21%
2.96
-111%
5.24
-274%
4.5
-221%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
2.9
1.9
34%
7.8
-169%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.1
1.45
31%
1.4
33%
3
-43%
7.95
-279%
4.8
-129%
Gamma
2.22 108%
2.47 97%
2.11 114%
2.21 109%
2.16 111%
2.47 97%
CCT
6647 98%
6768 96%
6662 98%
7049 92%
6565 99%
7426 88%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
62.97
71.15
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
99.55
97.87

* ... smaller is better

The slightly raised black value is one of the few criticisms we have for the display of the new iPad. Black contents have a gray hue at the full luminance, but there are no problems with the picture quality at practical brightness levels. This is the case for the grayscale as well as the colors. Apple waives the extended P3 color space, but sRGB is covered completely; color temperature and gamma value are also close to their respective ideal values. The deviations are not visible with the naked eye. One small drawback is the performance with orange/red colors, but you will still need a very trained eye to notice the deviations.

Grayscale
Grayscale
Gamut coverage sRGB
Gamut coverage sRGB
Saturation Sweeps
Saturation Sweeps
ColorChecker
ColorChecker

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 54 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8882 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
26 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 15 ms rise
↘ 11 ms fall
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 45 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (25.9 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
40 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 23 ms rise
↘ 17 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 43 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (41.4 ms).

Reflections are another problem of the display on the new Apple iPad. This would be nothing special since we criticize this for pretty much every tablet. However, Apple managed this problem surprisingly well thanks to fully laminated tablet displays. We took some meaningful pictures during our review of the Apple iPad Mini 4. The shots of the iPad 2017 are just as meaningful and show the rediscovery of the "mirror talent" on the latest Apple device. At least the viewing angle stability is excellent.

Outdoor use: Backlight
Outdoor use: Backlight
Outdoor use: Indirect sunlight
Outdoor use: Indirect sunlight
Outdoor use: Direct sunlight
Outdoor use: Direct sunlight
Viewing angles
Viewing angles

Performance

Apple uses the A9 chip, so the iPad (2017) is not fully up to date in terms of hardware. The SoC was introduced with the iPhone 6S models back in 2015. The dual-core chip convinces with very good per-MHz performance figures and was the fastest mobile processor at its launch. This can also be said about the accompanying GPU. The PowerVR GT7600 should – just like the processor – still beat the majority of rivals or at least keep up with the best devices today. Memory is – as per usual for Apple – a limited resource: The new iPad is only shipped with 2 GB RAM.

The iPad 2017 performs very well, as expected. It is actually only beaten by its own Pro siblings and the latest Samsung tablet, the Galaxy Tab S3, in some tests. The Google Pixel C on the other hand falls behind in almost every benchmark; it only manages a new high-score in Passmark. Still, the new iPad performs very well across the board without any outliers in any direction.

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
184346 Points ∼80% +43%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
168840 Points ∼73% +31%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
144426 Points ∼63% +12%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
142532 Points ∼62% +11%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
128706 Points ∼56%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
90568 Points ∼39% -30%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
29823 Points ∼13% -77%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
1811 Points ∼50% +69%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
1807 Points ∼50% +68%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
1555 Points ∼43% +45%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
1525 Points ∼42% +42%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
1205 Points ∼33% +12%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
1074 Points ∼29%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
1040 Points ∼29% -3%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
7525 Points ∼91% +74%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
6127 Points ∼74% +42%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
4626 Points ∼56% +7%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
4320 Points ∼52%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
4293 Points ∼52% -1%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
4057 Points ∼49% -6%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
81 Points ∼1% -98%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
4061 Points ∼64% +57%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
4002 Points ∼63% +55%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
3438 Points ∼54% +33%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
2964 Points ∼46% +15%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
2735 Points ∼43% +6%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
2584 Points ∼41%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
102 Points ∼2% -96%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
22527 Points ∼29% +69%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
21886 Points ∼28% +64%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
16023 Points ∼20% +20%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
15473 Points ∼20% +16%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
15450 Points ∼20% +16%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
13324 Points ∼17%
Apple iPad Air
PowerVR G6430, A7, 16 GB eMMC Flash
8520 Points ∼11% -36%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
7964 Points ∼10% -40%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
63974 Points ∼14% +43%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
52816 Points ∼11% +18%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
51124 Points ∼11% +15%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
50084 Points ∼11% +12%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
44645 Points ∼9%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
34002 Points ∼7% -24%
Apple iPad Air
PowerVR G6430, A7, 16 GB eMMC Flash
18868 Points ∼4% -58%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
7737 Points ∼2% -83%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
40665 Points ∼19% +39%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
37676 Points ∼18% +28%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
34015 Points ∼16% +16%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
33812 Points ∼16% +15%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
30277 Points ∼14% +3%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
29326 Points ∼14%
Apple iPad Air
PowerVR G6430, A7, 16 GB eMMC Flash
14858 Points ∼7% -49%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
7786 Points ∼4% -73%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
163.2 fps ∼9% +102%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
117.1 fps ∼7% +45%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
110.3 fps ∼6% +37%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
92 fps ∼5% +14%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
80.8 fps ∼5%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
69 fps ∼4% -15%
Apple iPad Air
PowerVR G6430, A7, 16 GB eMMC Flash
27 fps ∼2% -67%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
14 fps ∼1% -83%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
59.4 fps ∼13% +6%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
59.3 fps ∼13% +6%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
59 fps ∼13% +5%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
57.7 fps ∼13% +3%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
56 fps ∼12%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
39 fps ∼9% -30%
Apple iPad Air
PowerVR G6430, A7, 16 GB eMMC Flash
21 fps ∼5% -62%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
13 fps ∼3% -77%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
80.1 fps ∼15% +97%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
60.7 fps ∼11% +50%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
51 fps ∼9% +26%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
48 fps ∼9% +18%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
40.6 fps ∼7%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
40 fps ∼7% -1%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
5.6 fps ∼1% -86%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
58.5 fps ∼16% +104%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
35.1 fps ∼10% +22%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
34 fps ∼9% +18%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
33.3 fps ∼9% +16%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
28.7 fps ∼8%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
22 fps ∼6% -23%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
5.2 fps ∼1% -82%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
83 fps ∼15% +191%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
42.2 fps ∼8% +48%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
39.5 fps ∼7% +39%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
32 fps ∼6% +12%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
31 fps ∼6% +9%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
28.5 fps ∼5%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
59.4 fps ∼34% +221%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
54.3 fps ∼31% +194%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
26.9 fps ∼15% +45%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
19 fps ∼11% +3%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
18.5 fps ∼11%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
13 fps ∼7% -30%
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
1871 Points ∼100% +76%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
1322 Points ∼71% +25%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
1059 Points ∼57% 0%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
1206 Points ∼64% +14%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
1061 Points ∼57%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
764 Points ∼41% -28%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
615 Points ∼33% -42%
BaseMark OS II
Web
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
1531 Points ∼90% +26%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
1213 Points ∼72%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
1185 Points ∼70% -2%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
1091 Points ∼64% -10%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
1007 Points ∼59% -17%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
884 Points ∼52% -27%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
9 Points ∼1% -99%
Graphics
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
8422 Points ∼91% +84%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
6896 Points ∼75% +51%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
6485 Points ∼70% +42%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
6355 Points ∼69% +39%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
4941 Points ∼53% +8%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
4569 Points ∼49%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
729 Points ∼8% -84%
Memory
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
2185 Points ∼46% +63%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
2027 Points ∼42% +51%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
1931 Points ∼40% +44%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
1341 Points ∼28%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
1257 Points ∼26% -6%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
868 Points ∼18% -35%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
750 Points ∼16% -44%
System
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
6230 Points ∼61% +33%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
6098 Points ∼59% +30%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
6097 Points ∼59% +30%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
4680 Points ∼46%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
3505 Points ∼34% -25%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
2724 Points ∼26% -42%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
1250 Points ∼12% -73%
Overall
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
3282 Points ∼76% +34%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
3181 Points ∼74% +30%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
2999 Points ∼70% +23%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
2441 Points ∼57%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
2409 Points ∼56% -1%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
1909 Points ∼44% -22%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
283 Points ∼7% -88%
PassMark PerformanceTest Mobile V1
3D Graphics Tests
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
3320 Points ∼69% +186%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
2018 Points ∼42% +74%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
1176 Points ∼25% +1%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
1174 Points ∼25% +1%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
1161 Points ∼24%
Apple iPad Air
PowerVR G6430, A7, 16 GB eMMC Flash
857 Points ∼18% -26%
2D Graphics Tests
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
6446 Points ∼35% +85%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
5215 Points ∼28% +50%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
4454 Points ∼24% +28%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
4072 Points ∼22% +17%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
3484 Points ∼19%
Apple iPad Air
PowerVR G6430, A7, 16 GB eMMC Flash
635 Points ∼3% -82%
CPU Tests
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
129085 Points ∼28% +179%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
59659 Points ∼13% +29%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
58793 Points ∼13% +27%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
49364 Points ∼11% +7%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
46285 Points ∼10%
Apple iPad Air
PowerVR G6430, A7, 16 GB eMMC Flash
38536 Points ∼8% -17%
System
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
8618 Points ∼56% +65%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
8372 Points ∼55% +60%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
5638 Points ∼37% +8%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
5511 Points ∼36% +5%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
5224 Points ∼34%
Apple iPad Air
PowerVR G6430, A7, 16 GB eMMC Flash
2190 Points ∼14% -58%

iOS devices are usually the benchmark in terms of browser performance. Even older devices often beat the modern high-end rivals. The Apple iPad (2017) is powered by outdated hardware and therefore falls behind its more powerful siblings, but other tablets are not even close to the new iPad. This is noticed in practice: The iPad is – once again – a real browsing machine.

Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
24875 Points ∼50% +37%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
19852 Points ∼40% +9%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
19621 Points ∼40% +8%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
18148 Points ∼37%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
9531 Points ∼19% -47%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
7563 Points ∼15% -58%
Apple iPad Air
PowerVR G6430, A7, 16 GB eMMC Flash
5113 Points ∼10% -72%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
2672 Points ∼5% -85%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
14064 ms * ∼24% -865%
Apple iPad Air
PowerVR G6430, A7, 16 GB eMMC Flash
5584.1 ms * ∼9% -283%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
5533.1 ms * ∼9% -280%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
2244.4 ms * ∼4% -54%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
1546.3 ms * ∼3% -6%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
1498.8 ms * ∼3% -3%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
1457.7 ms * ∼2%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
1113.4 ms * ∼2% +24%
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
165.86 Points ∼50% +29%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
143 Points ∼43% +11%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
142 Points ∼43% +10%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
128.6 Points ∼39%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
47.4 Points ∼14% -63%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
42.73 Points ∼13% -67%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
18 Points ∼5% -86%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
225 Points ∼28% +10%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
215 Points ∼27% +5%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
205 Points ∼25%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
202 Points ∼25% -1%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
132 Points ∼16% -36%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
128 Points ∼16% -38%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
56 Points ∼7% -73%

* ... smaller is better

Quality journalism is made possible by advertising. We show the least amount of ads whenever possible. We intentionally show more ads when an adblocker is used. Please, switch off ad blockers.

We cannot use AndroBench, which we use on Android devices, on iOS tablets. We therefore rely on Passmark Performance Mobile as well as Basemark OS II to check the performance of the NVMe storage. Both determine a storage score, which indicates the performance. The new iPad is once again beaten by its more powerful siblings, but most rivals fall behind.

PassMark PerformanceTest Mobile V1 - Disk Tests
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
137071 Points ∼100% +124%
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
125281 Points ∼91% +105%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
61118 Points ∼45%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
47027 Points ∼34% -23%
Apple iPad Air
PowerVR G6430, A7, 16 GB eMMC Flash
22031 Points ∼16% -64%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
14722 Points ∼11% -76%
BaseMark OS II - Memory
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 256 GB (iPad Pro 9.7 NVMe)
2185 Points ∼46% +63%
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
A9X / PowerVR GT7xxx, A9X, Apple 128 GB (iPad Pro 12.9 NVMe)
2027 Points ∼42% +51%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
1931 Points ∼40% +44%
Apple iPad (2017)
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, 128 GB NVMe
1341 Points ∼28%
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
1257 Points ∼26% -6%
Google Pixel C
Tegra X1 Maxwell GPU, X1, 64 GB eMMC Flash
868 Points ∼18% -35%
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
750 Points ∼16% -44%

Games

Apple has one advantage: Hardware and software are provided by the same company, and Apple also controls the access to the App Store. This means that even demanding apps and games will run smoothly on slightly outdated systems. The new iPad has no problems in this regard, either. The A9 chip and the GT7600 in particular are more than powerful enough for every game from the App Store. We tested the racing game Asphalt 8: Airborne and the first-person shooter Modern Combat 5. Both titles run completely smoothly. The iPad also convinces with a very responsive touchscreen and a sensitive position sensor. Gaming on the inexpensive iPad is a joy.

Asphalt 8: Airborne
Asphalt 8: Airborne
Modern Combat 5
Modern Combat 5

Emissions

Temperature

The A9 chip is manufactured in a significantly smaller process compared to the A7 SoC from the original Apple iPad Air. This increases the performance, but is also supposed to reduce the power consumption and the temperature development. At least the latter is definitely the case for the new iPad. All the temperatures are lower compared to the predecessor. There is a small hotspot at the center of the right edge, but even this spot is hardly more than lukewarm – even after one hour maximum load that we test with the Relative Benchmark. There is still some criticism for Apple: At around 47 °C (~117 °F), the power adapter is getting almost inconveniently warm, but there is no risk of burns or the like. For the sake of completeness: We measure up to 33.3 °C (~92 °F) while idling with an average of about 31 °C (~88 °F). The power adapter is once again comparatively warm at almost 40 °C (104 °F).

Max. Load
 30.1 °C
86 F
35.2 °C
95 F
31.5 °C
89 F
 
 29.5 °C
85 F
31 °C
88 F
32.4 °C
90 F
 
 29.9 °C
86 F
30.5 °C
87 F
31.4 °C
89 F
 
Maximum: 35.2 °C = 95 F
Average: 31.3 °C = 88 F
33 °C
91 F
37.7 °C
100 F
31.8 °C
89 F
32.5 °C
91 F
27.7 °C
82 F
31.6 °C
89 F
31.5 °C
89 F
32.1 °C
90 F
31.4 °C
89 F
Maximum: 37.7 °C = 100 F
Average: 32.1 °C = 90 F
Power Supply (max.)  47.1 °C = 117 F | Room Temperature 21.6 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-350

Speakers

The two speakers at the bottom edge of the fifth Apple iPad are at the same position compared to the original iPad Air and the sound experience is very familiar as well. The position is not perfect, but you will at least rarely cover both modules at the same time in landscape mode.

The quality of the components, however, is surprisingly good. Mids and highs are very linear, but there is slightly too much emphasis on the high tones. The result is a slightly harsh sound with a focus on voices. There is hardly any bass, which is no surprise. The speakers are also quite loud at up to 86 dB(A) and they work well for media playback at average volume levels.

Subjectively, the stereo jack provides a clear and noise-free signal.

 

 

Pink Noise curve
Pink Noise curve
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2027.428.327.42529.428.329.43129.931.129.94039.329.439.35027.427.227.4632625.7268026.724.726.710035.324.835.312544.828.544.816050.221.850.220053.22253.225052.222.452.231556.422.756.440060.323.360.350065.924.465.963066.219.666.280065.51865.5100065.617.665.6125066.118.466.1160071.216.771.2200075.716.375.7250077.915.677.9315076.615.876.6400076.515.376.5500074.315.374.3630075.815.375.8800071.515.171.51000069.915.269.9125007515.2751600077.715.177.7SPL86.129.886.1N62.31.362.3median 66.2Apple iPad (2017)median 17.6median 66.2Delta103.71039.631.432.735.235.439.635.230.636.927.629.735.227.530.127.224.829.527.527.828.428.227.129.727.834.845.632.435.439.734.831.934.833.53733.931.931.633.628.530.328.531.63437.733.527.828.2344345.529.434.126434650.636.736.520.64650.854.239.840.120.750.855.560.842.342.820.655.561.363.246.147.42161.359.266.746.447.118.459.26368.445.44618.76359.166.447.74817.959.164.770.950.752.918.664.768.173.853.254.817.568.173.178.65860.416.973.175.178.859.259.317.475.169.575.854.455.716.269.569.378.954.559.416.969.371.776.556.656.317.571.770.378.953.858.317.270.369.481.452.960.917.769.472.482.955.862.517.472.469.48253.160.317.669.461.678.345.15617.661.65875.239.851.617.85848.868.73145.717.948.882.490.666.970.529.882.453.28520.625.51.353.2median 63Apple iPad Pro 9.7median 73.8median 47.7median 52.9median 17.8median 638.49.37.27.31.68.4hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Apple iPad (2017) audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 17.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 30% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 21%, worst was 36%
Compared to all devices tested
» 34% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Apple iPad Pro 9.7 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.59 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.1% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 18% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 73% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 21%, worst was 36%
Compared to all devices tested
» 23% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 70% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Frequency Comparison (Checkboxes select/deselectable!)

Energy Management

Power Consumption

The smaller manufacturing process of the A9 compared to the A7 is also supposed to reduce the power consumption. We cannot confirm this. However, there are more factors in play here, like the processor clocks, the brighter panel and other components. This also explains why the new iPad (2017) consumes between 5-20% more than the original iPad Air in every situation. It is not very efficient compared to other tablets, either.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.07 / 0.13 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 2.06 / 7.42 / 7.47 Watt
Load midlight 9.45 / 12.31 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Apple iPad (2017)
8.827 mAh
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
7306 mAh
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
10307 mAh
Apple iPad Air
 mAh
Google Pixel C
 mAh
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
6600 mAh
Power Consumption
5%
-31%
15%
16%
34%
Idle Minimum *
2.06
1.71
17%
2.69
-31%
1.8
13%
1.82
12%
1.58
23%
Idle Average *
7.42
7.55
-2%
10.95
-48%
5.9
20%
4.26
43%
4.12
44%
Idle Maximum *
7.47
7.62
-2%
11.14
-49%
7.1
5%
4.33
42%
4.15
44%
Load Average *
9.45
8.39
11%
11.54
-22%
7.5
21%
9.82
-4%
6.2
34%
Load Maximum *
12.31
12.08
2%
12.8
-4%
10.4
16%
13.99
-14%
9.27
25%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Runtime

The capacity of the lithium-polymer battery did not change compared to the iPad Air and is still 32.4 Wh. This is a very generous capacity compared to similarly sized rivals, which is also evident when we look at the runtime figures. The iPad Air is also beaten here. The 2017 model lasts for almost 13 hours in the Wi-Fi browsing test, so it is much more enduring than the iPad Air and roughly on par with the iPad Pro 9.7. How is this possible considering the higher consumption and the identical battery size? The explanation is simple: The Wi-Fi test is performed at an adjusted luminance (150 nits), so the increased power consumption of the brighter display does not affect the result. We also test video playback (FHD, H.264) at the same luminance, and the new iPad is once again pretty enduring: Almost 14 hours is a great result. The load test at the highest luminance suffers a bit from the high power consumption. 3:45 hours is reasonable, but the pre-predecessor lasted half an hour longer.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
24h 56min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
12h 44min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
14h 05min
Load (maximum brightness)
3h 45min
Apple iPad (2017)
8.827 mAh
Apple iPad Pro 9.7
7306 mAh
Apple iPad Pro 12.9
10307 mAh
Apple iPad Air
 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
6000 mAh
Google Pixel C
 mAh
Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro
6600 mAh
Battery Runtime
-2%
-5%
-5%
15%
11%
-21%
Reader / Idle
1496
1850
24%
1933
29%
1425
-5%
1903
27%
2090
40%
1230
-18%
H.264
845
708
-16%
630
-25%
644
-24%
551
-35%
740
-12%
593
-30%
WiFi v1.3
764
779
2%
695
-9%
760
-1%
638
-16%
416
-46%
Load
225
186
-17%
195
-13%
257
14%
375
67%
294
31%
248
10%
WiFi
553

Pros

+ bright display
+ accurate colors
+ precise touchscreen
+ excellent build quality
+ long battery runtime
+ high browser performance

Cons

- outdated SoC
- very glossy screen
- old LTE standard
- slightly increased black value
- no support for Apple pencil

Verdict

In review: Apple iPad (2017)
In review: Apple iPad (2017)

Old wine in new bottles – we hear this quite often when a manufacturer refreshes a supposedly old product. Especially when it is equipped with dated technology. This is also the case for Apple's latest iPad. The iOS tablet from 2017 is just that: recycled, dated hardware in an even older chassis. However, the entry-level version only costs 400 Euros ($329) in return, almost a bargain for Apple tablets. The verdict could theoretically end at this point when you look at it from a superficial point of view.

A closer look, however, will quickly remove a lot of the eye-catching initial criticism. Yes, the SoC is old, but the performance is still very good for the tablet segment. And yes, the chassis has been around for a couple of years and it was already replaced by a slimmer version. However, build quality and materials are still top-notch. We think nobody would crave for a slimmer or lighter iPad if not for the iPad Air 2 or the iPad Pro 9.7.

Apple also improved some aspects of the new iPad compared to the original iPad Air. The first thing is the faster chip. The display is also much brighter, and the battery runtimes are even longer. Combined with the fast Wi-Fi, numerous LTE bands, an excellent GPS receiver and usable camera, the old wine suddenly looks a lot more appealing.

There are still some drawbacks though. The lack of a fully laminated display brings back an old tablet problem: Direct sunlight will transform the tablet into a mirror. This is an annoying step back for everybody who already used an iPad Mini 4 or Air 2. That the new iPad "only" covers the sRGB color space – is not a deal breaker. And that you don't get support for the Apple Pencil at 400 Euros – well, that is what the more expensive Pro models are for.

Let's sum it up: The new Apple iPad is almost boringly good. There is hardly any competition in terms of performance except for other Apple tablets, despite the dated hardware. The overall rating is almost dreamlike for the "underdog", but this is in part also a result of the weak tablet competition.

Apple iPad (2017) - 03/31/2018 v6
Patrick Afschar Kaboli

Chassis
89%
Keyboard
74 / 80 → 92%
Pointing Device
93%
Connectivity
47 / 65 → 73%
Weight
84 / 40-88 → 91%
Battery
95%
Display
90%
Games Performance
59 / 68 → 87%
Application Performance
64 / 76 → 85%
Temperature
92%
Noise
100%
Audio
73 / 91 → 80%
Camera
65 / 85 → 76%
Average
79%
90%
Tablet - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 2 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Apple iPad (2017) Tablet Review
Patrick Afschar Kaboli, 2017-04- 5 (Update: 2018-05-15)
Andreas Osthoff
Andreas Osthoff - Senior Editor Business
I grew up with computers and modern consumer electronics. I am interested in the technology since I had my first computer, a Commodore C64, and started building my own PCs after that. My focus here at Notebookcheck is the business segment including mobile workstations, but I also like to test new mobile devices. It is always a great experience to review and compare new products. My free time is filled with a lot of sports, in the summer mainly on my bike.