Print
Apple ain't the only one who can make pixelicious gadgets. Asus has been at the forefront of the Android tablet scene, and its forthcoming Transformer Pad Infinity TF700 -- basically, a souped-up version of the top-rated Transformer Prime tablet -- packs a 1,920-by-1,200 resolution into a 10.1-inch Super IPS+ display that's rated for 600 nits of brightness. That 224ppi isn't quite up to the iPad's 264ppi, but it's a hair better than the new Macbook Pro screen that's been drawing rave reviews.
The Transformer Pad Infinity TF700 also sports a slight boost to the clock speed of its Nvidia Tegra 3 processor and slightly faster RAM than the Transformer Prime, The Verge reports. It also introduces a plastic strip to the formerly 100 percent aluminum body, presumably to help alleviate the GPS woes that plagued the Transformer Prime after it launched.
An LTE-enabled model sporting Qualcomm's Snapdragon S4 rather than a Tegra 3 is slated to appear, but the only pricing and release dates Asus have owned up to so far have been for the Wi-Fi variants, which will hit stores shelves the week of July 16th in 32GB and 64GB for $500 and $600, respectively. The highly-regarded keyboard dock will set you back another $150 smackers.
Comments are closed on this article
TechLarry
June 26, 2012 at 8:27am
I've tried a bunch of tablets and nothing satisfies as much as my Gen 1 iPad.
Android is too damned fiddley. I just wanna get shit done, not play super-geek all day.
HVDynamo
June 25, 2012 at 2:32pm
I fail to see how 1920x1200 resolution packs more pixels than the 2880x1800 resolution found in the new macbook pro's retina display. Just thought I would point that out.
kixofmyg0t
June 25, 2012 at 3:09pm
My math says 220ppi for the MacBook vs. 224 For the ASUS....
That's not a huge difference. In fact I bet that everyone(yes EVERYONE) can't tell the difference between the two.
thetechchild
June 26, 2012 at 8:27am
A lot of people say that about 1900x1200 vs 2880x1800. Law of diminishing returns... At laptop screen sizes, nobody needs anything higher than 1080p (1900x1200 already exceeding that), so 2880x1800 screens are just another expensive gimmick. If it were on a 23" screen or larger, I could see it being useful, because then you could actually read text comfortably at full resolution.
vrmlbasic
June 26, 2012 at 10:36pm
Ugh, the "nobody needs..." line of reasoning applied to technology. That's the sort of stuff that can send a perfectly good thread careening down the slippery slope to its death. :(
If you ever laughed at the infamous Bill Gates gaffe about no one ever needing more than 640KB of RAM, I think that you owe the man an apology after this statement of yours ;)
kixofmyg0t
June 25, 2012 at 4:10pm
False! The HEADLINE just says it packs "more pixels". That's not the same thing as pixel per inch.
Morete
June 25, 2012 at 1:42pm
Manufacturers say that 1200p-1600p PC monitors should strictly be for professional photo and video editing and never should one be made for basic multimedia, gaming, etc. Then why is it that tablets (up to almost 1600p) and now flat screen televisions (up to 4K), are available or soon to be available? How can this happen when PC owners want, ask and beg for 60-120HZ 1200p+ for non-business use? Naysayers will claim that there isn't enough demand for expensive high resolution PC displays and the cost to consumer would be too great. Then how do you explain all of these 4K televisions coming out that few people will be able to buy? What mass market can afford them? Why the double standard?
Havok
June 25, 2012 at 5:05pm
The reason behind that double standard is that if the OEM can have TV 'A' have higher numbers on its sales card than TV 'B', consumers would theoretically flock toward the higher number.
Why buy a good 16 megapixel NEX-5n when you can get a 35 megapixel Kodak POS instead? :)
vrmlbasic
June 25, 2012 at 12:54pm
1920*1200...yawn. Let me know when the _native resolution_ meets or exceeds that of the newest iPad, and then let me know when you (Asus) are ready to make "consumer" priced monitors with that resolution.
CaptainFabulous
June 25, 2012 at 1:31pm
There is absolutely no practical value to any resolution above ~1080p in a portable device. Just because Apple has decided to do it doesn't mean 1.) it's practical, 2.) other companies should follow, or 3.) it's a good idea.
More pixels = beefier GPU = bigger battery and/shorter run time = more heat = higher rate of failure. Or did we learn nothing from the Nvidia laptop debacle?
Strhopper
June 25, 2012 at 3:15pm
yeah you aren't making any sense. We all want higher res. Is it practical? what? what kind of question is that. Battery life? ipad has the same battery life.
Don't let brand loyalty blind you. Moar pixels is better!! I hope we actually get a windows 8 or android tablet with moar pixels
CaptainFabulous
June 25, 2012 at 4:09pm
No, we don't all want higher res. The iPad as the same battery life because it has a larger battery, which means more heat, bulk, weight, and longer charge times. Not to mention there isn't a single piece of content that's designed for that resolution, so everything has to be scaled, which degrades the image.
Sure, your car can do 150 MPH but what's the point if the speed limit is 65?
Don't let Apple's shiny magic-speak blind you.
Strhopper
June 25, 2012 at 8:12pm
Oh my god, your an idiot. I am running a HP zr30w right now with a res of 2560x1600 and trust me moar pixels=better.
and don't give me the no content argument. That's the most annoying argument. Content comes after the hardware is there.
And yes we know the ipad has a larger battery but its still just as useful as the ipad 2
What does wanting higher res have to do with apple shiny magic speak.
Have you game on a 2560x1440/1600 monitor? If you have then you would understand why I am happy apple is pushing the res's higher!
John Pombrio
June 25, 2012 at 2:53pm
Not quite true. If you are trying to pack a full magazine page into a smaller form factor, all those extra pixels do count. Magazines can have really tiny print and graphics that a lower resolution just makes into a blur.
CaptainFabulous
June 25, 2012 at 4:05pm
No they don't, because at some point the pixels aren't visible at a standard viewing distance so it's still a blur. Crystal-clearly printerd 5-point type is just as unreadable at 18 inches as low-res printed 5-point type.
austin43
June 25, 2012 at 4:39pm
Right, but when you bring it up to a readable point type, it does make a difference. Obviously if you're equating them to two useless point types it will make the equation easier; the scenario you pointed out is impractical for showing general use. I have used an iPad 2 and 3, and there definitely is a noticeable difference in text clarity.
CaptainFabulous
June 25, 2012 at 5:44pm
But only for natively-rendered text, and then only for a very narrow window of small font sizes. Anything larger than say 6-7 points is virtually identical. If all you do with your iPad is read books you could have saved yourself $500 and bought a Kindle.
So while you've highlighted one minor advantage you've completely ignored the laundry list of disadvantages.
austin43
June 25, 2012 at 7:10pm
Enlarging the text would make the difference more pronounced, not less. What exactly do you mean by natively-rendered text? The higher-res text is in Safari on every webpage, and many apps have upgraded to take advantage of the higher-res display. You're not pointing out disadvantages very well.
P.S. Your math is off...The cheapest iPad costs $499, while the cheapest kindle is $79. $499-$79 = $420.
CaptainFabulous
June 25, 2012 at 7:29pm
Most people don't buy the cheapest iPad model. Nice attempt at a pedantic straw man deflection tho.
And no, enlarging the text makes the difference less noticeable, not more. Print out a text document at 150 dpi, 300 dpi, and 600 dpi and see how difficult it is to tell the difference. The only place you'll notice it is in the small type. Anything 8-point or larger will look the same.
Natively-rendered text would be vector text rendered at full resolution, and right now only Safari can do that, and only with web pages. Anything that's bitmapped or prerendered won't look better, it'll look worse. Most apps will never take full advantage of the higher resolution, they'll simply scale up and be done with it. Meaning you're still only seeing 1/4 the maximum resolution stretched to fit the screen.
iTunes video? Worse. Games? Worse. Most apps? Worse. Power consumption and heat? Worse. Streaming video? Worse. I mean, the list goes on and on.
Strhopper
June 25, 2012 at 8:17pm
Why all the hate for higher res? is it just because it says apple? Trust me you can say what ever you want but higher res is better. Or you would still be using a 720p monitor. Whats the point of 1080p it just adds weight and bulk. Oh and it drains battery faster.
Your logic is flawed.
And I still don't understand how people show so much loyalty to one brand. I don't care who gets the ball rolling. I just want much higher res.
austin43
June 25, 2012 at 7:40pm
If you could post sales numbers for the different iPad models I'd be more than happy to tell you you're right. There are more scenarios in which your $500 number could be wrong than right statistically, but this is pointless. Also, you misused straw man. I didn't misrepresent or cherry-pick words, I simply pointed out an obvious fact.
You obviously do not own an iPad if you think most of the most commonly used apps do not support the retina display. I can't think of a single app I have installed right now of the over 100 that do not have retina support. iTunes video? Better. Games? Better. Most apps (that are actually used? The crapware need not apply) Better. The Apple hatred is really silly. If you'd pull off the fanboy hater blinders, then maybe you could enjoy life a bit more? :)
The device definitely has its shortcomings, but blowing some out of proportion helps nobody.
chainsaw_007
June 25, 2012 at 8:45pm
Very interesting conversation
(This is a heads up that my speeling is badd)
austin43, your point is valid but so is the other guys. having more pixels is better but it does have trade offs. If you are ok with the trade offs then that's fine, to every his own BUT not everyone is ok with the trade offs. As the other guy said, more pixels means you require a better GPU to generate the pixels. unfortunately the (better) GPU also requires more power so now you need a bigger (and heavier) battery that will generate more heat. While the higher res screen is nice but was the older screen really that bad? So the point the other guy is trying to make is that he would rather have a longer run time than more pixels.
To every his own I guess, that mean the other guy isn't wrong by any means.
Hey.That_Dude
June 25, 2012 at 9:40pm
No, I'd have to disagree on many points.
1) Having a higher resolution screen doesn't mean you need a more power HUNGRY gpu, just a more POWERFUL gpu. There is a difference, just ask Intel, Nvidia, AMD... other graphics monkeys. This renders the battery life b!tching moot. They just need more EFFECEINT gpu's (or more devoted, what evs) which they could build if they just bothered portioning their dies correctly ("AMD vs Intel" chip battle)
2) PUSHING THE ENVELOPE IS WHAT THIS SITE IS ABOUT! MAXIMUM PC... not Minimus McStingypants PC. You want to talk like that, you're gonna have that fact slapped on you every time.
3) As they push this technology further, they design more efficient screens... and subsidize them by selling crap to the masses while cattering to the few and the REALLY GULLIBLE.
4) (while not Chainsaw's arguement it's still a point I have to push) YES, there are some of us with something called near-sightedness. I can see pixels with my glasses off at a 6-9 inches away. I DON'T LIKE IT. I hate seeing those d@mn lines (from the liq cry)! I want to feel like I'm in Paris, Texas! (not France. It smells funny.)
5) NAG NAG NAG RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!
austin43
June 25, 2012 at 10:03pm
I didn't even think about the nearsightedness! I'm incredibly nearsighted an I use my iPad 3 without my contacts in all the time. Certainly is nice to be able to hold it that close without image degradation. There are negatives to pushing new technologies, but I believe the positives far outweigh those negatives. I owned an Asus EEE Pad Transformer before the iPad 3, and I have to say I'm much more impressed with the iPad.
wolfing
June 25, 2012 at 12:54pm
I hope tablet makers don't start concentrating their efforts in more pixels. It's not needed and it's a useless number. A 10" screen with more resolution than my 23" LCD monitor? Totally useless.
Instead, give me faster speed so they can truly multi-task, and longer battery life (more pixels probably means less battery), lower price, etc.
Strhopper
June 25, 2012 at 3:17pm
uh you take your 1080p. I'll take a higher res any day.
Don't assume your opinion is the only opinion. My monitor is 2560x1600, would never go back to 1080p!!!
chainsaw_007
June 25, 2012 at 8:52pm
........ I don't think the other guy is assuming that his is the only opinion, he is simply sharing his opinion as are you.
Honest Question: Is there really that big of a difference between 1080 and 1600? I mean I thought that a normal person couldn't see the difference between a 720p and 1080p movie unless you play it on a very big screen (60 inch i think and up)
Strhopper
June 26, 2012 at 9:21am
Yes there is a huge difference. Not watching movies though since they are 1080p
But gaming at this resolution is incredible
Baer
June 25, 2012 at 12:57pm
And give me more 24" and larger 1920 X 1200 monitors WITHOUT GLOSSY SCREENS rather than those cheap looking 1080P TV's withouit tuners.
Danthrax66
June 25, 2012 at 3:18pm
The reason that the higher resolution monitors have glossy screens is because the anti-glare coating reduces the visible color produced by those screens which hinders work done with photos (the major market for those kind of screens).
Ilander
June 25, 2012 at 12:07pm
I wish ASUS would release a darn PC monitor with that pixel density.
loozer
June 25, 2012 at 12:27pm
I wish ASUS would release a PC monitor with that resolution that does not cost an arm and leg.
jgrimoldy
June 25, 2012 at 11:24am
So the battle continues. In many ways, the Transformer is a superior tablet even without a better screen.
Hopefully, in this unit, they've addressed the WiFi problem that plagued the Prime.
