Consumer Reports on iPad 2: We didn’t notice any significant speed improvement

“Based on Consumer Reports’ preliminary tests with iPad 2 samples in our labs, we found the new version to be an improvement over the original iPad—without any increase in price,” Jeff Fox reports for Consumer Reports.

“One major difference in tech specs is that the iPad 2 has a new processor that’s supposed to make it far speedier than the original,” Fox reports. “While performing routine tasks such as Web browsing and e-mail in our tests, we didn’t notice any significant speed improvement.”

MacDailyNews Take: Try removing your heads from your asses.

Fox continues, “By keeping iPad 2 prices the same as those of the original iPad, Apple has kept its market-leading tablet more than competitive with the small-but-growing field of Android-based tablets. The Motorola Xoom seems to be the iPad 2’s chief rival for now, but it’s pricier than a comparably configured iPad 2, and it’s thicker and heavier as well. The iPad 2 is a very good choice in the tablet market. Still, many more tablets are expected to reach market this year. The tablet race is far from over.”

Fox reports, “We’ll continue our lab tests, including battery-life testing, and expect to add the Apple iPad 2 to our Ratings (available to subscribers) within a week or so.”

Full article – Think Before You Click™here.

MacDailyNews Take: Consumer Reports is a total farce.

Related articles:
Ars Technica reviews Apple iPad 2: Big performance gains in a slimmer package
iPad 2 benchmarks destroy Motorola Xoom – March 13, 2011
Associated Press reviews Apple iPad 2: Apple pulls further ahead – March 10, 2011
Ars Technica reviews Motorola Xoom: For the best tablet available today, look no further than Apple – March 7, 2011
PC Mag reviews Apple iPad 2: The tablet to get; Editors’ Choice – March 10, 2011
Associated Press reviews Apple iPad 2: Apple pulls further ahead – March 10, 2011
PC Mag reviews Apple iPad 2: The tablet to get; Editors’ Choice – March 10, 2011
Pogue reviews Apple iPad 2: Thinner, lighter, and faster transforms the experience – March 10, 2011
Baig reviews Apple iPad 2: Second to none – March 10, 2011

Consumer Reports was wrong on Verizon iPhone 4; so-called ‘death grip’ fixed by Apple – March 2, 2011
Consumer Reports: Verizon iPhone 4 has antenna ‘problem’; not recommended – February 25, 2011
Consumer Reports continues laughable vendetta against iPhone 4 – January 14, 2011
Android sweeps Consumer Reports’ rankings as iPhone 4 is omitted – November 17, 2010
All of Consumer Reports’ ‘recommended’ smartphones suffer attenuation when held – July 19, 2010
Consumer Reports: Apple’s free Bumper case does not earn iPhone 4 our recommendation – July 16, 2010
Consumer Reports: Apple’s Bumper case fixes iPhone 4 signal-loss issue – July 15, 2010
Consumer Reports continues harping on iPhone 4 attenuation issue – July 14, 2010
Electromagnetic engineer: Consumer Reports’ iPhone 4 study flawed – July 13, 2010
The Consumer Reports – Apple iPhone 4 fiasco – July 13, 2010
Consumer Reports: Oh yeah, almost forgot, Apple iPhone 4 is also the best smartphone on the market – July 12, 2010
Consumer Reports: We cannot recommend Apple iPhone 4 – July 12, 2010
Consumer Reports: Apple Retail Store is the best place to buy a cellphone – May 11, 2010
Consumer Reports: AT&T dead last in service survey; 98% of iPhone users would buy iPhone again – December 01, 2009
Consumer Reports does their readership a disservice, says viruses target Apple Macs – December 13, 2005
Consumer Reports: Apple’s new iPod screens scratch-prone like iPod nanos – October 28, 2005
Consumer Reports dubiously finds 20-percent of Mac users ‘detected’ virus in last two years -UPDATED – August 10, 2005

92 Comments

    1. Apple won’t give Consumer Reports free kit to upgrade their shop (read: bribe their way to good reviews) from the WinTel mess it currently “runs” on…so CR, like a crossed 2nd grader, is lashing out the only way it knows how, by making things up.

    2. Exactly. It’s dramatic, impressive and measurable with only minutes of using the device.

      The iPad 2 is remarkable in all the ways Apple claimed : feels great in your hand despite it’s similar stature, apps respond twice as quickly, and the graphics are positively glowing.

      What the iPad 2 isn’t (and Apple never claimed it was) : a good camera (because it’s terrible and lacks the flash from iPhone 4), as light as a kindle (although it is fast approaching it’s ‘hold ability’), or a fantstic HD experience (because the resolution is still a little subpar).

      I think that would have served for a consumer reports ‘at first glance’ review.

      What a farce indeed.

    1. More stupidity I’d bet, tests are probably random folk with no interest or knowledge of computers. No forward vision either, apps can now become much more powerful without slowing down the device. All apps available today are optimized to run fast on the current gen ipad.

    2. Ya think? First the iPhone 4 debacle but this takes the cake. With every tech blog doing articles about the incredible speed increase you would think CR would have at least tried….Hacks, out dated and irrelevant

      What are REAL tech sites saying?
      http://tinyurl.com/6fjb7lt
      http://tinyurl.com/4tfglpu
      http://tinyurl.com/4h2yg4w
      http://tinyurl.com/6l6wgm5
      http://tinyurl.com/4lxm8m7
      http://tinyurl.com/47wu4uy
      http://tinyurl.com/4eb4eaj

      So why does consumer reports not see a speed increase and all these tech sites do? Because the tech sites actually scientifically benchmarked the iPad 2 rather then stick their finger up their rear. Good job consumer reports, another nail in the coffin….

  1. Stating that, “Still, many more tablets are expected to reach market this year. The tablet race is far from over,” almost belies an agenda on CR’s part. If their agenda was simply to report on the products a consumer can now purchase I’m not sure this would be there. True, they could be giving consumers fair warning, but with the lack of significant evidence that something better is around the corner, I find it somewhat suspicious. Is it that more and more publications are afraid of simply reporting the facts out of fear that they will be proved wrong in the future or is it the human nature of wanting to see (and influence) a dog race, all the while romanticizing the underdog?

  2. WTF, why do even bother with CR who cared what they think . We know they are the National Enquire of product reviews, and Apple is the star they like gossip about normally in a negative light.

  3. Well does that surprise anyone. I’m one of the fortunate ones that was able to acquire a iPad 2, and it is noticeably faster than tha first version.
    Also, testing by a number of 3rd party sites have comfermed the speed improvement.

    And really, compare the chips in both IPads, one a single core and the new one a dual core, and then say it’s not faster, Really they have shown the proof that the have no testing experience at all.

    CR Has a bias of hate towards Apple and we will see this going forward, but then again it doesn’t matter since long sales lines and the furry to have the new device shows that no matter the hate, Apple still wins and consumers are smart enough to understand what is B.S.

    These idiots have proven without a doubt how irresponsible they are, and now have sealed that with the proof for everyone to see.

    1. It is strange, as they’ve always been very fair reviewing Macs and OSX. I’m not sure it’s all intentional, though, or just human nature (see my above post). The “unreality distortion field,” I believe, is also being fueled by the clouded public’s eye, which sees Google as just so big, entrenched and invincible that they cannot possibly fathom any failure on their part. (Indeed, it’s true that Google probably will continue to be successful for some time to come.) So it’s beside the fact, to many, that Apple is now, by a large margin, a far bigger and more innovative technology company than Google. They remember that Apple was relatively recently very much down-and-out and have not digested the concept that Apple’s current and future success is and will be based on making better products, and not just a cultish fluke.

    2. I have an iPad 2 as well, and I noticed the speed improvement right away. I am guessing that CR has an agenda or lack of expertise, or maybe the accelerator pedal on their Prius got stuck?

    3. Even the grandmas that make up CR’s demographic have heard of BENCHMARKING… It’s not as if other sites haven’t already performed benchmarking which shows iPad2 roaring along at up to 3x the speed of other tablets and iPad1. There are only two possible explanations for CR’s stance – massive, massive incompetence or corruption brought about by unconscionable bias or monetary reward.

  4. Not faster…yeah, email and web browsing (w/o Flash) aren’t even going to stress a single-core processor – never mind a dual-core. It naturally wouldn’t have occurred to them to try a game – or maybe they couldn’t afford the $4.99 to buy one.

  5. How about at this point you just stop re-posting CR articles and let them fade away? By this point you’ve pointed out how ridiculous their reviews are.

  6. “didn’t notice any significant speed improvement” while performing “routine tasks.”

    Why don’t they run tests (like Anandtech) that will put the iPad 2 properly through its paces before concluding or posting anything?

    It’s like getting a new Lamborghini to test and then deciding to drive it at 30 mph max and then saying “there’s no noticeable difference”

    I have to conclude that CR (probably after being flamed for its moronic coverage of the iPhone) now has a personal vendetta against apple. I used to think they were just incompetent…

    1. “Why don’t they run tests (like Anandtech) that will put the iPad 2 properly through its paces before concluding or posting anything?”

      Probably because it was a preliminary review by Consumer reports who appeals mainly to “consumers” who will be using the iPad for “routine” tasks.

      1. Consumer reports who appeals mainly to “consumers”
        huh? safari loading times, games performance , iMovie etc performance not relevant to consumers?

        gigaom tests of iPad 2

        angry birds app launch: 42% faster
        plants vs zombies app launch: 42% faster

        safari website loading NYT times loading: 80% faster
        Google site loading : 89% faster.

        anandtech:
        iPad2 is 50% faster for browsing web

        app advice:
        iMovie copying file 25 secs vs 1 min 36 sec iMac 27″
        iMovie encoding 1 minute 59 sec vs Macbook air 8 minutes

        Infinityblade:
        ” Epic Games comments that their gaming engine — Unreal Engine 3 — can already take advantage of the iPad 2’s A5 dual-core processor. When PC games are moved to a more powerful PC with multiple cores, “you can … turn up all the dials in your game to get more details, more textures, more shaders,”

        etc etc

        are you telling me ‘routine’ tasks don’t include Safari load times, iMovie or playing Angry Birds, Infinity blade…. ?

        only geeks surf the web or play games? this is not relevant to CR readers? gimme a break.

        Consumer report is supposed to be a premier testing agency (or considers itself anyways) giving excuses for by saying “preliminary” is crap. Some people will make assumptions that because it’s CR they would have done SOME reasonable testing…

        1. You just proved my point.. You are a tech geek, I am a tech geek, we would look at specs for Safari load times, how fast apps launch etc, etc.. My sister (38), my dad (65years old) are average consumers. They’d never consider specs like that.

          1. I’m just quoting the times FOR YOU (not expecting CR quote those ) so that YOU know that there’s a speed gain in iPad 2 for ‘routine tasks’ like , web browsing, games since you’re implying that CR is right to say there’s no noticeable speed gains for ‘routine tasks’ like ‘web browsing’ in their ‘tests’.
            (eg: Gigaom says there’s 80% gain for web loading a NYT page etc.)

            So what tests did CR do? just staring at it?
            (or are you saying Anadtech, ars technica etc are wrong?)

            I AM NOT saying CR should WRITE TECHY like anandtech but they have to be AWARE of the tech facts before commenting. Surely they should also be cognizant of tech journal research like anandtech and whole host of others which should have given them pause to check their facts before writing?

            Or are you implying that as long as they write simply it’s OK to be inaccurate? Is being inaccurate (I think they are inaccurate as everyone else says their tests show speed gains) is going to help the non tech 65 year old?

  7. MDN and the rest of you have been very harsh on CR such as in regards to the iP4. However, this takes the cake and I now join the rest of you. Benchmarking speed is not done with email nor the web.

  8. and tomorrow, Jeff Fox will give us his ‘expert’ opinion on potato peelers……

    Does Jeff Fox even own a PC…. his technical prowess is less than that of my 10 month old puppy…. who at least knows enough not to chew on wires…

    I think Jeff has chewed to many wires

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.