All iPads The A10’s survival in iPads A10X being the new A8X/A9X in support and longevity and the A9X/A11’s unfair fate

[Homme]

I’m posting this here because the iPad 6th generation is arguably the most luckiest iPad actually beating the iPad Air 2 in terms of it getting iPadOS 17 despite it having 2GB of RAM whilst the iPhone 7 Plus having A10/3GB of RAM and is stuck at iOS 15. At least the A8X is the greatest in the A/M series in terms of support came with a much overrall better quality SoC than the A10 which is more powerful but the iPad 6th gen released in 2016 the last gen iPod Touch in 2019 and the iPhone 7 lineup in 2016 yeah that iPad is lucky.

The A10 has the power to do interactive widgets ( a big buff overall for supported devices but for a iPad like this to survive whilst the A11 Bionic iPhones won’t get it is odd indeed)

A10 SoC can customize Home Screen like the iPhones with iOS 16, widgets on the Home Screen.

Here

The A10X is now the longest supported CPU of any iPhone/iPad

For iPad Mini 4 users, it was the cheapest iPadOS 13-14-15 device for a while and its discontinuation in March 2019 was still good for recent buyers considering those who were preinstalled for iOS12 access to iPadOS 15, while it has the A8 don’t gray the A11 Bionic iPhones who’s performance destroys A8 and if will lose support besides security performances sometime this month, less than a year apart between when they both ended support and the iPhone X loses value like this

A9X devices should get iPadOS 17. Same as A10 devices in iOS 15

From the A5X till the possible beginning of M3 ( I again think of A17 X), the only architectures which didn’t get an X or M variant were the A11, A13 or the A16. A11 X wasn’t needed because the A12X and the A12 fixing problems related to the A11 and perfected it to the point A11 is only on iPhones. To add A11 was the last SoC to have an “M series” coprocessor which the M gen CPU was seperate from the CPU ever since 64bit A7. A12 integrates it into the CPU Saving space

A13 out of the three CPU’s mentioned is the best CPU hands down. A13 destroys A11 and A16 In terms of devices even going as far as the studio display a monitor with an A13 CPU. A13 is a technological upgrade even supporting Metal 3 and A16 although it’s soon going to support 4 iPhones so far is the last 5nm device ever ( it’s marketed as 4nm but even if it has 5nm It is very good in performance but A17 and 3nm changes everything…

M1 and M2 have served apple well and I’m looking forward to M3 especially for the Mac Mini and hopefully M3 Pro for the iPad Pro

Thoughts everyone

 

[rui no onna]

The iPad 6th gen with A10 was actually released in 2018.

The iPad Pro 10.5 and 12.9 2nd gen with A10X were released in 2017.

It remains to be seen whether either will be able to take the Air 2’s crown for longest supported model (2014-2022).

 

[Digitalguy]

I am not an iPhone user so I don't really care about iPhone only SOCs... But I have or have had many iPads and these are my thoughts.
A8X was basically and A8 with 3 cores instead of 2. A8 was not much faster than A7, and the mini 4 with A8 became extremely slow with iPadOS 14, but was never fast and same for the air 2, while it could handle more things the single core performance (which is what matter for browsing for instance) was rather weak.
A9X, the first in the iPad pro, was a dual core but had much faster single core and felt way better than A8X. The 2015 iPad pro matched the Air2 in terms of record OS updates.
A10X had again 3 cores but was much faster and it's the only one that feels fast even today. In my opinion it will get both iPadOS 17 and 18 becoming the longest supported SOC ever (see my predictions here https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/predictions-for-ipados-updates-over-the-next-8-years.2391411/)

Anyway, there is something psychological about speed. We have the impression that things slow down, but generally they don't, we only get used to faster stuff and find older tech slow, while they are just as fast as before. I don't believe too much in the "today apps and web pages are much more bloated than 5 years ago". There is a difference but it is very small (vs 10-15 ago, that's a different story...)
My desktop is just as fast as it was 5 years ago.
My iPad pro 9.7 even stayed on iPadOS 13 so it's not even that iPadOS updates may have slowed it down. But today, in a world where I use A12X and M1 regularly, it feels painfully slow, just as A8X felt back when I got used to A9X.
Having said that A10X despite the updates and the following generations of pro, still feels snappy. Not as fluid as A12 or later but not something that bothers me.
Even more so with A12X, I don't miss the M1 when I use A12X other than for RAM. But with my 6GB A12X iPad not even that is an issue, so yeah, there is a threshold above which things become so fast that getting used to faster stuff makes little difference.

 

[supergt]

The A10x is still blinding fast and plenty capable on my IPP 10.5. I expect this to be the last iPad OS update it will see. Unless Apple surprises and gives the iPad 7th gen. another update next year, which is possible. It would be hard to justify not updating the A10x and 4 gb ram device and still updating A10 and 3 gb ram. TBD…

 

[Digitalguy]

The A10x is still blinding fast and plenty capable on my IPP 10.5. I expect this to be the last iPad OS update it will see. Unless Apple surprises and gives the iPad 7th gen. another update next year, which is possible. It would be hard to justify not updating the A10x and 4 gb ram device and still updating A10 and 3 gb ram. TBD…

if you look at the reasoning for my predictions (link above), the iPad 7 is pretty much guaranteed to get iPadOS 18, because Apple is giving 6 years of updates to base iPads, so the 6 gets 17 and the 7 18. And as you say it's unlikely they discontinue the better 10.5 pro before, hence my prediction

 

[Homme]

I am not an iPhone user so I don't really care about iPhone only SOCs... But I have or have had many iPads and these are my thoughts.
A8X was basically and A8 with 3 cores instead of 2. A8 was not much faster than A7, and the mini 4 with A8 became extremely slow with iPadOS 14, but was never fast and same for the air 2, while it could handle more things the single core performance (which is what matter for browsing for instance) was rather weak.
A9X, the first in the iPad pro, was a dual core but had much faster single core and felt way better than A8X. The 2015 iPad pro matched the Air2 in terms of record OS updates.
A10X had again 3 cores but was much faster and it's the only one that feels fast even today. In my opinion it will get both iPadOS 17 and 18 becoming the longest supported SOC ever (see my predictions here https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/predictions-for-ipados-updates-over-the-next-8-years.2391411/)

Anyway, there is something psychological about speed. We have the impression that things slow down, but generally they don't, we only get used to faster stuff and find older tech slow, while they are just as fast as before. I don't believe too much in the "today apps and web pages are much more bloated than 5 years ago". There is a difference but it is very small (vs 10-15 ago, that's a different story...)
My desktop is just as fast as it was 5 years ago.
My iPad pro 9.7 even stayed on iPadOS 13 so it's not even that iPadOS updates may have slowed it down. But today, in a world where I use A12X and M1 regularly, it feels painfully slow, just as A8X felt back when I got used to A9X.
Having said that A10X despite the updates and the following generations of pro, still feels snappy. Not as fluid as A12 or later but not something that bothers me.
Even more so with A12X, I don't miss the M1 when I use A12X other than for RAM. But with my 6GB A12X iPad not even that is an issue, so yeah, there is a threshold above which things become so fast that getting used to faster stuff makes little difference.

iPad SoC’s are more interesting than iPhone SoC’s since A5X, it was the A8X which made the iPad Air 2 perform better than any iPhone before it due to an extra core, 2GB of RAM and a unique GPU for the A8X, combining two of the actual GPU models in the A8 in the A8X, then A9X to the A9 and so forth

A10X lasted extremely well and I hope it gets more iPadOS upgrades

 

[FeliApple]

I reckon that the main reason for which iPhones with the A10 are stuck on iOS 15 whereas iPads are supported is battery life. iOS 15 finished obliterating the battery life of supported iPhones (A9 iPhone SE (1st-gen)/6s/6s Plus; A10 iPhone 7/7 Plus), and I reckon Apple doesn’t consider iPad battery life to be too relevant.

Those iPhones should’ve lost support far earlier (iOS 12 would be a nice version to stop), and A9/A9X iPads getting iPadOS 17 might’ve been catastrophic. I’ll go further: do we know whether the 6th-gen iPad will be decent? I’ve seen many complaints about iPadOS 16. I’m a little fearful that Apple has made the same mistake they made with those iPhones: perhaps they have pushed it too far. Time will tell, but I’m not hopeful. Apple’s threshold of tolerance for hardware obliteration is infinitely higher than mine (which surprises nobody), but users of A9/A10 iPhones have widely stated that Apple has gone too far, and like I said, even the 6th-gen iPad has been taken a step too far on iPadOS 16. I fear that iPadOS 17 is the definitive destruction of the final iteration of my favourite iPad design language ever, the 9.7-inch screen. Time will tell.

As for the 10.5-inch iPad Pro, I haven’t seen as many complaints as far as performance on iPadOS 16, but battery life has been destroyed. I’m surprised that, should my theory be true, Apple has taken battery life into account for iPhones yet not only do they keep supporting iPads at their very end of the tolerance spectrum, but they are also expected, based on trends and like @Digitalguy said, to support them even further?

Perhaps, just perhaps, they don’t judge battery life to be relevant at all on iPads, and according to the very scarce anecdotal information we have, the 10.5-inch iPad Pro runs iPadOS 16 well in terms of performance. Perhaps it will run iPadOS 17 well, too, but I fear for those who need a smidge of battery life.

This is a battery screenshot of a 10.5-inch iPad Pro user on iPadOS 16, taken from YouTube:

That is 1h and 15 minutes of screen-on time on a full battery. The image speaks for itself. If that’s on iPadOS 16, then what can we expect from iPadOS 17 and 18? Nothing?

Maybe there’s something wrong with that specific iPad, because 1st-gen iPad Pro users report something like 4-5 hours on iPadOS 16, that, while still abhorrent, is half-usable. Assuming that the 10.5-inch iPad Pro is like that instead of this 1-hour, garbage result, two more iOS versions at this rate? Say goodbye to any usage that’s not tethered to a wall.


Like I said, perhaps it’s my tolerance, but I found an iPhone 6s on iOS 13 a massive lagfest. I reckon an A9X iPad on iPadOS 16 would be one, too, let alone iPadOS 17. I can say, however, that my 9.7-inch iPad Pro (forcibly updated by Apple from iOS 9 into iOS 12 four years ago), is almost like-new in terms of performance, and usable in terms of battery life (10-11 hours, down from 13-14 on iOS 9). I would not want an A9 iPhone anywhere near iOS 16, let alone 17. Like I said, I would’ve stopped them on iOS 12. I reckon my assessment wouldn’t change much in terms of A9/A9X iPads: leave them on iOS 12. I haven’t used an A10X iPad, but honestly and knowing my tolerance limits, I’d probably choose iOS 12 as a limit as well. That version is a very well-rounded version, in spite of my battery life difference with iOS 9 on my 9.7-inch iPad Pro (however, don’t get me wrong: I’d downgrade it to iOS 9 immediately if Apple allowed me to do so).

 

[Digitalguy]

I reckon that the main reason for which iPhones with the A10 are stuck on iOS 15 whereas iPads are supported is battery life. iOS 15 finished obliterating the battery life of supported iPhones (A9 iPhone SE (1st-gen)/6s/6s Plus; A10 iPhone 7/7 Plus), and I reckon Apple doesn’t consider iPad battery life to be too relevant.

Those iPhones should’ve lost support far earlier (iOS 12 would be a nice version to stop), and A9/A9X iPads getting iPadOS 17 might’ve been catastrophic. I’ll go further: do we know whether the 6th-gen iPad will be decent? I’ve seen many complaints about iPadOS 16. I’m a little fearful that Apple has made the same mistake they made with those iPhones: perhaps they have pushed it too far. Time will tell, but I’m not hopeful. Apple’s threshold of tolerance for hardware obliteration is infinitely higher than mine (which surprises nobody), but users of A9/A10 iPhones have widely stated that Apple has gone too far, and like I said, even the 6th-gen iPad has been taken a step too far on iPadOS 16. I fear that iPadOS 17 is the definitive destruction of the final iteration of my favourite iPad design language ever, the 9.7-inch screen. Time will tell.

As for the 10.5-inch iPad Pro, I haven’t seen as many complaints as far as performance on iPadOS 16, but battery life has been destroyed. I’m surprised that, should my theory be true, Apple has taken battery life into account for iPhones yet not only do they keep supporting iPads at their very end of the tolerance spectrum, but they are also expected, based on trends and like @Digitalguy said, to support them even further?

Perhaps, just perhaps, they don’t judge battery life to be relevant at all on iPads, and according to the very scarce anecdotal information we have, the 10.5-inch iPad Pro runs iPadOS 16 well in terms of performance. Perhaps it will run iPadOS 17 well, too, but I fear for those who need a smidge of battery life.

This is a battery screenshot of a 10.5-inch iPad Pro user on iPadOS 16, taken from YouTube: View attachment 2257383

That is 1h and 15 minutes of screen-on time on a full battery. The image speaks for itself. If that’s on iPadOS 16, then what can we expect from iPadOS 17 and 18? Nothing?

Maybe there’s something wrong with that specific iPad, because 1st-gen iPad Pro users report something like 4-5 hours on iPadOS 16, that, while still abhorrent, is half-usable. Assuming that the 10.5-inch iPad Pro is like that instead of this 1-hour, garbage result, two more iOS versions at this rate? Say goodbye to any usage that’s not tethered to a wall.


Like I said, perhaps it’s my tolerance, but I found an iPhone 6s on iOS 13 a massive lagfest. I reckon an A9X iPad on iPadOS 16 would be one, too, let alone iPadOS 17. I can say, however, that my 9.7-inch iPad Pro (forcibly updated by Apple from iOS 9 into iOS 12 four years ago), is almost like-new in terms of performance, and usable in terms of battery life (10-11 hours, down from 13-14 on iOS 9). I would not want an A9 iPhone anywhere near iOS 16, let alone 17. Like I said, I would’ve stopped them on iOS 12. I reckon my assessment wouldn’t change much in terms of A9/A9X iPads: leave them on iOS 12. I haven’t used an A10X iPad, but honestly and knowing my tolerance limits, I’d probably choose iOS 12 as a limit as well. That version is a very well-rounded version, in spite of my battery life difference with iOS 9 on my 9.7-inch iPad Pro (however, don’t get me wrong: I’d downgrade it to iOS 9 immediately if Apple allowed me to do so).

I don't think battery life has any consideration in Apple's decisions. On the contrary, they generally consider that more up-to-date software is better for battery life (whether that's the case or not).
They (now) simply set a number of years for support for iPhone and then cut devices based on that. Similar story with iPads, except that entry level iPads get older chips so while the get the same number of years of support (6) they don't match with iPhones. Higher end iPads get 1-2 years more (see iPad air 2 and iPad pro gen 1).
All iPhones from 2017 were cut from IOS 17, just like the 2017 base iPad and all Intel Macs except the iMac pro. The iPad pro from 2017 is supported and might even get iPadOS 18.
What creates confusion in people's mind is that support is based only on the SOC, so all devices with the same SOC will be treated equally, while in reality it's (also) based on the year of release of the device and on it's "category".

 

[FeliApple]

I don't think battery life has any consideration in Apple's decisions. On the contrary, they generally consider that more up-to-date software is better for battery life (whether that's the case or not).
They (now) simply set a number of years for support for iPhone and then cut devices based on that. Similar story with iPads, except that entry level iPads get older chips so while the get the same number of years of support (6) they don't match with iPhones. Higher end iPads get 1-2 years more (see iPad air 2 and iPad pro gen 1).
All iPhones from 2017 were cut from IOS 17, just like the 2017 base iPad and all Intel Macs except the iMac pro. The iPad pro from 2017 is supported and might even get iPadOS 18.
What creates confusion in people's mind is that support is based only on the SOC, so all devices with the same SOC will be treated equally, while in reality it's (also) based on the year of release of the device and on it's "category".

For some reason, I had completely forgotten about Apple’s pathetic support article in which they recommend “keeping the iOS version up to date for optimal battery life”.

Some rumours about support have mentioned that “they’re testing this or that device and will make a decision based on this testing”, which tells me that there are tests made to ascertain at least some aspect of how a device runs before choosing to support it, but I reckon that the number of years also plays a role.

In spite of this, I still think battery life has some consideration: they would’ve supported A9 iPhones on iOS 16 otherwise. The fact that they don’t support A10 iPhones further adds to that point. There has to be something that made them drop support for the iPhone 7 on iOS 16.

 

[Digitalguy]

For some reason, I had completely forgotten about Apple’s pathetic support article in which they recommend “keeping the iOS version up to date for optimal battery life”.

Some rumours about support have mentioned that “they’re testing this or that device and will make a decision based on this testing”, which tells me that there are tests made to ascertain at least some aspect of how a device runs before choosing to support it, but I reckon that the number of years also plays a role.

In spite of this, I still think battery life has some consideration: they would’ve supported A9 iPhones on iOS 16 otherwise. The fact that they don’t support A10 iPhones further adds to that point. There has to be something that made them drop support for the iPhone 7 on iOS 16.

It's all speculation, as only Apple executives know. My guess is again that battery life was not a consideration at all. iPhone is by far Apple's biggest source of revenues, and too much support is not good for revenues, especially in a world where Android does 4 OS updates and 5 years of security at best, so 6 years is more than good enough.
On a much smaller market like the iPad pro (and even air), which is a fraction of the iPhone revenues, they can afford to give longer support (8 years or maybe even more in the future) and give arguments to the Apple fan(boy)s to boast about how much Apple support is better compared to Android.
Why would they even take battery life into account, assuming that new OS versions actually reduced battery life (which is opposite to their official stance), to give users more longevity? Not in Apple's interest.

 

[Homme]

For some reason, I had completely forgotten about Apple’s pathetic support article in which they recommend “keeping the iOS version up to date for optimal battery life”.

Some rumours about support have mentioned that “they’re testing this or that device and will make a decision based on this testing”, which tells me that there are tests made to ascertain at least some aspect of how a device runs before choosing to support it, but I reckon that the number of years also plays a role.

In spite of this, I still think battery life has some consideration: they would’ve supported A9 iPhones on iOS 16 otherwise. The fact that they don’t support A10 iPhones further adds to that point. There has to be something that made them drop support for the iPhone 7 on iOS 16.

The real reason why apple dropped A9/A10 iPhones over the iPads is actually because people take longer per se to upgrade an older iPad to a newer iPad Model of any kind as opposed to an iPhone where people are far more likely to upgrade to another model in a few years hence why Apple made that move

Another option is iPhones and iPads which support iOS/iPadOS 16 have all been released in 2017 and later as opposed to unsupported models ( except the last iPod Touch released in 2019

……….

The fact that 1st gen iPad Pro has 8 years of OS Support like the iPad Air 2 only proves the Air 2’s true successor, the A10X iPads only raise the bar higher. I find it amusing OS Support wise it’s on par with the A12 iPhones not to mention the A10X iPad is a year older

 

[FeliApple]

It's all speculation, as only Apple executives know. My guess is again that battery life was not a consideration at all. iPhone is by far Apple's biggest source of revenues, and too much support is not good for revenues, especially in a world where Android does 4 OS updates and 5 years of security at best, so 6 years is more than good enough.
On a much smaller market like the iPad pro (and even air), which is a fraction of the iPhone revenues, they can afford to give longer support (8 years or maybe even more in the future) and give arguments to the Apple fan(boy)s to boast about how much Apple support is better compared to Android.
Why would they even take battery life into account, assuming that new OS versions actually reduced battery life (which is opposite to their official stance), to give users more longevity? Not in Apple's interest.

Interestingly, I think that both views may be possible here:

On the one hand, extended support extends compatibility, which allows those who upgrade when their device isn’t supported more time with the device, which means less upgrades for Apple. On the other hand, obliterating a device through iOS updates prompts upgrades, too! Many users of widely loved iPhones and iPads (the iPhone 6s and 1st-gen iPad Pros come to mind) have said “I would have continued to use them, but battery life and/or performance was too poor”. In an ideal world, those users would have been able to use those devices on iOS 10 for a very, very long time.

That said, I still think that performance and battery life play a role. Not only because they explicitly mentioned those as goals back on iOS 12, but also because I am sure that they desperately want to avoid a repetition of the A5 on iOS 9 or A4 on iOS 7 fiascos.

Apple would probably love to destroy every device even more than what they do now, but that’s a risky move: they can prompt an Android move. The day Apple forces me away from my never updating policy is the last day I’m using Apple devices.

Then again, in spite of the deterioration and like you said, it seems like many (and I’d say the vast majority), prefer extended support despite a massive performance and battery life degradation. The fact that, like you said, people boast about extended support only confirms that. People really like compatibility, its occasionally limited impact notwithstanding.

It’s funny that my optimal iOS support longevity is... 11 months. I’d love it if my iOS devices supported up to the final point version of the original major iOS version. Absolutely no risk of me losing the original version, even if Apple deactivates devices...

 

[FeliApple]

The real reason why apple dropped A9/A10 iPhones over the iPads is actually because people take longer per se to upgrade an older iPad to a newer iPad Model of any kind as opposed to an iPhone where people are far more likely to upgrade to another model in a few years hence why Apple made that move

Another option is iPhones and iPads which support iOS/iPadOS 16 have all been released in 2017 and later as opposed to unsupported models ( except the last iPod Touch released in 2019

……….

Years of support is another possible reason, but seeing that Apple likes to support devices, why not support the A9 iPhones even if not many people use them? (This is obviously assuming that battery life does not play a role there. iOS 15 obliterated A9/A10 iPhones, iOS 16 would’ve made it completely untenable even if Apple doesn’t care). If they comply with your standards (or you don’t have them - you being Apple, for course), there’s no reason not to use SoC as a cutting point, as it had been throughout iOS’ history. The iPad 3’s underpowered A5X didn’t get iOS 10, whereas the A6X did.

The fact that 1st gen iPad Pro has 8 years of OS Support like the iPad Air 2 only proves the Air 2’s true successor, the A10X iPads only raise the bar higher. I find it amusing OS Support wise it’s on par with the A12 iPhones not to mention the A10X iPad is a year older

It will be interesting to see whether the 2nd-gen iPad Pro gets iPadOS 18. If it does, it will match the 1st-gen iPad Pro. A12 is a large step forward, but seeing how the A12 iPhones are now the oldest supported iPhones... perhaps asking the 3rd-gen iPad Pro to surpass those 8 years is a tall order.

 

[curnalpanic]

A10X is awesome! I own two of them (Apple TV + iPad).

 

[JPack]

I don’t get it.

1. X-series processors don’t get longer iOS/iPadOS support compared to the regular chips.

2. iPad (5th gen) with A9 isn’t getting iPadOS 17 and neither is A9X iPad Air 2.

3. iPad (5th gen) with A9 received 7 generations of iPadOS support, from iOS 10 through iPadOS 16. iPad (6th gen) is expected to be the same, or iPadOS 11 through 17.

What is so special about A10X? It’s receiving the same length of support we saw with A9X, which was 8 generations of iPadOS.

 

[rui no onna]

1. X-series processors don’t get longer iOS/iPadOS support compared to the regular chips.

They kinda do mainly by virtue of being released earlier. Not by mcub though (just 1-2 years).

 

[JPack]

They kinda do mainly by virtue of being released earlier. Not by mcub though (just 1-2 years).

I do see your point and it makes sense. But the way I see it: $329/$449 iPad comes with a one or two gen old chip. Consumers pay less for an iPad to buy old tech. If Apple released a $199 "iPad LE" today with A10, would we commend A10X for getting "longer" iPadOS support? Is it the chip or the iPad product itself?

A8 and A8X both got cut off at iPadOS 15 (8 major releases)
A9 and A9X both got cut off at iPadOS 16 (7 major releases)
We expect similar with A10/A10X (7 major releases)

 

[rui no onna]

I do see your point and it makes sense. But the way I see it: $329/$449 iPad comes with a one or two gen old chip. Consumers pay less for an iPad to buy old tech. If Apple released a $199 "iPad LE" today with A10, would we commend A10X for getting "longer" iPadOS support? Is it the chip or the iPad product itself?

A8 and A8X both got cut off at iPadOS 15 (8 major releases)
A9 and A9X both got cut off at iPadOS 16 (7 major releases)
We expect similar with A10/A10X (7 major releases)

A9X got 8 (iOS 9-16), A9 got 7 (iOS 10-16).

A10X already has 8 (iOS 10-17), while the A10 6th gen and 7th gen have 7 (iOS 11-17) and 5 (iOS 13-17) respectively.

Personally, I don’t recommend specific iPad models to friends and family. I ask them what features they want and what’s their usage and tell them about their options.

That said, I’d recommend the A13-based 9th gen (usually $249) over a $199 A10 iPad LE.

 

[blkjedi954]

I am not an iPhone user so I don't really care about iPhone only SOCs... But I have or have had many iPads and these are my thoughts.
A8X was basically and A8 with 3 cores instead of 2. A8 was not much faster than A7, and the mini 4 with A8 became extremely slow with iPadOS 14, but was never fast and same for the air 2, while it could handle more things the single core performance (which is what matter for browsing for instance) was rather weak.
A9X, the first in the iPad pro, was a dual core but had much faster single core and felt way better than A8X. The 2015 iPad pro matched the Air2 in terms of record OS updates.
A10X had again 3 cores but was much faster and it's the only one that feels fast even today. In my opinion it will get both iPadOS 17 and 18 becoming the longest supported SOC ever (see my predictions here https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/predictions-for-ipados-updates-over-the-next-8-years.2391411/)

Anyway, there is something psychological about speed. We have the impression that things slow down, but generally they don't, we only get used to faster stuff and find older tech slow, while they are just as fast as before. I don't believe too much in the "today apps and web pages are much more bloated than 5 years ago". There is a difference but it is very small (vs 10-15 ago, that's a different story...)
My desktop is just as fast as it was 5 years ago.
My iPad pro 9.7 even stayed on iPadOS 13 so it's not even that iPadOS updates may have slowed it down. But today, in a world where I use A12X and M1 regularly, it feels painfully slow, just as A8X felt back when I got used to A9X.
Having said that A10X despite the updates and the following generations of pro, still feels snappy. Not as fluid as A12 or later but not something that bothers me.
Even more so with A12X, I don't miss the M1 when I use A12X other than for RAM. But with my 6GB A12X iPad not even that is an issue, so yeah, there is a threshold above which things become so fast that getting used to faster stuff makes little difference.

Well put.

 

[FeliApple]

A9X got 8 (iOS 9-16), A9 got 7 (iOS 10-16).

A10X already has 8 (iOS 10-17), while the A10 6th gen and 7th gen have 7 (iOS 11-17) and 5 (iOS 13-17) respectively.

Personally, I don’t recommend specific iPad models to friends and family. I ask them what features they want and what’s their usage and tell them about their options.

That said, I’d recommend the A13-based 9th gen (usually $249) over a $199 A10 iPad LE.

Agreed. A10 iPads have been great, but I wouldn’t be able to recommend one with a straight face. Too degraded on current software, especially when, like you said, the 9th-gen iPad is available.

I don’t think I’d recommend the 10.5-inch iPad Pro over the 9th-gen iPad in spite of its advantages. I’m a happy user of my favourite iPad ever, the 9.7-inch iPad Pro, but it’s on iOS 12. The only full-sized home button iPad on current software I’d recommend is the 9th-gen iPad.

 

[rui no onna]

I don’t think I’d recommend the 10.5-inch iPad Pro over the 9th-gen iPad in spite of its advantages. I’m a happy user of my favourite iPad ever, the 9.7-inch iPad Pro, but it’s on iOS 12. The only full-sized home button iPad on current software I’d recommend is the 9th-gen iPad.

I would actually still recommend the 8th gen (A12/3GB) 128GB assuming one can buy it for close to 9th gen (A13/3GB) 64GB pricing. There’s not much performance difference between A12 and A13 and 64GB is starting to get pretty tight when iOS+Other takes up 15-20GB by itself.

 

[FeliApple]

I would actually still recommend the 8th gen (A12/3GB) 128GB assuming one can buy it for close to 9th gen (A13/3GB) 64GB pricing. There’s not much performance difference between A12 and A13 and 64GB is starting to get pretty tight when iOS+Other takes up 15-20GB by itself.

For some inexplicable reason, I didn’t register the 8th-gen and the A12, kinda skipped it in my mind and thought the previous gen was the A10-powered 7th-gen. I agree, the 8th-gen would be a great buy as well. But that’s as far as I’d go. Either of the home button iPad Pros would probably need to be on iOS 12 or earlier for me to consider them. The Air 3 is probably another good recommendation, I completely skipped that one, too!

The A12 should be fine on iPadOS 16, right? I’ve seen some iPhone Xʀ users say that iOS 16 has had a 25% battery life impact (which shouldn’t impact usability), but apart from that it’s fine, am I right?

The only A12 device I have (an iPhone Xʀ) is running iOS 12, so I don’t personally know.

 

[rui no onna]

For some inexplicable reason, I didn’t register the 8th-gen and the A12, kinda skipped it in my mind and thought the previous gen was the A10-powered 7th-gen. I agree, the 8th-gen would be a great buy as well. But that’s as far as I’d go. Either of the home button iPad Pros would probably need to be on iOS 12 or earlier for me to consider them. The Air 3 is probably another good recommendation, I completely skipped that one, too!

The A12 should be fine on iPadOS 16, right? I’ve seen some iPhone Xʀ users say that iOS 16 has had a 25% battery life impact (which shouldn’t impact usability), but apart from that it’s fine, am I right?

The only A12 device I have (an iPhone Xʀ) is running iOS 12, so I don’t personally know.

I actually don’t recommend the Air 3 (or Pro 10.5). Known white spot issue.

I kept my Air 3 on iOS 14 but I haven’t noticed any difference in onscreen battery life from iOS 14-16 on the iPads I’ve upgraded. Now my iPhones, the batteries on those degrade more quickly regardless of iOS version (the downside of small phones) so I don’t blame iOS 16 for that.

 

[Homme]

For some inexplicable reason, I didn’t register the 8th-gen and the A12, kinda skipped it in my mind and thought the previous gen was the A10-powered 7th-gen. I agree, the 8th-gen would be a great buy as well. But that’s as far as I’d go. Either of the home button iPad Pros would probably need to be on iOS 12 or earlier for me to consider them. The Air 3 is probably another good recommendation, I completely skipped that one, too!

The A12 should be fine on iPadOS 16, right? I’ve seen some iPhone Xʀ users say that iOS 16 has had a 25% battery life impact (which shouldn’t impact usability), but apart from that it’s fine, am I right?

The only A12 device I have (an iPhone Xʀ) is running iOS 12, so I don’t personally know.

A12 is fine for iPadOS 16. Supports the SoC well, and gets decent features

Especially since A12 for iPads will last longer than iPhones OS Wise

It’s still good to see that the Air 2/Mini 4 and much earlier forms for the Apple Watch, 6s/6s+/SE and so forth to the Vision Pro support the new AirPods Pro with USB C especially since it’s fully integrated with all these devices thanks to superior technology

 

[Mackilroy]

That is 1h and 15 minutes of screen-on time on a full battery. The image speaks for itself. If that’s on iPadOS 16, then what can we expect from iPadOS 17 and 18? Nothing?

As another data point, my iPad 10.5 lasted about seven hours on a full battery with iOS 16.