Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Google Nexus 10 Review: Is 2560x1600 High-Def Enough?
By ,
1. Can Google's Nexus 10 Beat Apple At Its Own Game?

We've had a lot of fun watching tablets evolve, starting as toys and slowly turning into devices we could actually imagine ditching our notebooks for. Interestingly, when there was only one real player in the space, Apple, we knew exactly what to do on our iPads. We'd tote them around with us as complements to the rest of our digital armada of smartphones and laptops. The tablet could keep the kids busy. It was better for Web browsing than a phone thanks to its big screen. And, for the same reason, it was great for watching video.

As the space started crowding with Android-, QNX-, webOS-, Windows RT-, and finally, Windows 8-based competition, the purpose of a tablet really started getting a lot more difficult to pin down. Today, the spectrum runs from glorified e-book reader to bona fide notebook replacement. We love having a ton of devices to choose from, without a doubt. But now more than ever, it's important to pick the right device for what you want to do, else you find yourself frustrated.

Nexus 10: Back To Basics

It was only recently that Apple deviated from its original trajectory with the iPad Mini (Apple iPad Mini Review: Our New Favorite Size, But...That Price?), shrinking its form factor in an apparent shot at Google's Nexus 7. Before that, it was making steady improvements to the iPad. The third-gen iteration introduced a 9.7" IPS screen with a resolution of 2048x1536, which works out to 264 pixels per inch. The company called its high-pixel-density display Retina.

Google's Nexus 10 returns fire with a larger 10" screen boasting an even higher 2560x1600 resolution (that's right, the same resolution we use to test high-end graphics cards on 30" panels). Its resulting pixel density (300 pixels per inch) is even higher than that of the third- and fourth-gen iPads.

Truly, the Nexus 10 is out to get Apple's incumbent tablet. It doesn't try to be the svelte little handheld at an incredible price that the Nexus 7 was. It doesn't try to be the productivity-oriented notebook alternative that the Surface attempts to pull off. Rather, the Nexus 10 gets us right back to where we started: an iPad competitor that evolves the content consumption concept by incorporating the latest internals with more screen space.

But Google doesn't just arm the Nexus 10 with better hardware. It also goes for the iPad's biggest vulnerability: its price. It costs $400 to get your foot in the door with a 16 GB Nexus 10. Meanwhile, Apple wants $500 for the same amount of memory.

If you're happy with the dimensions of a third-gen iPad, you'd be happy with the Nexus 10. Its larger screen naturally translates to more width (it's almost an inch wider, in fact), but it's also narrower and thinner, if only by a touch. Moreover, the Nexus 10 is lighter, and that's a more palpable attribute, we think.

Specifications
Length
Width
Height
Screen Size
Resolution
Aspect Ratio
Weight
Amazon Kindle Fire HD
7.6"
5.4"
0.41"
7"
1280x800
16:10
0.87 lb.
Apple iPad (3G)
9.5"7.31".37"9.7"
2048x1536
4:3
1.46 lb.
Apple iPad mini (4G)
7.9"
5.3"
0.28"
7.9"
1024x768
4:3
0.69 lb.
Google Nexus 7
7.8”4.7”0.41”7”1280x80016:100.75 lb.
Google Nexus 10
10.4"
7.0"
0.35"
10"
2560x1600
16:10
1.33 lb.
Motorola Xoom
9.8
6.6"
.5"
10.1"
1280x80016:10
1.5 lb.
Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1
10.1"
6.9"
0.34"
10.1"
1280x80016:10
1.3 lb.


The Nexus 10 is well-built. The plastic case features a rubberized coating that resists fingerprints, and the material is thick enough that it doesn't give when you press on it. Many folks are going to prefer Apple's more industrial feel, but we've had plenty of issues with scratched-up enclosures, so that's not necessarily a universal winner, either.

We like the all-black scheme Google goes with, giving the Nexus 10 a business presence the Nexus 7 doesn't have.

There are very few physical connectors along the Nexus 10's edges. With that said, the ones Google chooses to expose are both valuable and standardized, which we certainly appreciate.

The top of the tablet hosts a volume rocker and power button. On the bottom, you'll find what Google calls its Magnetic Pogo pin charger. Although we don't have any accessories in-house that plug into it, rumor has it that a charger is coming with the ability to get the Nexus 10 back up to 100% battery capacity quicker than the micro-USB connector.

The left side of the Nexus 10 gives you the aforementioned micro-USB interface, along with a 3.5 mm headphone jack. The right side plays host to a Type D micro-HDMI connector. Unfortunately, Android still limits you to display mirroring. So, while we appreciate the ability to output to another screen, the utility of such an output is limited by the Nexus' operating environment. We're still hoping to see Google incorporate display extension support, similar to what Windows RT enables.

Nexus 10 Specifications
SoC
Samsung Exynos 5 Dual, Dual-core Cortex-A15 @ 1.7 GHz, Mali-T604 Graphics
Display
10.05" LCD, native 2560x1600 resolution
Camera
Rear: 5 MP with Flash, Front: 1.9 MP
Battery
33.75 Wh
Networking
802.11/b/g/n, 2.4 and 5 GHz bands; Bluetooth 4.0; Dual-side NFC
Memory
16 or 32 GB eMMC + 2 GB RAM
Sensors
Accelerometer, Barometer, Ambient Light, Gyroscope, GPS, and Compass
Physical Connectivity
Micro-USB, Micro-HDMI, 3.5 mm jack
Operating System
Android 4.2 (Jelly Bean)
2. Results: CPU Performance

As mentioned, Google's Nexus 10 centers on Samsung's Exynos 5 Dual SoC, formerly referred to as the 5250. The chip couples two Cortex-A15 cores running at 1.7 GHz with ARM's Mali-T604 (the number four indicating quad-core) GPU. Samsung manufacturers the Exynos 5 Dual on its 32 nm high-k metal gate process, which it says results in 30%-lower power consumption than the Exynos 4 Dual manufactured using a 45 nm node. With that said, we're curious to see how it stacks up against Qualcomm's existing S4 Plus and Nvidia's upcoming Tegra 4 SoCs, both of which benefit from a 28 nm process.

We discussed the Cortex-A15 superficially on page two of Snapdragon S4 Pro: Krait And Adreno 320, Benchmarked. Briefly, though, the -A15 employs the ARMv7 instruction set, just like ARM's Cortex-A9 design. The company claims performance up to 40% better than its prior-generation design at a given clock rate, though. Technically, a cluster of four Cortex-A15 cores supports up to 4 MB of L2 cache. But Samsung only arms its Exynos 5 Dual with 1 MB.

Geekbench doesn't reflect real-world performance; however, it's an interesting synthetic that helps demonstrate the relative performance of dissimilar platforms. According to our results, the Exynos 5 Dual's two Cortex-A15 cores deliver 80%+ more performance than the dual-core Cortex-A9s in TI's OMAP 44xx SoCs, albeit operating 500 MHz faster.

The CPU-oriented subtest helps pin down the Exynos 5 Dual's advantage in floating-point-based math (enhanced by the -A15's ability to execute 128 bits at a time), though it trails Intel's Atom Z2760 in the integer component.

But where the SoC really shines is the memory score. Samsung supports LPDDR3, DDR3, and LPDDR2 memory, but we have to imagine the Nexus 10 is armed with 2 GB of 800 MT/s LPDDR3 on its twin 32-bit channels (up to 12.8 GB/s) to post such a commanding lead over the Atom Z2760, which offers up to 6.4 GB/s of throughput via two channels of LPDDR2-800.

3. Results: GPU Performance

We don't have the explicit pricing data to prove it, but ARM's Mali GPUs have to be some of the most value-oriented designs available, which is why cheap SoCs like Allwinner's A10 employ the Mali-400 MP. The performance of that design isn't particularly impressive. However, the Mali-T6xx family is based on a new architecture called Midgard that promises significantly better results (up to five times higher, according to ARM).

ARM chooses not to divulge much of its architectural detail. However, the simple fact that Exynos 5 Dual offers so much memory bandwidth, seen on the previous page, suggests that a much more powerful GPU wouldn't be hamstrung by a lack of throughput, which is particularly important given the Nexus 10's native resolution. Fortunately, tests like GLBenchmark allow to dig into subsystem performance at a more granular level.

The native resolution tests are device-specific, looking at a given graphics processor rendering on a specific tablet's screen. GLBenchmark 2.1 suggests that ARM's Mali-T604 at 2560x1600 is faster than the Kindle Fire's PowerVR SGX540 at 1280x800, but it's slower than third-gen iPad's PowerVR SGX543MP4 engine at 2048x1536.

Taking the same tests off-screen removes resolution from the equation, narrowing our analysis to further emphasize the GPU. Freed from the Nexus 10's demanding native resolution, we see ARM's Mali-T604 serving up exceptional performance, second only to the quad-core PowerVR SGX543MP4 in Apple's third-gen iPad. 

Compared to other devices, the Mali delivers 25% more performance than the SGX543MP2 in Apple's iPad 2 and iPad mini, and between 80 and 130% more than Tegra 3.

Even at 2560x1600, tons of memory bandwidth helps the Nexus 10 overtake its Tegra 3-based competition at much lower resolutions when we apply higher-quality textures in GLBenchmark 2.5.

The off-screen test of this more-demanding version of GLBenchmark shows just how much ARM's Midgard architecture relies on taxing workloads in order to show off its potential. We see the Exynos 5 Dual's Mali-T604 solution top the chart, ahead of the A5X's SGX543MP4.

4. Results: Web-Based Performance
Web browser-based benchmarks continue to be the best way to compare devices that do not run on the same platform. Unfortunately, browser support is different for each operating system. And we know that, even on a consistent platform, performance varies between each Web browser. So, when you consider the many different tablets we're testing today, along with the permutations of software available for them all, these numbers involve a great many variables.

Futuremark's Peacekeeper and Rightware's BrowserMark 2.0 are straightforward tests designed to test HTML5 compliance and performance. Both metrics demonstrate that the Nexus 10's Exynos 5 Dual/Android combination is ~5% slower than Samsung's ATIV Smart PC 500T with an Atom Z2760 processor running Windows 8.

But perhaps a comparison to Nvidia's Tegra 3 is more apropos, since it drives the other Android-based tablets in our comparison. Up against Tegra 3, Samsung's SoC performs admirably.

Peacekeeper and BrowserMark are useful tools. But they're designed to measure JavaScript performance. They don't show you how fast a webpage renders in the real world. That's why we like BrowsingBench. It evaluates a browser's total performance story: page loading, processing, rendering, compositing, and so on. This helps reflect the delta between two devices you can actually feel.

Our results continue showing Google's Nexus 10 ahead of other Android-based alternatives powered by Nvidia's Tegra 3. However, the relative positioning is a little different. This time around, the Nexus 10 beats Asus' Transformer Prime by nearly 50%, which is less than what we saw in Peacekeeper and BrowserMark. Meanwhile, Microsoft's Surface trails the Nexus 10 by 5%.

5. LCD Performance: By The Numbers

Subpixels on Google Nexus 10Subpixels on Google Nexus 10

The Nexus 10's subpixels are difficult to resolve due to the tablet's 2560x1600 resolution, even when we crank our microscope's magnification up all the way. We know that Google employs a Samsung Super Plane-to-Line Switching (PLS) panel, which we first encountered on the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Even more than a year later, it remains one of the best-looking displays we've seen, capable of delivering performance close to the third-gen iPad, which was released months later.

Although it uses the same panel technology as Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, the Nexus 10 displays disappointing color saturation. It only renders 47% of the Adobe RGB1998 and 66% of the sRGB gamuts. Given that modest performance, it's a little more difficult to get excited about Google's high native resolution, since the Nexus 10 can't match the vividness of competition from Apple.

The Nexus 10's only clear advantage seems to be its ability to reach a high brightness setting, though contrast ratio still hovers near a mediocre 1000:1.

6. LCD Performance: The Subjective Analysis

Numbers can only tell you so much. Based on reader feedback, we've toyed with the idea of introducing color accuracy tests using our spectrophotometer. It's not easy to derive meaning from those results though, since they're expressed in a distance metric for color space called Delta E. Instead, we chose to set up in a pitch-black room and capture images that reflect LCD performance.

But first, a couple of caveats. A camera is able immortalize the difference between two displays. If you were to rank hardware based on its color gamut performance, you'd see cameras, wide-gamut monitors, high-quality printer, and then mainstream monitors and printers, in that order. So, depending on the device you're looking at Tom's Hardware on, you may not see the differences in what we're about to present. If you're using a decent screen, though, you should get an image representative of what we're trying to show.

Further, these pictures haven't been optimized in any way. We're simply publishing them after converting RAW files to PNG, which means all six comparisons are made under the same conditions.

We aren't labeling these pictures so that you evaluate them without the previous page's results in mind. Which tablet looks the best to you? Scroll to the bottom of the page if you want to know which is which.

At least to our eyes, the difference between these two is painfully obvious. The third-gen iPad is on the bottom, and its colors are both richer and more vivid. Google's Nexus 10, up top, doesn't look bad by any stretch, but a side-by-side comparison against a higher-quality screen makes the shortcomings we quantified on the previous page pretty easy to see.

7. Battery Life And Recharge Time

Normalized Brightness Benchmarks (Background Info)

The Nexus 10 employs an SoC with two Cortex-A15 cores. Its Mali-T604 drives a high-resolution display. And it weighs less than the third-gen iPad. Perhaps it shouldn't surprise us that Google's tablet comes in under eight hours of battery life, despite its 33.75 Wh battery.

In our movie playback test, the Nexus 10 again trails the Nexus 7 and third-gen iPad, lasting just over nine hours. As we know, this is a completely different workload than the Web browsing metric, since only the SoC's fixed-function logic is being used to decode our H.264-encoded file.

Our gaming test requires careful analysis. Riptide GP only runs with its enhanced graphical effects on Tegra 3-based tablets under Android. The SoCs operating under iOS, Windows RT, and Windows 8 also have to contend with the more demanding visuals. Therefore, the Nexus 10 renders a simpler version of the game, helping bolster its longevity.

Recharging

The Nexus 10 takes an exceptionally long time to recharge from its micro-USB connector. In fact, this is the first tablet we've seen since Apple's third-gen iPad to take longer than five hours before hitting 90% charge.

Expect to wait more than 6.5 hours before hitting full capacity. Hopefully, Google comes out with an official charger for its Magnetic Pogo pin charger that helps rectify these results.

8. Platform Power

We've been working with Intel to quantify the power that CPU cores, graphics engines, memory controllers, and LCD screens consume in specific and well-defined workloads. Intel's motivation is clear: it wants to (and has, we believe) shown that its x86 ISA competes readily against ARM-based devices when it comes to efficiency. And that's on a 32 nm process, even.

Our interest is a little more general, but no less intense. We want to be able to show how much power a given platform consumes when its idle, when it's juggling content consumption, and when it's gaming to show you that the tasks you perform on your tablet greatly influence how much battery life you can expect from it.

Now, on a Windows RT- or Windows 8-based setup, we're able to extend the desktop to an external display, shut off the tablet's screen, and measure power use without the LCD's impact, isolating the platform itself. But Android doesn't give us that flexibility. So, we either have to generate our numbers for the whole tablet, display included, or completely instrument the hardware and hook up leads to the right places, which we're still exploring. For now, these results are for complete tablet solutions.

In our Web browsing benchmark, which includes MP3 playback and a 200-nit calibrated display, the Nexus 10 exhibits the highest power use, confirming suspicions that Cortex-A15 is going to be more power-hungry than the -A9s in Nvidia's Tegra 3 under load. Qualcomm's Krait-based solution is the best-looking in this test, though we have to consider that we're not just looking at the SoC's performance.

At the same time, we know from Samsung ATIV Tab Review: A Tablet To Hold Your Breath For? that the APQ8060A demonstrates crazy-low power use when we bypass the ATIV Tab's display. That makes its commanding first-place finish in the video playback workload even more impressive. In contrast, the Nexus 10 uses slightly more power than Microsoft's Surface, but less than the Atom-based ATIV Smart PC 500T.

An easier workload gives the Nexus 10 an unfair advantage in this break-out of device power consumption in Riptide GP. Really, though, the only stand-out is Microsoft's Tegra 3-powered Surface, which uses quite a bit more power while it renders an enhanced version of the game.

9. Nexus 10: We Want To Love It, But Don't

Really, there's a lot to like about Google's Nexus 10. Just having a 2560x1600 screen is enough to get the hardware geek in each of us excited. Samsung's Exynos 5 Dual is clearly a fast SoC backed by a capable graphics engine and copious memory bandwidth. Best of all, Google combines those parts into a platform that delivers reasonable battery life, and then asks $100 less than an iPad for it. Overall, then, the Nexus 10 is a good alternative for folks who like the Nexus 7's value, but want the larger form factor. 

Unfortunately, it's hard to look at the Nexus 10 only as the 7's big brother. The 10 is clearly a shot across Apple's bow as Google tries to take the tablet back to its roots, so the third- and fourth-gen iPads are its most natural enemies. Both Apple devices offer stellar screens, and it's really easy to see how much better they look in a side-by-side comparison. The trade-offs are that you end up paying more to go with an iPad, and of course, you're in the App Store ecosystem rather than Google's Play.

We like that the Nexus 10 boasts a higher resolution than any iPad you can buy, but that doesn't hand it a win. We like that it costs less than the iPad, but that's not a reason for a victory dance, either. Had this thing served up more decisive advantages and matched the iPad's display, it would have curried far more favor. As it stands today, though, if you're already surrounded by Apple hardware, the Nexus 10 isn't going to convince you to defect. If you're staunchly anti-Apple, the Nexus 10's shortcomings won't deter you. And so we're faced with perhaps the closest attempt at what makes the iPad as popular as it is, only for the Android space. For that, Google deserves props. The Nexus 10 doesn't get a recommendation, though.

At least with the Nexus 7, we were able to embrace what it can and can't do. It's a seven-inch tablet. You're not going to use it for writing school papers or editing images. It works for the consumption-oriented tasks that tablets do so well, though. Hence, the only award we've ever given to any tablet in The Nexus 7 Review: Google's First Tablet Gets Benchmarked. It starts at $199, too? Heck yeah. Love it.

There still is no tablet out there that does everything we want well, though. We're used to making compromises. We accepted that input on a tablet is challenging, until Microsoft's Surface came along. Then we had to live with the fact that Windows RT limits your potential to access the software you need. We looked to Samsung's ATIV Smart PC 500T running Windows 8 as a solution, and were saddened by its overall form factor.

Hopefully Google is able to nail down its hardware niggles in the Nexus 10's successor. A so-so display, modest battery life, long charging times, no extended display support, and graphics performance that merely catches the third-gen iPad all weigh on us this time around. When quad-core Atoms start showing up toward the end of this year, combining the flexibility of x86 with the energy efficiency enabled by advanced manufacturing, I predict it'll be increasingly difficult to compete in the 10" tablet space.