The NVIDIA SHIELD Tablet Review
by Joshua Ho on July 29, 2014 9:00 AM ESTNAND Performance
While NAND performance used to receive relatively little attention, it's now clear that some devices can ship with internal storage poor enough to severely degrade the user experience. Even if storage performance is acceptable, improvements in this area can significantly improve user experience. In the case of this device, it seems that we're looking at a SanDisk iNAND eMMC 4.3 solution.
In NAND performance, the Shield Tablet does well against its peers, although random write speed is a bit on the low side. While no particular slight against NVIDIA, it’s a bit disappointing how NAND performance in tablets seems to be lagging behind the smartphone space, although not entirely surprising due to stronger cost constraints.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
174 Comments
View All Comments
cknobman - Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - link
Thought Nvidia had a real killer here.Until I saw how crappy the screen is. On a tablet having such crappy color reproduction is just not going to cut it.
ams23 - Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - link
Overall the Shield tablet display is not bad but not great. The black levels, contrast ratio, and saturation accuracy are quite a bit better on Shield tablet compared to iPad Mini Retina. The max brightness and white point accuracy are slightly better on Shield tablet compared to iPad Mini Retina. The grayscale and GMB accuracy are quite a bit worse, however, and are the two areas that need some work.rodolfcarver - Friday, October 3, 2014 - link
I agree that it's not bad, but the truth is that most games will be just as good on some of the top tablets (http://www.consumertop.com/best-tablets/ ), and they will also be better for all other tasks. Therefore I don't see the point of the Nvidia Shield.willis936 - Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - link
You must have skipped the cpu and gpu benchmarks...ddriver - Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - link
Color accuracy is pretty much irrelevant for gaming.B3an - Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - link
Well yeah, if you're a moron.zodiacsoulmate - Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - link
that's mean... also you are wrong color accuracy is so irreverent in gaming...inighthawki - Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - link
Games already use low resolution color palettes. Textures almost never have more than 8 bits per channel (and are often compressed beyond that), and lighting calculations and sampling error is already going to produce generally "wrong" colors with respect to the real world. You're absolutely fooling yourself if you believe you will see a noticeable difference between this and a more accurate display while gaming.mkozakewich - Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - link
"Games" use an incredibly varied set of graphical abilities. Maybe first-person shooters are different, and a lot of hyper-realistic AAA games in general; but there are plenty of games that are bright or cel-shaded, and those look a lot better on a screen with rich colours.You can't just say a display is good or bad. The reason they give us all these specs is so that we can make our own choices. Someone who plays games with muted or washed-out colours can decided that it's fine, and that this works for them based on the tradeoffs it makes.
inighthawki - Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - link
I agree there are cases, typically indie games, where this is true, but this is an incredibly small subset of the game market, and also generally not the target audience of such a device. The shield seems to be targeted more at heavy gamers, especially those who wish to stream games from a high end PC in another room. These are the people who typically have many AAA titles and games where the graphics are so complex, and the amount of estimation used to compute lighting and texture quality is off from realistic values enough to not even realize that in cases of perfect color reproduction by the display, the game could very easily have a high error from the "real world" value anyway.