The Apple iPad 2 launched as the second‑generation iPad and is recorded in contemporary sources (EveryMac, Notebookcheck, Ars) as the iPad2,1. Hardware highlights documented at the time include a dual‑core 1 GHz Apple A5 processor and a PowerVR SGX543MP2 GPU that Apple and reviewers cited as a major performance uplift over the original iPad. Notebookcheck measured the chassis at 601 grams and 8.8 mm thickness (about 0.1 kg lighter and ~35% slimmer than the original), underlining Apple’s physical redesign alongside the internal upgrade.
This review synthesizes user‑submitted benchmark listings from the Geekbench Browser (iPad2,1 device entries and the surrounding iPad family context), EveryMac’s comparative analysis of iPad 2 versus the original iPad, Notebookcheck’s physical measurements and hands‑on observations, Phoronix’s chip‑level efficiency testing (4 GFLOPS/Watt), and contemporary coverage of graphics gains (GLBenchmark/AnandTech/VentureBeat and Ars). Where numbers are cited, they come directly from those sources or from the Geekbench Browser listings referenced in the research brief.
High‑level verdict: at launch the iPad 2 delivered a clear, measurable improvement over the original iPad—most notably by moving to a dual‑core 1 GHz A5 and a PowerVR SGX543MP2 GPU (Apple claimed up to nine times faster graphics). Its thin 8.8 mm aluminium chassis and 601 g weight were definite design wins. In 2026 terms the iPad 2 is obsolete as a daily device but remains useful as a vintage performance benchmark and a reference point in long‑term comparisons of ARM SoC efficiency and early mobile GPU leaps.
How fast is the iPad 2's CPU in context?
The iPad 2 uses an Apple A5 processor clocked at 1,000 MHz with two cores (listed on the Geekbench Browser under model identifier iPad2,1). EveryMac highlights the jump from the original iPad’s single‑core 1 GHz A4 to the A5’s dual‑core design as the primary CPU improvement—benchmarks and contemporary reviews described it as a noticeable step up in responsiveness for the era.
Geekbench Browser hosts user‑submitted iOS device results and shows the iPad 2 entry with the A5/1 GHz/2 cores specification, while the same Geekbench listings illustrate how later iPads (for example, the M‑series models shown on the site) occupy much higher score ranges. The iPad 2’s architecture is therefore best viewed as a mid‑2010s mobile performer: significant over the original iPad but far behind modern silicon documented in the same benchmark database.
GPU gains were the headline—how big were they?
Apple equipped the iPad 2 with a PowerVR SGX543MP2 GPU; EveryMac and multiple contemporary reviewers report that Apple claimed up to nine times faster graphics performance compared to the original iPad’s GPU. GLBenchmark 2.0 and coverage cited by VentureBeat/AnandTech and Ars demonstrated real‑world gains in graphics tests, with independent GLBenchmark runs showing multiple‑times improvements (AnandTech/GLBenchmark data cited in contemporary reporting described roughly five to seven times faster results on many GL tests).
On chip‑level efficiency, Phoronix measured 4 GFLOPS per Watt for the A5 during specific tests—an efficiency data point that helped put early ARM SoC performance into perspective at the time. That said, the Geekbench Browser snapshot for the iPad 2 lists GPU/Metal as N/A for modern Metal scoring, indicating the device lacks comparable modern GPU benchmarking entries in that database.
Is the iPad 2 a meaningful refinement of the original iPad chassis?
Notebookcheck’s hands‑on review recorded the iPad 2 at 601 grams and 8.8 mm thickness—about 0.1 kg lighter and roughly 35% slimmer than the first iPad according to their comparison. The aluminium back and overall fit-and-finish were praised in early reviews; Ars and Notebookcheck noted the physical redesign delivered a noticeably lighter, thinner device compared with the original.
These tangible changes improved portability for the time and contributed to positive impressions in early reviews, while Apple retained the same overall tablet design language. From a materials and manufacturing standpoint, reviewers agreed the iPad 2 continued Apple’s emphasis on metal construction and precise assembly.
Why the iPad 2 matters as a performance benchmark today
The iPad 2 occupies a clear historical slot: it represents the shift from single‑core mobile SoCs to dual‑core designs in Apple’s tablet line and a step‑change in GPU capability. EveryMac’s comparative Q&A and Geekbench Browser device listings make the iPad 2 a convenient reference point when documenting generational increases (A4 → A5 and early GPU scaling).
Phoronix’s 4 GFLOPS/Watt figure and the GLBenchmark/AnandTech era results are useful quantitative anchors when tracing ARM efficiency and graphics progression. In short, the iPad 2 is best used for historical comparisons, energy‑efficiency case studies, and for verifying how quickly mobile SoC performance advanced in the early 2010s.
What is the iPad 2 actually good for today?
Contemporary press and reviews positioned the iPad 2 as an upgrade for original iPad owners who wanted smoother UI performance and much stronger graphics—Notebookcheck and Ars highlighted those practical gains. For modern users, the iPad 2’s hardware still handles basic legacy iOS tasks from its era but is not comparable to modern tablets in the Geekbench Browser listings (which show M‑series and recent A‑series devices scoring much higher).
Because it’s discontinued (EveryMac notes both the original iPad and iPad 2 have been discontinued), the iPad 2’s best present‑day role is as a collector’s item, a hardware reference for developers/emulation testers, or a calibration point in long‑term benchmark series rather than as a primary daily device.
Pros & Cons
- ✅ Dual‑core Apple A5 CPU at 1,000 MHz — clear generational CPU upgrade over the original single‑core A4 (EveryMac)
- ✅ PowerVR SGX543MP2 GPU with Apple‑claimed up to 9× graphics improvement vs the original (EveryMac; GLBenchmark/AnandTech reporting)
- ✅ Measured chassis: 601 g weight and 8.8 mm thickness — about 0.1 kg lighter and ~35% slimmer than the original (Notebookcheck)
- ✅ Chip‑level efficiency datapoint: 4 GFLOPS per Watt reported by Phoronix (useful for historical efficiency comparisons)
- ❌ Discontinued product with limited relevance for current daily use and modern app support (EveryMac states the model is discontinued)
- ❌ GPU/Metal score listed as N/A in the Geekbench Browser snapshot, indicating modern GPU benchmarking coverage is missing
- ❌ Far outpaced by modern iPads in the same Geekbench Browser dataset (e.g., iPad Pro M5 shows scores up to 4142), so it is not a practical performance device in 2026
How It Compares to the Competition
- Original iPad (first generation) — Single‑core 1 GHz A4 versus the iPad 2’s dual‑core 1 GHz A5 — iPad 2 delivers clear CPU and especially GPU improvements (EveryMac).
- iPad Pro 13-inch (M5) — Modern M‑series iPad Pro models appear in the Geekbench Browser with very high scores (example: 4142 for an M5 entry), illustrating how far tablet performance advanced beyond the iPad 2.
- iPad (11th generation) (Apple A16) — A later A‑series iPad is listed in the Geekbench Browser with far higher benchmark positioning (A16 entries in the dataset), underscoring the iPad 2’s role as a legacy reference rather than a current‑use device.
Who Should Buy This & Who Should Skip It
Buy it if: Buyers on the used‑device market who need a historical reference device, collectors, or developers testing legacy A5 behaviour and early mobile GPU scaling. Also appropriate for labs and educators needing a physical example of Apple’s transition from single‑ to dual‑core tablet SoCs.
Skip it if: Anyone who needs a tablet for modern daily use, up‑to‑date app compatibility, or current performance should skip the iPad 2 and choose a modern iPad model (see Geekbench Browser entries for M‑series and recent A‑series devices). The iPad 2 is obsolete as a primary device.
Search Purchase Options
Use these links to search for Apple iPad 2 (as performance benchmark) on trusted marketplaces. The links open in new tabs; if you buy through them, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
* Affiliate links: you pay the same price either way.