Apple iPad (2025) 128GB VS Infinix Xpad GT

The most meaningful design difference between these two tablets is weight. The Apple iPad (2025) comes in at 481 g, while the Infinix Xpad GT is noticeably heavier at 655 g — a difference of 174 g. In practical terms, that gap is significant during extended handheld use: reading, sketching, or watching content for an hour or more will make the iPad feel considerably less fatiguing to hold.

On thickness, the Xpad GT is marginally slimmer at 6.5 mm versus the iPad's 7 mm, but a 0.5 mm difference is imperceptible in everyday handling and does not meaningfully offset the weight disadvantage. Both tablets share identical limitations in terms of accessories and durability: neither includes a stylus, neither supports a detachable or backlit keyboard out of the box, and neither offers any rated water resistance — so neither has an edge on those fronts.

Overall, the Apple iPad (2025) holds a clear design advantage in this group, driven entirely by its substantially lighter build. For users who prioritize portability and comfort during prolonged use, the weight difference is the single most impactful spec here.

Screen size and refresh rate are where these two tablets diverge most sharply. The Infinix Xpad GT sports a larger 13″ panel compared to the iPad's 10.9″, making it better suited for media consumption, multitasking, or creative work that benefits from more screen real estate. More impactful still is the Xpad GT's 144Hz refresh rate versus the iPad's 60Hz — a difference that is immediately visible in the smoothness of scrolling, animations, and gaming. For motion-sensitive tasks, this is a meaningful functional gap.

Despite the size difference, both displays land at virtually identical pixel densities — 264 ppi for the iPad and 263 ppi for the Xpad GT — meaning sharpness and text clarity are essentially equal on both screens. Both use IPS LCD panels, so color reproduction and viewing angle characteristics are in the same ballpark by technology. The Xpad GT does add HDR10 support, which allows compatible streaming content to render with a wider contrast range and more vivid highlights — a tangible plus for video-focused users.

On balance, the Infinix Xpad GT has a clear display advantage in this group. Its larger screen, significantly higher refresh rate, and HDR10 support collectively offer a more capable multimedia experience, while the near-identical pixel density ensures neither tablet has an edge on raw sharpness.

Raw processing power decisively favors the Apple iPad (2025). Its Apple A16 Bionic chip, built on a 4 nm process, achieves a Geekbench 6 single-core score of 2321 and a multi-core score of 5684 — compared to the Xpad GT's Snapdragon 888 scores of 1002 and 3014 respectively. Single-core performance is especially telling for everyday responsiveness: app launches, UI interactions, and general snappiness all correlate closely with that metric, and the iPad's roughly 2.3× advantage there is substantial. The A16 also benefits from a much larger 24 MB L2 cache versus the Snapdragon's 1 MB, which significantly reduces latency when accessing frequently used data.

The Xpad GT counters with 8 GB of RAM versus the iPad's 6 GB, and its higher OpenGL ES 3.2 support edges out the iPad's 3.0, which could matter for certain graphics workloads. It also ships with 256 GB of base storage, double the iPad's 128 GB. However, the Snapdragon 888 is a 5 nm chip that debuted in 2021, and against a 2025 Apple silicon design, the generational gap in architectural efficiency and outright speed is difficult to overcome regardless of RAM headroom.

All told, the Apple iPad (2025) holds a commanding performance advantage. The benchmark gap is too wide to be offset by the Xpad GT's additional RAM or storage, and for compute-intensive tasks — from video editing to demanding apps — the A16 Bionic is in a different league based strictly on the provided data.

Megapixel counts are nearly identical — 12 MP on the iPad versus 13 MP on the Xpad GT for the rear camera — so the real differentiation lies in feature sets. The iPad's main camera benefits from a BSI (backside-illuminated) sensor, which improves light capture efficiency and generally yields better results in lower-light conditions. The Xpad GT lacks this, but compensates with a broader suite of manual controls: it supports manual ISO, manual white balance, and manual focus, giving users who want hands-on control over their shots more flexibility. It also has a rear flash and a video light, practical additions the iPad omits entirely.

For video, the Xpad GT's continuous autofocus during recording is a meaningful advantage — keeping subjects sharp as they move without manual intervention. The iPad lacks this feature, which can result in focus hunting or static focus during video capture. On the front camera, the dynamic flips: the iPad's 12 MP selfie shooter substantially outresolves the Xpad GT's 9 MP, making it the stronger choice for video calls and front-facing photography.

This group is genuinely split depending on use case. The Infinix Xpad GT edges ahead for rear camera versatility — particularly for video and manual photography — while the Apple iPad (2025) holds a clear lead on front camera resolution. Neither has a dominant all-round advantage, but users who prioritize video recording or manual rear camera control will find the Xpad GT more capable based solely on the provided specs.

The audio specs for these two tablets are identical across every available data point. Both feature stereo speakers, both omit a 3.5 mm headphone jack, and neither includes a built-in radio. Wired headphone users on either device will need a USB-C adapter or a Bluetooth alternative.

Based strictly on the provided specifications, this group is a complete tie — there is no differentiating factor between the Apple iPad (2025) and the Infinix Xpad GT in the audio category.

Two meaningful differences separate these tablets on battery. The Infinix Xpad GT packs a 10000 mAh cell versus the iPad's 8500 mAh — a 17.6% larger reserve that, all else being equal, translates to proportionally more time between charges. For a device used heavily for media consumption or productivity away from an outlet, that extra headroom is a practical advantage.

Equally important is charging speed. The Xpad GT supports fast charging, meaning the larger battery can be replenished significantly faster than the iPad's, which notably lacks fast charging support. In real-world terms, this compounds the Xpad GT's advantage: not only does it last longer per charge, but when it does need topping up, it gets back to full capacity more quickly. Both tablets omit wireless charging and have sealed, non-removable batteries, so those factors are a wash.

The Infinix Xpad GT holds a clear battery advantage in this group — larger capacity and fast charging support together make it the more capable option for users who prioritize endurance and charging convenience.

Connectivity sets these tablets apart immediately. The Apple iPad (2025) includes a cellular module with 5G support and GPS, making it a genuinely mobile device capable of staying connected and location-aware without Wi-Fi. The Xpad GT is Wi-Fi only with no cellular option and no GPS — a significant limitation for users who need connectivity or navigation on the go. The iPad also supports direct OS updates, ensuring timely software patches, while the Xpad GT does not, which can mean delayed or uncertain update delivery.

On privacy and security, the iPad builds a more comprehensive layer of protections: it adds Mail Privacy Protection, cross-site tracking blocking, and a fingerprint scanner for biometric authentication — none of which the Xpad GT offers. The Xpad GT counters in the customization and usability space, supporting multi-user mode (useful for shared or family devices), dynamic theming, and the ability to play games while they download — features the iPad lacks. It is also noted as free and open source, which may matter to a specific segment of users.

Overall, the Apple iPad (2025) holds the broader advantage in this group. Its cellular connectivity, GPS, stronger privacy suite, biometric security, and guaranteed direct updates represent higher-impact differentiators for most users. The Xpad GT's multi-user support and customization flexibility are genuine wins for shared-use or Android-ecosystem scenarios, but they do not outweigh the iPad's connectivity and security depth based strictly on the provided data.

The Geekbench 5 results here reinforce the performance picture established by the Geekbench 6 data. The Apple iPad (2025) scores 1874 single-core and 5382 multi-core, while the Infinix Xpad GT trails considerably at 966 single-core and 3043 multi-core. The single-core gap — nearly 2× in the iPad's favor — is particularly significant, as it reflects the kind of performance users feel most directly in daily use: app responsiveness, task switching, and UI fluidity.

Both tablets share the same DDR5 memory standard, meaning the memory architecture itself is on equal footing. The performance divergence therefore stems entirely from the processors, not from any difference in memory generation or bandwidth tier.

The Apple iPad (2025) is the clear winner in this group. With consistent benchmark leads of roughly 2× across both single- and multi-core workloads in Geekbench 5, and memory parity between the two devices, the data leaves no ambiguity about which tablet delivers superior raw processing performance.