Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Iphone Apple

iPhone 5 GeekBench Results 470

Posted by samzenpus
from the the-numbers-are-in dept.
EGSonikku writes "The iPhone 5 has been benchmarked using the GeekBench tool. According to the results, Apple's claim of 2x higher performance over the iPhone 4S seems accurate. The results show the iPhone 5's A6 CPU is dual core and clocked at 1.2GHz, and is paired with 1GB of RAM. Despite the fact that the Samsung Galaxy S3 has a quad core CPU at 1.4GHz, and twice as much RAM, it seems the iPhone 5 is faster than the S3, or any other Android handset." Meanwhile, Samsung has launched a marketing campaign that compares some of the hardware specs and features between the new iPhone 5 and the GS3.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iPhone 5 GeekBench Results

Comments Filter:
  • by magarity (164372) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:03PM (#41356895)

    I'd rather it were the same thickness as the old model if the battery would last longer. Who exactly is it that thinks so they're so horribly thick?

    • by _Shorty-dammit (555739) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:07PM (#41356931)

      I've said the same thing for years about both phones and laptops. Sooner or later they're of a size that is small enough, and continually making components smaller should simply give us more room for more battery capacity. Even if this iPhone 5 gives us similar, or one can hope for slightly better, battery performance compared to the previous model. But one can only imagine how much better it would be if it were still the same size, and all the shrunken components would give us a battery capacity twice that of the previous model.

      • by CastrTroy (595695) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:19PM (#41357047) Homepage
        Well, despite the Macbook Air being extemely small. They have dedicated a fair amount of size to the battery. Check out this picture [hardmac.com] to see just how much space the battery takes up in the Macbook Air. I only wish my HP thickbook used the same percentage of the volume for the batteries. I'd be able to work an entire day without charging. I'd gladly go without the optical drive if they could replace the entire thing with a battery.
        • by hawguy (1600213) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:49PM (#41357261)

          Well, despite the Macbook Air being extemely small. They have dedicated a fair amount of size to the battery. Check out this picture [hardmac.com] to see just how much space the battery takes up in the Macbook Air. I only wish my HP thickbook used the same percentage of the volume for the batteries. I'd be able to work an entire day without charging. I'd gladly go without the optical drive if they could replace the entire thing with a battery.

          I thought all the laptop vendors had something similar to Lenovo's "Ultrabay" battery that lets you swap out the CD-ROM drive for a battery? I know I've seen a Dell that has the same thing. HP doesn't?

    • by js3 (319268) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:08PM (#41356947)

      I'd rather it were the same thickness as the old model if the battery would last longer. Who exactly is it that thinks so they're so horribly thick?

      Everyone I've seen with an iPhone has a ridicilously huge rubber case protecting the fragile thing. You should see the one my girlfriends mom has. You would think she was using a phone from early 2000. Why is thin such a big deal when everyone has a case that makes it NOT thin?

      • by beltsbear (2489652) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:23PM (#41357065)
        I have dropped my caseless iphone 4 and 4s at least 5 times each (yes I am clumsy) without breakage. It is not fragile even with glass on both sides. The main way gorilla glass is broken is a drop on to concrete, even asphalt seems not to do it at hand height. Almost half the people I work with have the iPhone 4 or 4s, out of maybe 10 phones I have seen one broken from a drop. I have had Samsung phones that break on the first drop and Erikson that took only a few drops. None of my Moto's ever broke from droppage.
        • by Zuriel (1760072) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:37PM (#41357173)
          And, of course, there's the indestructible Nokia [iseeahappyface.com].
        • by Osty (16825)

          Why is everybody dropping their phones? How does this happen? After years of smartphone use, and over a decade of cell phone use, I've only ever dropped one phone (an old Nokia, circa 2000; ended up with a loose battery connection that would occasionally cause dropped calls if it shifted mid-call).

          Maybe rather than a case people should get the Nokia Lumia 920 and wear grippy gloves, since the 920's screen can be used with gloves on.

          • by peragrin (659227) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @08:58PM (#41357753)

            I dropped my iphone 3G 4 times twice onto concrete without any ill effects.

            One of the times the phone was in my jacket pocket literally while I was on a ladder I must have bounced or moved just right as I felt it slide out and heard the thunk.

            One of the times that wasn't on concrete I was carrying a heavy load up a flight of stairs I had to adjust my grip and as I did the phone slipped out of a different pocket. it sort of cartwheeled down the stairs too.

            I don't use rubbers on my phones. That phone worked just fine for 3 years before I finally upgraded.

          • by magarity (164372)

            Why is everybody dropping their phones? How does this happen?

            I know someone in China who had his iphone in his back pocket when he went to use one of those squat style toilets. Time to buy a new iphone...

          • by PNutts (199112) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @09:51PM (#41358043)

            Why is everybody dropping their phones? How does this happen? After years of smartphone use, and over a decade of cell phone use, I've only ever dropped one phone (an old Nokia, circa 2000; ended up with a loose battery connection that would occasionally cause dropped calls if it shifted mid-call).

            Maybe rather than a case people should get the Nokia Lumia 920 and wear grippy gloves, since the 920's screen can be used with gloves on.

            Looking at your ID I assume you are an old guy like me. :) The difference is 10 years ago we used our cell phones for phone calls. Aside from an outlier realtor or on-the-go professional that usage didn't add up to a lot of minutes during the day, and often for me there were many days between calls. Fast forward to today where "our" noses are buried in the phone most of the day. It's constantly in and out of our hands for social networking, music, news, texting, reading, pictures, whatever. And folks aren't stopping what they're doing to do all that. I see phones in use driving, walking, jogging, bike riding besides the normal multitasking during a meal or other more mundane activities (including the "dropped it in a toilet" horror stories). I'll also add the the current form factor (thin and wide) is more prone to an accidental ejection from a hand than the thicker candy-bar or slider styles. My lawn? Get off it.

          • by Jeremi (14640)

            Why is everybody dropping their phones? How does this happen?

            Partly because people are careless and/or clumsy, but it's mainly because people are constantly pulling out their phones and messing with them.

            Back in the day, when cell phones were actually used solely as phones, a person might receive (or make) a call on his cell phone a few times a day. Now that cell phones are essentially portable computers that also happen to make calls, people (myself included) will reflexively pull them out (to check email, Facebook, browse web pages, play games, etc) whenever 30 se

        • by djdanlib (732853) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @08:23PM (#41357527) Homepage

          I have a friend who dropped her iPhone off the kitchen counter and that impact shattered the glass. She's done this twice, once with an iPhone 4 and once with an iPhone 4S. I think I'll take my chances with a better-constructed device.

        • by JackAxe (689361)
          You sir, are lucky. This is to the extent that one of my friend's iPhone 4 broke and he was using Apple's free bumper case on it:

          The first time he dropped it on cement, the back fractured, which was about a year after owning it.

          Now it gets better, in that time, he had somehow slightly contorted the metal band around it.

          Now after breaking the back, he finally went out and bought a 3rd party case that would hide the back damage. After putting on the new case, the sturdiness of its design helped to
        • by exomondo (1725132) on Monday September 17, 2012 @01:48AM (#41359275)

          I have dropped my caseless iphone 4 and 4s at least 5 times each (yes I am clumsy) without breakage. It is not fragile even with glass on both sides. The main way gorilla glass is broken is a drop on to concrete, even asphalt seems not to do it at hand height. Almost half the people I work with have the iPhone 4 or 4s, out of maybe 10 phones I have seen one broken from a drop. I have had Samsung phones that break on the first drop and Erikson that took only a few drops. None of my Moto's ever broke from droppage.

          My iphone4 fell out of an ultralight onto a construction site where it was run over by a steamroller and it was fine, but a cotton-wool ball touched up against my samsung and the screen shattered.

          • by rwise2112 (648849)

            My iphone4 fell out of an ultralight onto a construction site where it was run over by a steamroller and it was fine, but a cotton-wool ball touched up against my samsung and the screen shattered.

            Well, I'm glad the steamroller was fine!

      • Thinner is thinner (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SuperKendall (25149)

        Everyone I've seen with an iPhone has a ridicilously huge rubber case protecting the fragile thing.

        Well the cases are not all that large that I have seen, but let's proceed as if they were.

        Why is thin such a big deal when everyone has a case that makes it NOT thin?

        Because the combination of a thinner device + a case is still thinner than the thicker device + a case. If the case, as you claim, is a constant - then thinner really does mean thinner to the user.

        However one thing of note with the iPhone 5 is th

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by msauve (701917)
          "Because the combination of a thinner device + a case is still thinner than the thicker device + a case. "

          So, what do you think a tautology proves? A thicker device is still thicker - have I proved a counterpoint?

          Exactly what advantage (besides bragging rights to a a win in some pissing contest) does a 7.6 mm thick phone over a 9.3 mm phone? It's no different the the old Detroit "longer, lower, wider" marketing BS, which was about (marketed) style, not utility, performace, or any other competitive advant
        • One other factor you forgot about is weight, the new phone is lighter - that does matter to people, I jog for instance and the iPhone 4 really produces a lot of pull in the pocket.

          Pocket? Jog? Dude if you're trendy enough to have an iPhone, you're trendy enough to have an arm strap for it.

          I joke but in all seriousness try it, get a $5 one off ebay. Having the phone rigid on your arm rather than bouncing in your pocket makes a world of difference when jogging.

      • Not everyone. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Sunday September 16, 2012 @08:07PM (#41357411)

        I don't have a case for my 4S, I didn't have one for my 3GS, and I didn't have one for my original iPhone, which I got from my brother when he upgraded to a 3G. My brother also is on his third phone and doesn't use a case. In all that time only one's ever fallen on the ground. My friend asked to hold it, and immediately dropped it onto a concrete floor when I handed it to him. It was the original iPhone. It put a small dent in the corner of the case, but it didn't really damage it. I'd hardly call the device fragile.

        The population of iPhone owners seems pretty evenly split between people with cases and people without. I certainly appreciate a device that looks good and feels good in my hand. I'm not really concerned with breaking it since I look after my things. A lot of other iPhone users are the same.

        • by smash (1351)

          I've been through 3 iphones - a 3g, 3g-s and 4-s.

          None have had cases. In my experience it all depends very much on the luck of the draw - how they land. The 3g-s was dropped at least 10-15 times, often onto bitumen, tiles, concrete, etc. It had a crack in the screen after about drop number 3 (bad luck drop!), but it was still fine. Eventually it died when it fell out of my pocket onto CARPET whilst ferretting around under a desk. I suspect the ribbon cable came loose to the screen.

          The 3g was dropp

  • by markdavis (642305) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:06PM (#41356927)

    Please note the summary is obviously about the "International" version of the Galaxy SIII.

    The USA version of the Galaxy SIII, and the Evo LTE, and the One X all use the faster Qualcomm S4 chip, not the Tegra 3 they are trying to compare against. And "twice the RAM" should generally have nothing to do with performance.

    What does this all mean? Generally, that the high-end [USA] Android phones perform easily as well as the new iphone 5.

    • by BorgDrone (64343) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:09PM (#41356959) Homepage

      True, but they do this with twice the cores and a highernclock frequency. That makes the A6 pretty impressive.

      Imagine if they put a higher clocked, quad-core version of this in an iPad.

      • by KiloByte (825081) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:22PM (#41357059)

        From the blurb: "it seems the iPhone 5 is faster than the S3", from the linked article: S3 has a higher score than iPhone5 by roughly the relative clock ratio. Most tests are single-threaded so the number of cores doesn't matter, but in the few multi-threaded tests, S3 gets far better edge (duh!). The only part where iPhone5 wins is memory bandwidth.

        Whoever misquoted the results this badly must be some incorrigible Apple fanboy.

        • by Smurf (7981) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @08:11PM (#41357427)

          Sorry, I can't find the text you mention as "from the linked article". Can you please point out where one of the linked articles says that?

          The only thing I could find is this page [primatelabs.com] saying that the A6 running at 1.02 GHz scored 1601, while this chart [primatelabs.com] says that the average Galaxy S3 running at 1400 MHz gets a score of 1560, i.e., the S3 scores slightly lower even though the clock runs 37% faster.

          What am I missing?

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            That chart is not an average.
            See here [primatelabs.com] a list of all Galaxy S III scores.

        • by Namarrgon (105036) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @10:24PM (#41358243) Homepage

          As you say, while the S3 has a consistent edge elsewhere, the iPhone destroys the S3 in the memory bandwidth tests. But those tests are strangely inconsistent, for both devices.

          The S3 is a lot slower for sequential read bandwidth (578MB/s vs 1.73GB/s), but actually faster for sequential writes (1.53GB/s vs 1.35/GB/s). It's interesting that write speed is so much faster than reading; usually read speeds are faster than writes (as with the iPhone). This appears common to many Android devices though.

          OTOH, the iPhone 5 is ridiculously fast in the stdlib write test - over 6GB/s. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the tests, but I don't see how this result can be three times higher than sequential writes; I'd expect a little slower. Perhaps the iPhone has a large enough cache that the test fits within it?

      • by caladine (1290184)
        Not quite correct. The US/LTE version is dual core (qualcomm S4) - and also faster than the quad core exynos or tegra 3.
      • Higher clocks, yes, but just 2 cores. The S4 is a dual core chip.
    • What does this all mean? Generally, that the high-end [USA] Android phones perform easily as well as the new iphone 5.

      I don't know that I'd draw any conclusions, given the two devices run totally different OS's, the software written for them is in two totally different languages... I know some software for Android is written against the NDK but lots of it is not, is it fair to compare that against all the iPhone apps that are native?

      • by smash (1351) on Monday September 17, 2012 @12:10AM (#41358841) Homepage Journal

        I know some software for Android is written against the NDK but lots of it is not, is it fair to compare that against all the iPhone apps that are native?

        As far as the end user is concerned, whether it is native code or not is irrelevant. The available apps should be compared. If they run fast, that's all the user cares about. Some theoretical e-peen contest about "oh my smartphone has a quad core CPU that is way faster" doesn't matter if the software available consumes far more resources and doesn't run as fast.

    • by Nursie (632944) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:52PM (#41357295)

      Actually it's exynos, Samsung's ARM, not tegra.

      Not sure I'd call the USA phones high end, necessarily. They have less cores because samsung have to compromise and use third party chips in order to get LTE. I know the Qualcomm stuff is good, but I'm not sure I'd wager on it being *that* good.

      Geekbench also seems to have recorded multiple scores for the S III that are above the 1601 reported for the iPhone 5.

      All in all I'd say that there's actually no useful information here at all,

    • by SuperKendall (25149) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @08:15PM (#41357465)

      It's really wrong to compare specs between Android and iOS devices directly without considering how the underlying systems are actually used.

      For instance, an Android phone needs more memory than an iOS device as it tends to have more background processes. iOS has a tighter control over memory so it simply does not need as much to accomplish most things (unless you start getting into talking about image processing applications).

      Also, what about the performance difference between Android apps and iOS apps? Android apps have to rely on a garbage collector to reclaim memory, iOS uses ARC which means memory is reclaimed without that overhead. Not to mention the VM in Android.

      Also how many Android apps are written in such a way as to take advantage of all those cores? With so many Android devices still being on 2.x, lots of developers target that spec. iOS developers at worst are targeting about two versions back, currently switching from iOS4 to iOS5 as the lowest level supported - that means use of a LOT of libraries that actually make use of multiple cores for many tasks.

      I can see comparing specs from on Android device to another or one iOS device to another, but comparing specs between an iOS device and an Android device seems kind of pointless unless you are giving very specific parameters for a task either might accomplish. Running GeekBench is not really a task a user would do every day...

      • Frankly we are at the point where it's pointless to compare those specs, except perhaps for the GPU. iPhones have had smooth, fast UI for ages. Android is finally there with ICS as well (judging by my Galaxy Nexus, at least). Why would I care if that is achieved by a super-powerful CPU, or many cores, or a bunch of neckbeards doing assembly-level micro-optimizations, or unicorn poop? All I care about is that it works fast enough (i.e. no lag, no stuttering, no command delays), doesn't cost me a fortune, and

    • Please note the summary is obviously about the "International" version of the Galaxy SIII.

      Actually, Canada which is the country this benchmark was made in, also has faster Android phones [androinica.com].

      Selecting (out-of-the-country) phones for this benchmark which have slower processors was most likely a deliberate choice on their part. It's a well known fact that if you post negative news [dailytech.com] news about Apple (it doesn't matter how big you are), or post negative reviews [zdnet.com], you and all your colleagues at your company get blacklisted from their VIP events and most importantly, you and all your colleagues (including

  • Android logo? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mr_zorg (259994) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:11PM (#41356979)

    The android logo on an iPhone story? Really?!?!

    • Re:Android logo? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by blackest_k (761565) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:50PM (#41357277) Homepage Journal

      Thats just to pour fuel on the flames Slashdot seems to be degenerating to flamebait, remember when stories were generally interesting and not just to annoy various factions. Hearing the same comments repeated gets boring after a while.

      Any way good on apple at bringing a more powerful iPhone to market. So how good are the next generation android phones going to have to be, to compete against this latest generation iPhone.

      See this is where the battle for market share should be fought not in the court room.
         

  • by Jaktar (975138) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:14PM (#41357011)

    Since it is faster than all the other phones I can get all my phone calls done faster. That's the way it works.

    Plus, all the video encoding gets done that much faster while I text and drive.

    • Right. If you want a mobile device with a better benchmark, get a laptop. Even an anemic netbook should be faster. Smartphones are for making calls and playing Angry Birds.

      • by gagol (583737)

        Exactly, I have a friend who claims he's only computer is an android phone. Now he is in charge of creating and maintaining the website os his new venture and have much trouble just getting wordpress installed on his server... I advised him to remove the dust from one of his computer and use it... we'll see how it goes.

        Phones and tablets are consumption devices, period. You need to be productive? get a computer.

      • The iPhone 5 geekbench score is higher than every single Atom-powered computer on the score list. And it is faster than many other computers. So what was it that you were saying about an anemic netbook being faster?
  • Going for the S3 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:14PM (#41357015)

    I've decided that my next phone (soon, I hope) is going to be the S3. I'd been holding out with my iPhone 4 for a while, waiting (like many others, I suspect) to see what Apple would wow us with for the iPhone 5. Needless to say, I wasn't that impressed, though to be honest, part of me really didn't expect to be, given that there are only so many innovations they could have come up with. What could they have done? An even bigger screen? NFC? A phone you could roll up? The first two would hardly have been groundbreaking and the latter is tech that doesn't really exist yet.

    Still, at the end of the day, I'm sure I could be happy with the 5, but I'm ready to play with a new toy. I've never had an Android device before, but got a chance to play with a tablet and some phones over my vacation, and I liked what I saw.

    Captcha: revenues

  • I'm going for an S3 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by What'sInAName (115383) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:15PM (#41357025) Homepage Journal

    (Grrr, thought I was logged in.)

    I've decided that my next phone (soon, I hope) is going to be the S3. I'd been holding out with my iPhone 4 for a while, waiting (like many others, I suspect) to see what Apple would wow us with for the iPhone 5. Needless to say, I wasn't that impressed, though to be honest, part of me really didn't expect to be, given that there are only so many innovations they could have come up with. What could they have done? An even bigger screen? NFC? A phone you could roll up? The first two would hardly have been groundbreaking and the latter is tech that doesn't really exist yet.

    Still, at the end of the day, I'm sure I could be happy with the 5, but I'm ready to play with a new toy. I've never had an Android device before, but got a chance to play with a tablet and some phones over my vacation, and I liked what I saw.

    Captcha: revenues

    • Honestly, if you're going to go for an Android-based phone I'd go with one of the Nexus devices. They're a lot easier to modify and get software updates before any other phone. The Galaxy Nexus is available on all carriers and is fairly similar to the S3, spec wise. The iPhone 5 announcement was severely underwhelming and every "new" feature is something that's been floating around Android for a while now. Stock Android 4.0 or 4.1 works so much better and smoother than any of the 3rd party skins like TouchW
      • by Tumbleweed (3706)

        Honestly, if you're going to go for an Android-based phone I'd go with one of the Nexus devices. ... The Galaxy Nexus is available on all carriers and is fairly similar to the S3, spec wise.

        No, it's not "fairly similar", spec-wise. The Galaxy Nexus is noticeably inferior to the GS3, much more like the iPhone 5, in fact. The only thing it has going for it - which is a BIG point for many - is that it's a stock Android experience.

        • Also, the galaxy nexus has a much better chance of being updated to newer versions of android than the S3
      • by Karlt1 (231423)

        "Honestly, if you're going to go for an Android-based phone I'd go with one of the Nexus devices. They're a lot easier to modify and get software updates before any other phone."

        Unless you get a Nexus that works on the largest carrier in the US....

        http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/09/11/verizon-galaxy-nexus-jelly-bean-update-excuses-roll-out/ [gottabemobile.com]

    • "A phone you could roll up? The first two would hardly have been groundbreaking and the latter is tech that doesn't really exist yet."

      Haha. Hopefully, we'll be wearing our next smartphone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Glass [wikipedia.org]

    • Odd conclusion... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SuperKendall (25149) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:51PM (#41357287)

      Needless to say, I wasn't that impressed

      Why? It is in fact very impressive hardware; it's simply the case that most of the details about it were leaked beforehand.

      I do not know what aspect of the phone would fail to impress compared to current top-end Android phones unless you were into huge screens. The main thing I wanted was a great camera upgrade from the iPhone4; the iPhone 5 has an excellent camera. It runs iOS apps quite quickly, and has a somewhat larger screen without being physically huge.

      I just don't understand the pure spec-based comparison that takes place without consideration of what software you might want to run...

    • by Overzeetop (214511) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @08:03PM (#41357381) Journal

      I know I have a lot of money tied up in software for my phone. Whether it be remote control software, or specialty apps which are only available for a premium, or just games I paid for - there's a $100-150+ in software I would have to re-buy. I don't want to have to think about switching my media management over. Not that iTunes isn't a steaming pile of shit on Windows, but I've finally gotten it to work acceptably (most of the time) with my 80+GB of music, 400+GB of movies, audio and ebooks, podcasts, etc. I'm sure there are better managers, but the number of hours required to switch that stuff into another management app just makes my insides curl. I'm doubly tied as I have an iOS tablet.

      At this point, the "competitor" from Android would have to be pretty fucking amazingly better to make it worth while to switch, and while the S3 is very nice and there are things about it I like better, it's hard to find a reason for the extra expense and time to switch.

  • Oh samsung... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kiriath (2670145) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:16PM (#41357033)

    That ad makes me giggle. Samsung is so deathly afraid of Apple that they are flaunting all of their silly useless(to me... I guess... maybe someone can use them) gadgets in hopes that people will think the I5 is inferior. The numbers will speak for themselves, and Samsung is wasting their advertising dollars... they should save up to pay their patent debts.

    Seriously though, I never liked the Mac Vs PC ads, I feel like if you can't sell your product on its own merit, you shouldn't release ads trashing the other guys. When you have an awesome product, people will buy it... when you stoop to trash talk, you're showing your weakness. Apple showed their weakness with the MacVPC ads. Samsung is showing theirs with this.

    Also, if Android didn't almost require 2GB of memory to run I'd feel like that is a lot. My 1GB android devices slug up so fast it is silly. If Android had the memory management of iOS, 2GB would scream.

    Silly large companies...

  • So many errors! (Score:5, Informative)

    by lowlymarine (1172723) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:27PM (#41357091)
    There are a ludicrous number of errors here. The summary says that the CPU is clocked at 1.2 GHz, which the screenshot clearly shows is not the case - it's 1 GHz. The quad-core Galaxy S III only has 1GB of RAM, and the LTE variant with 2GB of RAM doesn't have a quad-core CPU. And both the HSPA+ and LTE Galaxy S III's score well above 1600 on Geekbench when actually running on all cores - the test results that are below 1600 and are no-doubt included in this "average" are custom tests run on fewer cores, which is clearly shown if you actually browse the results.
  • by Overzeetop (214511) on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:31PM (#41357123) Journal

    At least in the US, the carriers seem determined to ensure that you upgrade every two years anyway, so it's not like you're going to be stuck with a phone which is all that old. It seems more like "fast enough" is simply a responsive GUI and a generally imperceptible execution time for the kinds of activities you do on a phone. I'm not running CFD models, transcoding movies, or running a popular web service on the thing - I'm tweaking photos, or asking it to make simple calculations my HP48 might do, streaming media or rendering a web page (without flash; thanks Steve).

    Now that a couple of generations have past for Android and iOS, the options for switching are getting far more expensive and time consuming. Switch all my media to a new program for syncing - major PITA. Re-buy all my apps (not an insignificant endeavor) for the other platform - $$$. Learn where the fuck the Android/iOS developers decide to put some obscure setting I want to change? Heck, even just setting up my icons and replicating a useful look & feel means dropping at least a couple, if not several, hours.

    Megapixels, streaming video chat, resolution, memory amount, memory speed - the numbers mean almost nothing. They mean even less when you can't even run the opposing OS on the hardware. But I suppose everybody has to have a ruler handy at some point.

  • by EGSonikku (519478) <petersen.mobile@NoSPAM.gmail.com> on Sunday September 16, 2012 @07:36PM (#41357165)

    Just wanted to fess up to a typo in the story. I accidentally typed that the iPhone 5 runs at 1.2GHz, meant to type 1.02GHz.

  • samsung s3 with LTE use a dual core snapdragon, clocked at 1.5ghz with 2gb of ram. how come they didn't compare apples to apples?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 16, 2012 @08:06PM (#41357407)

    One should note that the score given for the SGS3 is an average score from thousands of benchmarks which they range everywhere form 1271 to 2211.
    The Iphone 5 however only has a single result, and that's on a phone that is probably not burdened by a bunch of crap which seemingly tends to give really varying results..
    I won't trust this before they have at least 250 benchmarks done after the release.

  • And who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Torp (199297) on Monday September 17, 2012 @12:27AM (#41358915)

    Meanwhile, no matter the hardware specs, iOS will keep being more responsive and iOS phones will keep getting software updates for years after launch. Clock speed and number of cores has stopped being relevant even in phones (it's not really relevant on the desktop any more as well) already.
    Note: i've owned two Android phones before switching to iOS.

A freelance is one who gets paid by the word -- per piece or perhaps. -- Robert Benchley

Working...