iPhone 5 GeekBench Results 470
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.
Re:Check your countries. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (Score:5, Informative)
So many errors! (Score:5, Informative)
I made a mistake in the story write up... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:Check your countries. (Score:4, Informative)
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,
Re:Check your countries. (Score:5, Informative)
o_O
He's right. The programs either fit in the RAM or they don't. On a PC you might get performance improvement by installing extra RAM, but that's only because you get more filesystem cache and get less swapping.
The numbers are liars (Score:4, Informative)
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.
You cannot compare specs directly (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Re:Oh Noes! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shocker (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Check your countries. (Score:3, Informative)
That chart is not an average.
See here [primatelabs.com] a list of all Galaxy S III scores.
Re:WGAF? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oh samsung... (Score:4, Informative)
Hmmm, my wife now has an android phone running Jelly Bean on only 384 meg. Runs pretty nice too, despite using an old processor.
The difference doesn't seem to be Android itself, but all the other bloatware that gets stuffed on some phones.
Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Interesting bandwidth results (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Better camera, not the same (Score:5, Informative)
The camera is almost exactly the same as in 4S?
No it is not. [tuaw.com]
Up to two stops better performance is a good upgrade. And also there happen to be sample pics on DPReview from an iPhone 4s that match one of the shots the iPhone 5 was demoed with - the iPhone 5 captures detail better. Also I cannot find details on how the 4s camera was constructed but I believe the iPhone 5 is a step up in terms of the lens used.
I have a DSLR and profesional compact cameras too. What I want out of a cell phone camera is an image that does not make me wish I also had a compact camera, and the iPhone 5 meets that goal (really the 4s did as well, but the 5 has a nice boost beyond even that).
Re:You cannot compare specs directly (Score:2, Informative)
Android applications don't need to be written to be multi-threaded
Nor do IOS apps. But it improves UI responsiveness, battery life and performance if you take advantage of multiple cores (note this is not necessarily multi-threading).
Multitasking seems to be far more common in the Android world...
Not sure that is true. Just listening to music alone almost all iOS users do frequently, for example.
I'm listening to music, have VX Connectbot idling in the background, and browsing the web (obviously), in addition to whatever background processes are running.
On an iOS device you can do all that too. Note that since your SSH client is idling that CPU could have gone to your foreground task but instead the CPU is sitting idle.
You continue to claim you understand? (Score:5, Informative)
Reference counting (ARC) is EXACTLY a form of garbage collection, not particularly better or worse than any other.
It's not the same as garbage collection, it's exactly what the name says - AUTOMATED reference counting. The moment your code no longer needs an object code is inserted to release it for you. It has no cost over the code you would have written manually.
It is superior to traditional GC because there is no processor time taken in deciding what to collect, no examination of the object tree to find what is still in scope. That means no overhead, and no "pauses" in application flow as a GC fires up to collect things.
You DO realise that ARC imposes a runtime cost which some other garbage collectors do not?
Compile time feature, moron. Even the weak reference zeroing is just code inserted around properties.
You DO realise that ARC is sensitive to some forms of data structure that it cannot collect? (circular references)
It's not "sensitive" to anything, that is simply an artifact of reference counting. By the way, in almost a year of developing multiple applications using ARC you know how many circular references I have seen in real life? Zero. Over-retention is still possible, but cycles are quite rare.
And no, iOS cannot just run multiple apps at the same time to use multiple cores, as iOS only supports specifically
written background tasks
Which then run in the background doing whatever they were designed to do in the background. For instance what do you think Pandora does, genius? What happens when I have Pandora running AND have backgrounded a navigation application? Why in fact they ARE both running.
Of course the system tasks all do run in the background so you really come off as quite ignorant claiming iOS cannot do this arbitrarily when it's a limitation specifically imposed on a subset of applications on the system. A jailbroken iPhone can run any user application in the background simply by a tweak to Launchpad, not the OS or app.
it cannot just continue normal execution of a non-foreground task.
Actually it can for about ten seconds for any app even without jailbreaking. You just have to let the OS know.
You also, I bet, dont know what a process scheduler is,
I've written several thanks. That was a while ago as I moved on from such trivial things.
I do also know what an apostrophe is. Zing!
that addresses your idiocy about primary apps being slower.
Might want to watch the word idiocy when you are so prone to misunderstanding what is being said - I am talking about an foreground application that is not taking full advantage of the system resources. Pretty obviously an application that runs on one core when it could make use of two would be slower than it could be. Duh.
I kind of feel sorry for the corporate IR development teams you worked with
Imagine the concern I feel for whatever company must put up with your constant misunderstandings of technology! I sure hope you are not in charge of any iOS work for sometime to come.
Really, your UID is low enough that you should know better..
My UID is low enough you should have known to do more research rather than spout off on technologies you have not used.
I will allow you the last response, you may either choose the path of wisdom and grovel for forgiveness at your iOS 101 level of understanding, or you may continue down the path of proving beyond all doubt you enjoy staying ignorant. Your choice, but I'll respond no more as I have already spent too much time on your education.
If I were you though I would go watch all of the Stanford introductory iOS course and read some of the iOS documentation to understand how the system works. Oh and find a good white paper on what ARC does, because Damn.
Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (Score:3, Informative)
And the thinner/lighter formula has been just that.
Except 'the new ipad' where it was thicker and heavier.
Re:WGAF? (Score:4, Informative)