# [MacRumors] iPhone 5 Benchmarks Appear in Geekbench Showing a Dual Core, 1GHz A6 CPU



## Biscuits_N_Gravy

If true, that is a very good improvement. Pretty awesome.


----------



## andrews2547

lol the iPhone 5 did better than all the Android competitors, including some tablets. Even with less cores and a lower clock speed.


----------



## Sapientia

Wow, that seems too good to be true. And by that I mean, are we even sure this is legit?
I guess it is their own custom core, but that good?

Edit: It beats out the 1.3GHz quad-core Tegra 3 as well as the 1.4GHz quad-core Exynos 4412..... really?


----------



## Dronac

Impressive. Possibly a result of deeper integration of hardware and software?


----------



## born2bwild

Very Impressive.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Not bad per-core performance, but only 20-40 points better than the S3/Nexus 7? I expected a bigger leap


----------



## geoxile

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1032548
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1033038

Someone posted these on the Gamefaqs PC board. Either way the iPhone 5 apparently has incredibly memory performance compared to Android phones.


----------



## Chucklez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sapientia*
> 
> Wow, that seems too good to be true. And by that I mean, are we even sure this is legit?
> I guess it is their own custom core, but that good?
> Edit: It beats out the 1.3GHz quad-core Tegra 3 as well as the 1.4GHz quad-core Exynos 4412..... really?


I agree, VERY impressive if true but it seems to be somewhat hard to believe.


----------



## Munkypoo7

makes me even more antsy to get my iPhone 5 sooner. 5 more days


----------



## mavere

The memory performance is absolute astounding, as the RAM itself only got a minor speedbump. This pretty much cements the rumor that the A6 is a custom design.

Also, no one will heed this warning, but Geekbench is not a reliable cross-platform comparison tool. Is the A6 ~2.5x faster than the A5? Yes. Is it the same performance as an SIII? Dunno; could be 25% slower or 25% faster.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mavere*
> 
> The memory performance is absolute astounding, as the RAM itself only got a minor speedbump. This pretty much cements the rumor that the A6 is a custom design.
> 
> Also, no one will heed this warning, but Geekbench is not a reliable cross-platform comparison tool. Is the A6 ~2.5x faster than the A5? Yes. Is it the same performance as an SIII? Dunno; could be 25% slower or 25% faster.


This is true. The performance difference could have to do with Android as well.

I might also add... the Nexus 7 does beat out the A6 by about 300 points in the floating point score, and about 50 in the integer point score, but its massive memory / bandwidth pushes its score just over the Nexus 7.


----------



## j3st3r

I love how Apple is literally the only company who does not inflate their numbers. Android, however, is notorious for false marketing. Good on you Apple. Not only does your OS beat Android, now your hardware smashes it to bits. No point in getting an inferior phone for the same $200 price.


----------



## Rubers

Stock. ^ Real Galaxy S3 results

Impressive from the iPhone 5, however, this app seems buggy. The first time I run it the CPU monitor barely moved and I got a score of around 1550. Then I run it again and this time all four cores were being fully utilised to 100% at times and I got the above score.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> This is true. *The performance difference could have to do with Android as well.*
> I might also add... the Nexus 7 does beat out the A6 by about 300 points in the floating point score, and about 50 in the integer point score, but its massive memory / bandwidth pushes its score just over the Nexus 7.


Yes, look at the benchmarks geoxile posted. Both the same phone running at the same speeds but with different OSes. The one with Android 4.0.4 did better overall than the one with Android 4.1.1


----------



## =JLumbs=

If true very awesome.... I saw a leaked footage of boot time between 4s and 5 and 5 was only faster by a bit.... To me real world is more important.... What I wonder more bout is how much battery power usuage will b.... Only if apple let us be able to to change the battery damn them!!!!!!!


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> 
> 
> Stock. ^ Real Galaxy S3 results
> 
> Impressive from the iPhone 5, however, this app seems buggy. The first time I run it the CPU monitor barely moved and I got a score of around 1550. Then I run it again and this time all four cores were being fully utilised to 100% at times and I got the above score.


Yep that seems about right. For some reason the same device on 4.1.1 scores less though, that's weird.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> Yes, look at the benchmarks geoxile posted. Both the same phone running at the same speeds but with different OSes. The one with Android 4.0.4 did better overall than the one with Android 4.1.1


Yeah, I just looked now. I thought Android vs iOS might have an impact but I didn't think different versions of Android would.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *=JLumbs=*
> 
> If true very awesome.... I saw a leaked footage of boot time between 4s and 5 and 5 was only faster by a bit.... To me real world is more important.... What I wonder more bout is how much battery power usuage will b.... Only if apple let us be able to to change the battery damn them!!!!!!!


The boot time doesn't have that much to do with the processor. From the Keynote:



Improvements across the OS like that will be fantastic.

>>>>>

I'm very happy with this. Coupled with two times graphics performance, it's going to be a little power house. I want some SunSpider benchmarks


----------



## iEATu

I wonder how long it will take people to realize that the clock speed on an Android phone doesnt relate at all to what it is on the iPhone. It's a completely different OS and the CPUs are of different architecture.
Just another marketing trick by Android phone makers. Show fancy numbers to people that know nothing about how these things work.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Stock. ^ Real Galaxy S3 results
> Impressive from the iPhone 5, however, this app seems buggy. The first time I run it the CPU monitor barely moved and I got a score of around 1550. Then I run it again and this time all four cores were being fully utilised to 100% at times and I got the above score.


Just beat me








HTC One X real results... Android 4.1.1 (OK not fair 'cause its not stock lol)



But wow, nice job with the iPhone 5 - massive improvement.


----------



## SohcSTI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iEATu*
> 
> I wonder how long it will take people to realize that the clock speed on an Android phone doesnt relate at all to what it is on the iPhone. It's a completely different OS and the CPUs are of different architecture.
> Just another marketing trick by apple. Show fancy numbers to people that know nothing about how these things work.


Fixed


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SohcSTI*
> 
> Fixed


Because it's only Apple that does that


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iEATu*
> 
> I wonder how long it will take people to realize that the clock speed on an Android phone doesnt relate at all to what it is on the iPhone. It's a completely different OS and the CPUs are of different architecture.
> Just another marketing trick by *all* phone makers. Show fancy numbers to people that know nothing about how these things work.


Erm... the CPUs are all ARM...Same architecture. Although the OS difference is certainly a valid point.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SohcSTI*
> 
> Fixed


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> Because it's only Apple that does that


OK now we can all get along, yay!


----------



## Schoat333

That's about what I expected. My gnex gets 1220 at 1.35ghz over clock on a year old omap.


----------



## jjsoviet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Yep that seems about right. For some reason the same device on 4.1.1 scores less though, that's weird.
> Yeah, I just looked now. I thought Android vs iOS might have an impact but I didn't think different versions of Android would.


Probably Geekbench isn't updated to take advantage of Jellybean yet.

With my trusty old Galaxy S II, I'm still getting good scores.


----------



## King Lycan

Rather wait for more benchmark results after the phone is released


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> lol the iPhone 5 did better than all the Android competitors, including some tablets. Even with less cores and a lower clock speed.


Something isn't right. How does a T30, clocked higher, produce 500 points less then a the same chip with a lower clock speed? I'm surprised it took Apple over 2 years to compete with Android devices in CPU performance, though.

Furthermore, 1598 compared to 1601, is less then 1 percent off, which is well within the accepted 2% error. You can't say they are any different in performance.


----------



## ttwerdun

I want to know whos making bank off posting this cell phone benchmark app. First thing I did was run to my sII and download and pay for it and run it... lol

1108 on ICS

I also noticed I am running ARM ARMv7 @ 1.2Ghz? doesnt seem the same as the chart chips.


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ttwerdun*
> 
> I want to know whos making bank off posting this cell phone benchmark app. First thing I did was run to my sII and download and pay for it and run it... lol
> 
> 1108 on ICS
> 
> I also noticed I am running ARM ARMv7 @ 1.2Ghz? doesnt seem the same as the chart chips.


Yup, seems like we have some fake results.


----------



## geoxile

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> Something isn't right. How does a T30, clocked higher, produce 500 points less then a the same chip with a lower clock speed? I'm surprised it took Apple over 2 years to compete with Android devices in CPU performance, though.
> 
> Furthermore, 1598 compared to 1601, is less then 1 percent off, which is well within the accepted 2% error. You can't say they are any different in performance.


For the variance in Tegra 3 performance, it probably has something to do with the memory. IIRC bandwidth was a huge issue for early Tegra 3 devices.


----------



## RX7-2nr

Difference in performance between it and the GSIII is well within margin of error. No surprise here, I dont think anyone expected the iphone to be slow.... Its just not really any faster than its top competition.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> I'm very happy with this. Coupled with two times graphics performance, it's going to be a little power house. I want some SunSpider benchmarks


Do you think that it'll beat the ~972ms score by the Galaxy Note2?


----------



## hajile

Some numbers are off somewhere. A 1.5GHz S4 scores 1250 while a 1.0GHz A6 scores 1600. This score implies that the A6 is 2x the speed of Krait while having a much bigger GPU while still having better power consumption while on a larger fabrication process.

This picture describes something that doesn't fit.

Edit: if the benchmark isn't close to metal and is greatly affected by the OS, then it's not a hardware benchmark.


----------



## mavere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> Yup, seems like we have some fake results. Good job posting more crap Steelbom.


_Unverified_. No point in making "fake" or "real" claims when the real thing comes out in several days and more results slowly begin to filter through the woods.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hajile*
> 
> Some numbers are off somewhere. A 1.5GHz S4 scores 1250 while a 1.0GHz A6 scores 1600. This score implies that the A6 is 2x the speed of Krait while having a much bigger GPU while still having better power consumption while on a larger fabrication process.
> This picture describes something that doesn't fit.
> Edit: if the benchmark isn't close to metal and is greatly affected by the OS, then it's not a hardware benchmark.


+1


----------



## mavere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hajile*
> 
> Some numbers are off somewhere. A 1.5GHz S4 scores 1250 while a 1.0GHz A6 scores 1600. This score implies that the A6 is 2x the speed of Krait while having a much bigger GPU while still having better power consumption while on a larger fabrication process.
> This picture describes something that doesn't fit.


Different platforms and different architectural designs.

Also, the OS contributes massively to managing power consumption.

Edit: Apple claims the A6 is 2x as fast as the A5. Taking that at face value and assuming clockspeeds not much higher than 1GHz (due to frequency + voltage vs power demand), the A6's IPC would already be impressive compared to S4 Krait's.


----------



## hajile

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mavere*
> 
> Different platforms and different architectural designs.
> Also, the OS contributes massively to managing power consumption.
> Edit: Apple claims the A6 is 2x as fast as the A5. Taking that at face value and assuming clockspeeds not much higher than 1GHz (due to frequency + voltage vs power demand), the A6's IPC would already be impressive compared to S4 Krait's.


OS differences can make a difference during idle, but crank up the processor usage and those differences disappear leaving the fact that Apple is claiming better battery life (I've never seen them lie about this metric for either idle or load use cases). 2x the IPC of Krait means an IPC that's about the same or a little better than Intel's Core2 architecture. You would likely consider the idea of a 1GHz Core2 competing with an A9 or Krait-based ARM chip to be ridiculous as the extra performance that Core2 offers isn't free. Why would this be okay and normal for an ARM chip?

The only ARM chip that looks to have the potential to reach that level of power is Nvidia's Project Denver (and that's only because it's aimed at higher-power use cases).


----------



## AznDud333

only 10points above low end teg3? like i always said..theyre always too busy suing others over rectangles instead of innovating on hardware


----------



## jrharvey

I am a hardcore android fan and I say good for them. It really is about time they push the limits a bit. The phone really isnt that spectacular as far as having new technology or really anything new at all but maybe this will push android phone makers to make their phones even faster. Nothing wrong with a little healthy competition. I would love to see what some of the Linaro android phones are getting compared to this though. That is, if anyone knows what Linaro is.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AznDud333*
> 
> only 10points above low end teg3? like i always said..theyre always too busy suing others over rectangles instead of innovating on hardware


Now now!


----------



## Dronac

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hajile*
> 
> OS differences can make a difference during idle, but crank up the processor usage and those differences disappear leaving the fact that Apple is claiming better battery life (I've never seen them lie about this metric for either idle or load use cases). *2x the IPC of Krait means an IPC that's about the same or a little better than Intel's Core2 architecture. ]You would likely consider the idea of a 1GHz Core2 competing with an A9 or Krait-based ARM chip to be ridiculous as the extra performance that Core2 offers isn't free.* Why would this be okay and normal for an ARM chip?
> The only ARM chip that looks to have the potential to reach that level of power is Nvidia's Project Denver (and that's only because it's aimed at higher-power use cases).


Im not sure how closely the app's are related, but my 2007 base model Macbook (2.x GHZ Core2Duo, 1gb memory) scored slightly less with Geekbench then the iPhone 5 (And the S3). For comparison, my MBP Retina is around 12k.


----------



## W4nderer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Not bad per-core performance, but only 20-40 points better than the S3/Nexus 7? I expected a bigger leap


This. Actually, I'm surprised the iPhone 5 isn't better than it is. When the 4S came out, it was substantially faster than the competition, totally independent of the number of cores. With the iPhone 5, while it is faster, not by the same margin -- meaning it will quickly be outpaced by new Android phones. And Apple no longer has the high-PPI screen trump card, some Android phones actually best it in that regard even now. Coupled with the fact that it lacks NFC, and will not support LTE in many European markets, one should take a step back before buying one to really consider _why_ it is they are buying it...

Just wait until we see quad core A15 based Android phones rolling out.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *W4nderer*
> 
> This. Actually, I'm surprised the iPhone 5 isn't better than it is. When the 4S came out, it was substantially faster than the competition, totally independent of the number of cores. With the iPhone 5, while it is faster, not by the same margin -- meaning it will quickly be outpaced by new Android phones. And Apple no longer has the high-PPI screen trump card, some Android phones actually best it in that regard even now. Coupled with the fact that it lacks NFC, and will not support LTE in many European markets, one should take a step back before buying one to really consider _why_ it is they are buying it...
> Just wait until we see quad core A15 based Android phones rolling out.


The hardware is a step behind the flagship samsung and nokia phones, the OS just does well in terms of memory usage. I guess thats what a boring OS does for you. I was bored with my iphone 4 the day after I bought it 2 years ago.


----------



## snelan

I don't want to be that guy that likes Apple on OCN...

I kid, I kid









I used to love my Android phones. Overclocking, Cyanogen, etc. Kind grew out of it since, but this is pretty good for Apple. Maybe they will actually give us Android modders some competition, or introduce more competition on the hardware level of Android vs iPhone, rather than just, it's an iPhone, must be the best









However, speaking from a great understanding, it could just be that iOS is so optimized for it, whist even Cyanogen is still a port from the Nexus, as are all Android ROMs (Operating Systems). Google releases them to the Nexus, then people play with them to get them to work on other phones.

Could this be the day when Apple finally enters into the phone market and gains the Android users' appreciation? I guess we'll see!

(Also, as a note: Yes, it was hard for me to write this, and yes I do understand that iOS is still severely inferior to Android in every way, well, in modding at least







)

EDIT: Ok, never mind, I guess I've been out of this for too long if it truly is only a few points above low end Tegras/etc.


----------



## HanSomPa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> The hardware is a step behind the flagship samsung and nokia phones, the OS just does well in terms of memory usage. I guess thats what a boring OS does for you. I was bored with my iphone 4 the day after I bought it 2 years ago.


Keep it to yourself then.

Impressive scores but, considering the amount of time Apple takes to develop every new iteration of their phone; it better be top of the cream when it comes out. What's the point of having a slow development cycle otherwise.


----------



## bgtrance

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ColdRush*
> 
> At OCN that's definitely true.


+1x10^15


----------



## Segovax

Sorry don't believe it.


----------



## RobotDevil666

So it's actually slower than Galaxy SIII ?








My Galaxy SII on ICS 4.0.4 gets over 1100 , i really expected better , much better , i thought it's going to smoke SGS3 ... well maybe not "smoke" but at least beat it handily.
Wonder how much my iPad 3 would get in this bench ......


----------



## Imglidinhere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Not bad per-core performance, but only 20-40 points better than the S3/Nexus 7? I expected a bigger leap


Well... when it's comparing a 1GHz dual core vs a 1.3GHz quad core... I think that's win.


----------



## lacrossewacker

Did nobody notice the two people that posted their own benchmarks with a sg3 and htc oneX, both scoring in the 1,800 range


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Does this even matter? Seriously if you get a iPhone benchmarks are not ur priority. The only reason people use them in Android because you can MOD the ROMs, Overclock etc etc. I had a iPhone 4 which score ~ 3XX in that benchmark it as smooth as my GNex which score 3x that. All people that want a iPhone want it to be better then the older model not some army of Android phones which you cant really keep up.


----------



## Remonster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Does this even matter? Seriously if you get a iPhone benchmarks are not ur priority. The only reason people use them in Android because you can MOD the ROMs, Overclock etc etc. I had a iPhone 4 which score ~ 3XX in that benchmark it as smooth as my GNex which score 3x that. All people that want a iPhone want it to be better then the older model not some army of Android phones which you cant really keep up.


I can't figure out why Android always feels laggier and slower in general than iOS, it's probably related to the fact that you can do more with Android (for example, when I had an HTC One X I had widgets on the home screen for the time, date and weather so obviously they were using up some resources) but my One X felt slightly less responsive than the iPhone 4 I used to have. The One X was definitely behind my 4S in this area with the Galaxy S III falling somewhere in between the 4S and One X.

I find it odd that the list of Android phones lists scores that are substantially lower than what users have been getting with their S IIIs, so these results are questionable. Once the iPhone 5's actually on the market, we'll have plenty more benchmarks that will tell us the real story but I watched Anandtech's hands on video and was blown away by the speed of the OS when it came to switching between apps, taking photos, etc. and these are the things I care about most when it comes to a phone's performance.


----------



## steelbom

*To everyone who's going on about this being fake: you clearly haven't read the thread.* As was said earlier, software is involved here too. The score is a perfect example of a performance improvement compared to previous iOS devices because they all use iOS. However against Android it's entirely different software so there's more to it, in fact even different versions of Android perform differently -- the quad-core 1.4GHz Galaxy S 3 scores 1800 on 4.0.3 but only 1600 on 4.1.1.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jjsoviet*
> 
> Probably Geekbench isn't updated to take advantage of Jellybean yet.
> 
> With my trusty old Galaxy S II, I'm still getting good scores.


Eh nice. What clock speed / OS version?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Do you think that it'll beat the ~972ms score by the Galaxy Note2?


It's a possibility. The iPad 2/3 scores as low as 1450 on iOS 6 with a dual-core 1GHz A9. With the A6 at 1GHz the iPhone 5 could very well beat that score.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Does this even matter? Seriously if you get a iPhone benchmarks are not ur priority. The only reason people use them in Android because you can MOD the ROMs, Overclock etc etc. I had a iPhone 4 which score ~ 3XX in that benchmark it as smooth as my GNex which score 3x that. All people that want a iPhone want it to be better then the older model not some army of Android phones which you cant really keep up.


It's not just about smoothness. It's about performance too -- how fast apps open, how quickly it takes to perform tasks, etc.


----------



## jjsoviet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Eh nice. What clock speed / OS version?


It's 1.6 GHz Exynos 4210 running on Jelly Bean (CM10 nightlies). Pretty decent considering this is a midrange phone by today's standards.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jjsoviet*
> 
> It's 1.6 GHz Exynos 4210 running on Jelly Bean (CM10 nightlies). Pretty decent considering this is a midrange phone by today's standards.


Ah nice... if the Galaxy S 3 scores are any indication you may have an even higher score when GB2 is updated.

*EDIT*: Here's Anandtech's analysis of the results. He states clearly that though Geek Bench is cross platform, it shouldn't really be used to compare scores against anything but iOS devices. As has been said earlier in this thread (more or less).


----------



## Kand

This is like comparing a 2011 dual core processor with a 2009 quad core. 

Read: Snapdragon S4.


----------



## F1ynn

Wow that iphone score looks very promising. I'm way excited to get one for Christmas (switching to new carrier any ideas?)


----------



## L D4WG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kand*
> 
> This is like comparing a 2011 dual core processor with a 2009 quad core.
> Read: Snapdragon S4.


No this is like comparing two 2012 released competing smart phones...

-Galaxy S III was released this year with a Quad Core CPU
-iPhone 5 releases in 4 days (Same Year) with a Dual Core CPU

iPhone 5 beats the Galaxy S III in these Geekbench scores..... are you mad bro?


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Lot of Android fans are eating their words now.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HanSomPa*
> 
> Keep it to yourself then.
> Impressive scores but, considering the amount of time Apple takes to develop every new iteration of their phone; it better be top of the cream when it comes out. What's the point of having a slow development cycle otherwise.


Pretty sure this 'benchmark' is the only thing the iphone can claim to be ahead in. Yeah, you can keep your fanboying to yourself.


----------



## krytikul

Looks incredibly promising.

Cant wait for my 64gb black to arrive


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lacrossewacker*
> 
> Did nobody notice the two people that posted their own benchmarks with a sg3 and htc oneX, both scoring in the 1,800 range


this.

read: suspect benchmarking

Hey guuyyzzz my phenom is 1000x better than an i7. Yeah, same thing.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lacrossewacker*
> 
> Did nobody notice the two people that posted their own benchmarks with a sg3 and htc oneX, both scoring in the 1,800 range


----------



## banded1

good on iPhone if those scores are legit.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

iPhone fan: LOL the Android fanboys are gonna start talking crap about how benchmarks mean nothing. They just mad.
*Android fans post a few benchmarks from their stock S3s.*
iPhone fan: LOL like who cares? It's a benchmark. Show me real world performance difference. Android is train.

OCN at its finest.









I never trust anything until I get my hands on multiple phones. I'm in line to receive 3 5s to resell. Will try out one of them next to my overclocked Galaxy Nexus and my friend's S3 to see if all the big hype lives up to itself.


----------



## S_V(TM)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lacrossewacker*
> 
> Did nobody notice the two people that posted their own benchmarks with a sg3 and htc oneX, both scoring in the 1,800 range


+1 This.....

Real people posted real benchmarks in SECOND page... READ people READ.....


----------



## DrDarkTempler

Result, Compare to latest of other phone, 50 point different will show no different in real life world usage

In the end, you buy their phone, they get your money


----------



## Piegoodman

Now before the Apple fanboys wet their pants, everyone should know that this benchmark is not multicore optimized. Also, the Galaxy S3 with jellybean scores 1721. So take this with a grain of salt.


----------



## wsnnwa

More like GSIII and HTC X beat it even though they are older phones. The HTC X 2 and LG Optimus will smash it with their Quad-core snapdragon s4 pro.


----------



## Gallien

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> 
> Stock. ^ Real Galaxy S3 results
> Impressive from the iPhone 5, however, this app seems buggy. The first time I run it the CPU monitor barely moved and I got a score of around 1550. Then I run it again and this time all four cores were being fully utilised to 100% at times and I got the above score.


Stock S3 and HTC One X scoring >1800

iSheep.. your move...


----------



## trendy

Anyone else read the comments thread for the linked story? All the comments I'm reading pretty much confirm that no one understands how processors work. Now we have the "ghz myth" and the "core myth" running around as a pair.


----------



## Scorpion667

Very impressive if true. I hate Apple's business practices, but I respect performance, if this proves to be true I would take my hat off to them for beating the strongest, highest clocked Quad cores in the smartphone business, with a dual core @ 1Ghz. I have a gut feeling that Intel contributed to this ace up Apple's sleeve. Lots of interesting political things have happened in the tech industry in the last few years so it wouldn't surprise me. I know it makes zero sense but that kind of performance increase over prev. gen is well, very rare unless we're talking increased core count.


----------



## Playapplepie

I'm impressed. And now I've been swayed even more towards getting an iPhone 5.


----------



## Usario

Seems like Apple's Intrinsity acquisition is really paying off. Impressive results.

Though to be fair a Galaxy S3 can easily be overclocked to like 1800MHz at stock voltage...


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> Seems like Apple's Intrinsity acquisition is really paying off. Impressive results.
> 
> Though to be fair a Galaxy S3 can easily be overclocked to like 1800MHz at stock voltage...


And the benchmark score gains are phenomenal.

The S3 also falls short against this guy







http://en.meizu.com/products/mx-product.html

http://meizumxon.com/


----------



## Piegoodman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> Seems like Apple's Intrinsity acquisition is really paying off. Impressive results.
> Though to be fair a Galaxy S3 can easily be overclocked to like 1800MHz at stock voltage...


Did you not read this thread at all? People just posted multiple stock Galaxy S3 scores of 1750-1800. It's not impressive at all considering the S3 is 3 months older and presumably using an older architecture.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Piegoodman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> Seems like Apple's Intrinsity acquisition is really paying off. Impressive results.
> Though to be fair a Galaxy S3 can easily be overclocked to like 1800MHz at stock voltage...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not read this thread at all? People just posted multiple stock Galaxy S3 scores of 1750-1800. It's not impressive at all considering the S3 is 3 months older and presumably using an older architecture.
Click to expand...

S3 was a baby step







Incredible performance, but the design isn't too appealing to me. I don't like physical buttons on the face now that I own a Galaxy Nexus and I feel the S3 would look so slick without one. I predict the S4 will be a game-changer in physical styling and material. I do like the iP 5's new back.


----------



## Benladesh

Came here to say that the S3 scores 1800s stock.


----------



## Biscuits_N_Gravy

Honestly, I really only care how the phones actually perform.

If it's smooth and feels fast, good enough for me.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meetajhu*
> 
> Best phone ever. android is joke just like Linux. The average time Android user does is comparing his phone to others. the average time iPhone user does is enjoying his device. Android is complete disaster and train wreck from start.


you are correct, and bf3 is a RTS


----------



## Madvillan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> iPhone fan: LOL the Android fanboys are gonna start talking crap about how benchmarks mean nothing. They just mad.
> *Android fans post a few benchmarks from their stock S3s.*
> iPhone fan: LOL like who cares? It's a benchmark. Show me real world performance difference. Android is train.
> OCN at its finest.


Replace Apple and Android with AMD and Intel or AMD and Nvidia, and you sum up a good amount of this place.

Keep it classy, OCN.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Biscuits_N_Gravy*
> 
> If it's smooth and feels fast, good enough for me.


THIS.

I use my phone for making calls and texting, and occasionally web browsing. Anything else it's able to do is just icing on the cake.


----------



## Capt

SGS4 will be out before any of you can pre-order the iPhone 5.


----------



## ChronoBodi

Im pretty sure any phone with the Qualcomm MSM8690 (dual core custom Krait cores roughly equal to the A15 Cortex cores) are equal to the Iphone 5 CPU wise

GPU-wise, not really... the Andreno 225 performs nicely, but somehow the Iphones get the best GPUs, and with the Iphone 5 running a lower res (1136 x 640 vs 1280x720), the 3D games will run pretty damn well, even slightly better than the consoles now.


----------



## ChronoBodi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scorpion667*
> 
> Very impressive if true. I hate Apple's business practices, but I respect performance, if this proves to be true I would take my hat off to them for beating the strongest, highest clocked Quad cores in the smartphone business, with a dual core @ 1Ghz. I have a gut feeling that Intel contributed to this ace up Apple's sleeve. Lots of interesting political things have happened in the tech industry in the last few years so it wouldn't surprise me. I know it makes zero sense but that kind of performance increase over prev. gen is well, very rare unless we're talking increased core count.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *L D4WG*
> 
> No this is like comparing two 2012 released competing smart phones...
> -Galaxy S III was released this year with a Quad Core CPU
> -iPhone 5 releases in 4 days (Same Year) with a Dual Core CPU
> iPhone 5 beats the Galaxy S III in these Geekbench scores..... are you mad bro?


It's not entirely accurate....

The international GS3 had a quad core A9 chipset, in which each core is 40% slower than the A15/Krait cores in either the Iphone 5 or US GSIII.

Basically, it's a given that two really fast dual cores beat slow quads, of course. But, now there are phones with the SnapDragon Pro chip, which now has quad A15 cores, which already beats the Iphone 5 at this point. LG and HTC came out with phones containing that chipset.


----------



## Tman5293

I just ran the benchmark on both of my Android devices. I was able to beat the iPhone 5 score on my tablet:

ASUS Transformer Prime - Nvidia Tegra 3 Quad Core @ 1.4GHz - Score: 1645 - Proof: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1035553

Samsung Galaxy SIII - Qualcomm S4 Snapdragon (Krait) Dual Core @ 1.5GHz - Score: 1463 - Proof: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1035585


----------



## Acefire

Glad I never bought into the super Iphone Gimmick.


----------



## Novakanedj

It's not really a shock that the new iPhone on newer architecture is beating or getting close to the top end Android phones/tablets. It's nothing to get butthurt over as long as your phone does what you want it to. I still wouldn't buy Apple though due to the way they run things and the walled garden setup of their OS. iTunes annoys me enough as it is lol. Tempted for a new iPod Touch though but I don't want to pay my hard earned money to a company that's doing its best to stiffle the industry and take away our freedom to choose.


----------



## CJRhoades

The fact that the 1GHz Dual Core in the iPhone is only ~200 points shy of a the 1.4GHz Quad Core in the S3 is a great accomplishment. Going from ~600 to ~1600 in a year with only a 200MHz clock boost is pretty awesome. Should be interesting to see what the 5s can do a year from now.

EDIT: Decided to pay the $0.99 and see what my Atrix 4G can do. It managed 935 stock and 1176 OC'd to 1.3GHz on CM10 (which is incredibly buggy). Not too shabby for one of the first dual core phones.


----------



## exzacklyright

You guys.... phone benchmarks don't mean anything. Ask any programmer or dev.

Mandated from Stannis Baratheon


----------



## exzacklyright

even aandtech agrees. It's just the usual marketing scheme Apple gives every release.

Although Geekbench is cross platform, I wouldn't recommend using this data to do anything other than compare iOS devices. I've looked at using Geekbench to compare iOS to Android in the past and I've sometimes seen odd results
-aandtech

Mandated from Stannis Baratheon


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> iPhone fan: LOL the Android fanboys are gonna start talking crap about how benchmarks mean nothing. They just mad.
> *Android fans post a few benchmarks from their stock S3s.*
> iPhone fan: LOL like who cares? It's a benchmark. Show me real world performance difference. Android is train.
> 
> OCN at its finest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never trust anything until I get my hands on multiple phones. I'm in line to receive 3 5s to resell. Will try out one of them next to my overclocked Galaxy Nexus and my friend's S3 to see if all the big hype lives up to itself.


I'm just curious but who has stated that benchmarks don't matter after those guys posted up their scores?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gallien*
> 
> Stock S3 and HTC One X scoring >1800
> 
> iSheep.. your move...


You seem to be missing the point: the 5 is more than twice as powerful as the 4S.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> Seems like Apple's Intrinsity acquisition is really paying off. Impressive results.
> 
> Though to be fair a Galaxy S3 can easily be overclocked to like 1800MHz at stock voltage...


And P.A Semi.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Capt*
> 
> SGS4 will be out before any of you can pre-order the iPhone 5.


The iPhone 5 was available for pre-order a day or two ago. They sold out in one hour.

>>>>>>>>

1. The main point to this thread is the significant gains over the iPhone 4S. It's more than twice as powerful.

2. No one should be comparing Android and iOS Geek Bench scores. As Anand said:
Quote:


> Although Geekbench is cross platform, I wouldn't recommend using this data to do anything other than compare iOS devices. I've looked at using Geekbench to compare iOS to Android in the past and I've sometimes seen odd results.


We shall see more benchmarks. Hopefully SunSpider, Peacekeeper, that new Google one, as well as GLBenchmark 2.5.


----------



## MrAlex

I can't believe the fanaticism coming out of this thread.

Samsung's Exynos 4 processor is nothing special because it is based on Cortex-A9 architecture.

What's so hard to believe that it can't be beat by a better architecture? I'm sure a quad-core Krait would compete nicely with the A6.


----------



## ChronoBodi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I can't believe the fanaticism coming out of this thread.
> 
> Samsung's Exynos 4 processor is nothing special because it is based on Cortex-A9 architecture.
> What's so hard to believe that it can't be beat by a better architecture? I'm sure a quad-core Krait would compete nicely with the A6.


pretty much this

It's the same thing as the AMD quad cores in the cheap laptops (a8 and a10) beaten by the Ivy Bridge dual cores.


----------



## thestache

That's great. Didn't think it would that much of an improvement.


----------



## Rubers

The reason this has such a high memory score is because its LPDDR2 rather than LPDDR in the GS3 and One X


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I can't believe the fanaticism coming out of this thread.
> 
> Samsung's Exynos 4 processor is nothing special because it is based on Cortex-A9 architecture.
> What's so hard to believe that it can't be beat by a better architecture? I'm sure a quad-core Krait would compete nicely with the A6.


Lol, where do you get that this A6 beats the Exynos and A9 quads? Several have posted benchmarks showing them scoring higher


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> The reason this has such a high memory score is because its LPDDR2 rather than LPDDR in the GS3 and One X


Actually that's not it. The 4S (which has LPDDR2-800 RAM) only has a memory score of about 300. According to Anandtech the massive improvement with the 5 is due to significant improvements for memory and caching in Apple's custom CPU architecture.
Quote:


> It's well known that ARM's Cortex A9 doesn't have the world's best interface outside of the compute core and its memory performance suffered as a result. If this data is accurate, it points to significantly overhauled cache and memory interfaces. Perhaps an additional load port, deeper buffers, etc...


Reference: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6298/analyzing-iphone5-geekbench-results


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> The reason this has such a high memory score is because its LPDDR2 rather than LPDDR in the GS3 and One X


My One X beat you in memory score






















/kid in a playground


----------



## Zcypot

so..... What does all this new speed mean? I got my wife the S3 for her birthday, I dont see anything that phone can dont that my G2 cant.

She got a major step up though LOL.


The phones are nice and all, but I just dont see why we need all this speed just yet.


----------



## Methos07

Phone-peen.


----------



## windowszp

This was posted at macrumors forum

Guys,

The banchmarks should be checked out precisely at the web site before making judements:

Iphone 5,2 Geekbench Score: 1601
(There is only 1 sample)
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1030202

Samsung Galaxy S III Geekbench Score: 2052
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1036389

There are hundreds of samples for SGS3, those are between 1800-2000, when all the 4 cores are on:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...g+galaxy+S+III

The SGS3 has a Power Saving mode as well when the performance is limited.

Let's wait for some independent and objective test results. I am really interested how is the new iOS 6 on iP5 is against the newest Android (4.1.1 JB) on SGS3 in terms of speed.
MobileHex is offline


----------



## Dronac

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zcypot*
> 
> so..... What does all this new speed mean? I got my wife the S3 for her birthday, I dont see anything that phone can dont that my G2 cant.
> She got a major step up though LOL.
> 
> The phones are nice and all, but I just dont see why we need all this speed just yet.


Not much IMHO. People on OCN just like seeing high hardware scores. My 4S has no noticeable lag or issues with speed and it's benchmarks are far below the S3 or iPhone 5. Either one is probably overkill for all but the most demanding apps. The benefit is that it's more future proofed and you won't be stuck with a laggy phone that has trouble keeping up with the new models in 2 years. By then it will be just average. I wouldn't regret getting the S3 right now one bit.


----------



## mtbiker033

real result from n7 @ 1400


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *windowszp*
> 
> This was posted at macrumors forum
> 
> Guys,
> 
> The banchmarks should be checked out precisely at the web site before making judements:
> 
> Iphone 5,2 Geekbench Score: 1601
> (There is only 1 sample)
> http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1030202
> 
> Samsung Galaxy S III Geekbench Score: 2052
> http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1036389
> 
> There are hundreds of samples for SGS3, those are between 1800-2000, when all the 4 cores are on:
> http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...g+galaxy+S+III
> 
> The SGS3 has a Power Saving mode as well when the performance is limited.
> 
> Let's wait for some independent and objective test results. I am really interested how is the new iOS 6 on iP5 is against the newest Android (4.1.1 JB) on SGS3 in terms of speed.
> MobileHex is offline


Chart from OP were cherry-picked results, plenty have pointed that out


----------



## rainbowhash

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> 
> Stock. ^ Real Galaxy S3 results
> Impressive from the iPhone 5, however, this app seems buggy. The first time I run it the CPU monitor barely moved and I got a score of around 1550. Then I run it again and this time all four cores were being fully utilised to 100% at times and I got the above score.


With this i'll run it on my One X and compare, surely it's not that bad.

Edit: $0.99 ... Well, this gets worse and worse for my already suspended debit card...


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Piegoodman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> Seems like Apple's Intrinsity acquisition is really paying off. Impressive results.
> Though to be fair a Galaxy S3 can easily be overclocked to like 1800MHz at stock voltage...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not read this thread at all? People just posted multiple stock Galaxy S3 scores of 1750-1800. It's not impressive at all considering the S3 is 3 months older and presumably using an older architecture.
Click to expand...

It is impressive because the S3 has a 40-50% clock advantage and, in the international version, twice the core count









also the S3 comes in two versions (quad A9 and dual A15), dunno how Geekbench's averages got screwed all the way down to 1600 if both versions actually do score ~1800. perhaps user error capping out CPU usage with battery-saving features?

plus, the iPhone 5 probably has considerably better graphics than any Android phone on the market now, besides maybe some of those Chinese superphones.

Of course, with the S3's overclocking capabilities, both versions can easily outclass this iPhone... and of course new quad-core S4s are making their way into some phones.

Gotta give credit where it's due.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

I'd like to see the Meizu MX head to head with the iP 5.


----------



## Tman5293

This is the highest score that I've been able to get out of the dual core Galaxy SIII:










Proof: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1040705


----------



## bengal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gallien*
> 
> Stock S3 and HTC One X scoring >1800
> iSheep.. your move...


Then again 5 has a dual core chip. A dual core performing close to or even beating a quad-core chip. Yea, you are a sheep, an android sheep. I am glad you acknowledged your true self. GG.


----------



## Tman5293

Actually I lied because I just scored a little higher:










http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1040903


----------



## Schwuar

how does this compare to the note 2? i know you cant test the note 2 yet but going off its hardware can anyone have a guess?


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Schwuar*
> 
> how does this compare to the note 2? i know you cant test the note 2 yet but going off its hardware can anyone have a guess?


Isn't the Note 2 roughly on par with the S3? Edit: I'm wrong, it gets over 13k in Antutu.


----------



## Samurai707

Where's the SIII dual core benchmark?


----------



## PR-Imagery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> *EDIT*: Here's Anandtech's analysis of the results. *He states clearly that though Geek Bench is cross platform, it shouldn't really be used to compare scores against anything but iOS devices. As has been said earlier in this thread (more or less).*


^This a million times over. It's like running Geekbench on your rig under Windows and Linux, you're definitely going to get much better scores in Linux due to lower overheard.


----------



## Shiveron

The chart linked earlier is not a recent one.

The one on the actual Geekbench site that updates every few hours has the quad core S 3 at 1688, and the Nexus 7 at 1613 - both beat the iPhone 5.

They've also, still not added the Galaxy S3 with the 1.5GHZ Snapdragon and 2GB of RAM.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/android-benchmarks


----------



## Sapientia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Samurai707*
> 
> Where's the SIII dual core benchmark?


Right here:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tman5293*
> 
> Actually I lied because I just scored a little higher:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1040903


----------



## ColdRush

The iPhone and S3 are both great phones, who cares which is "superior"? If it does what you want and runs everything smoothly, who cares. I don't see why people are making such a fuss over this...


----------



## SpYFoXZeRo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rainbowhash*
> 
> With this i'll run it on my One X and compare, surely it's not that bad.
> Edit: $0.99 ... Well, this gets worse and worse for my already suspended debit card...


Let me help you with that.

HTC One XL:


----------



## Rubers

^ That's nice!


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bengal*
> 
> Then again 5 has a dual core chip. A dual core performing close to or even beating a quad-core chip. Yea, you are a sheep, an android sheep. I am glad you acknowledged your true self. GG.


So what are you saying? That the Android should disable 2 cores? If they are potential sources of performance and getting used in the bench then I could careless if it one core to 100 cores...overall system performance is what matters.


----------



## PR-Imagery

My friend's TMO SIII.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!








http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1041769

It does swing wildly... best score was 1368, lowest 950.


----------



## Rubers

Getting better. Then every score after that was only using 2 cores and got 1300-1500.

Also, this software is on Android on the market, so it should work properly.


----------



## Nocturin

NOW I've seen it all!

Benching phone wars!

Anyone wanna try some DICE?


----------



## GrizzleBoy

I don't like how inconsistent the benching info for the other phones is, as evidenced by rubers.

I'd pay 70p and do my own benching, but..........70p...........for inaccurate scores 

*buys overpriced lucozade in central London shop for £2*


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrizzleBoy*
> 
> I don't like how inconsistent the benching info for the other phones is, as evidenced by rubers.
> I'd pay 70p and do my own benching, but..........70p...........for inaccurate scores
> *buys overpriced lucozade in central London shop for £2*


lulz energy drinks. I had to google that!


----------



## GrizzleBoy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> lulz energy drinks. I had to google that!




It's the good [stuff] brah.


----------



## PR-Imagery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *GrizzleBoy*
> 
> I don't like how inconsistent the benching info for the other phones is, as evidenced by rubers.
> I'd pay 70p and do my own benching, but..........70p...........for inaccurate scores
> *buys overpriced lucozade in central London shop for £2*
> 
> 
> 
> lulz energy drinks. I had to google that!
Click to expand...

That stuff is awesome


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PR-Imagery*
> 
> That stuff is awesome


Mountain Dew is as energy laden as I can get. Energy Drinks normally make either jittery or tired.

More for you guys now!

I saw we drink energy and bench hardily!

On with the benchies!


----------



## Usario

My HTC Rezound only scores around 900 ;_;


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> My HTC Rezound only scores around 900 ;_;


I feel like flashing my TP2 to an android ROM just to see what it would do


----------



## blackbalt89

My dual core S3 gets 1498. Wish I had the quad core variant.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrizzleBoy*
> 
> I don't like how inconsistent the benching info for the other phones is, as evidenced by rubers.
> I'd pay 70p and do my own benching, but..........70p...........for inaccurate scores
> *buys overpriced lucozade in central London shop for £2*


I think I got it free, tbh. I paid for it, ran the tests and then hit refund. I got an e-mail saying it was refunded, and the market said it was removed from my phone... but it's still there


----------



## PsYcHo29388

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> lol the iPhone 5 did better than all the Android competitors, including some tablets. Even with less cores and a lower clock speed.


I'm gonna go ahead and call BS.

Theres almost no way a 5 core cpu @ 1.3 ghz could lose to a dual core @ 1 ghz.

plus the atrix 4g is almost 2 years old, why is that even on the charts anyways?


----------



## jjsoviet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PsYcHo29388*
> 
> I'm gonna go ahead and call BS.
> Theres almost no way a 5 core cpu @ 1.3 ghz could lose to a dual core @ 1 ghz.
> plus the atrix 4g is almost 2 years old, why is that even on the charts anyways?


Better CPU architectures. The ARM A15 design is better than the last-gen A9, which powers Tegra 3 and Exynos.


----------



## Tom1121

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PsYcHo29388*
> 
> I'm gonna go ahead and call BS.
> Theres almost no way a 5 core cpu @ 1.3 ghz could lose to a dual core @ 1 ghz.
> plus the atrix 4g is almost 2 years old, why is that even on the charts anyways?


Hmm really? Some CPU architectures can have better instructions per clock than others. Take this bench below for example between Intels Core i3 540 at 3GHZ beating the 8 core Bulldozer in some tasks. I'm sure that Intels Ivy bridge core i3's can do a ton better as well against bulldozer.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/143?vs=434

It depends on the benchmark as well and if tests more single threaded or muti-threaded, as well as the specific CPU's.


----------



## Piegoodman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackbalt89*
> 
> My dual core S3 gets 1498. Wish I had the quad core variant.


Yeah, I know.

I wish I hadn't listened to the smartasses that said the Snapdragon S4 Krait was "just as good as the Exynos."

Whatever, lesson learned.

Might just sell my Galaxy S3 on Ebay and buy an iPhone 5.


----------



## Nope oO

Most apps are single-threaded or have a main-thread. More powerful cores > moar cores. Have you not learned anything from the AMD/Intel fistfights? Instructions per clock is very important.


----------



## perfectblade

i read somewhere that with jellybean the s3 processor scores higher. but the iphone 5 still has a better gpu i think.

personally, i think it would be awesome if apple released a larger version that would be better for gaming, since ios tends to get the most graphically intensive games. i'd definitely consider an iphone if they released a 5" version

edit: note that this is the exynos s3 i am referring to


----------



## steelbom

The closest you'll get perfectblade is a 7.85-inch iPad.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shiveron*
> 
> The chart linked earlier is not a recent one.
> 
> The one on the actual Geekbench site that updates every few hours has the quad core S 3 at 1688, and the Nexus 7 at 1613 - both beat the iPhone 5.
> 
> They've also, still not added the Galaxy S3 with the 1.5GHZ Snapdragon and 2GB of RAM.
> 
> http://browser.primatelabs.com/android-benchmarks


In fact, if you take only the processor scores into account, the S 3 and N7 do have higher scores but because of the 5's very high memory scores it edged out on top earlier. But remember it's not just hardware here, it's software too so it's not a good idea to compare them. Android against the same versions of Android is fine, and iOS against iOS is fine.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vagrant Storm*
> 
> So what are you saying? That the Android should disable 2 cores? If they are potential sources of performance and getting used in the bench then I could careless if it one core to 100 cores...overall system performance is what matters.


It's better to have a dual-core with higher IPC rather than a quad-core with lower IPC. The latter is useful with apps that support the quad-core, and for intense multitasking. Dual-core speeds up everything -- launching apps, opening attachments, etc.


----------



## Nope oO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's better to have a dual-core with higher IPC rather than a quad-core with lower IPC. The latter is useful with apps that support the quad-core, and for intense multitasking. Dual-core speeds up everything -- launching apps, opening attachments, etc.


Another thing I constantly notice on my Nexus 7 is the stuttering when it switches from the low power mode core to the regular cores when I'm watching a movie. There's always some background process checking mail, updating apps or what have you that makes the core swapping annoying. I'd prefer Apple's own ARM based dual-core design over Nvidia's ARM-A9 in this device.


----------



## Toque

Here is what real owners of S3 quad are reporting on XDA forums: Stock



If Apple is the fastest CPU in town then good for them. My S3 will be 5 months old in October. Most of those phones in the benchmark are 8 months or older.

Don't see why people make is such a big or surprising deal. Also it not likely the new A15, but a modified soc. That what makes it more interesting.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's better to have a dual-core with higher IPC rather than a quad-core with lower IPC. The latter is useful with apps that support the quad-core, and for intense multitasking. Dual-core speeds up everything -- launching apps, opening attachments, etc.


Pointed out so many times how this simply isn't true







Can you present this to people as an opinion and not a fact?


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nope oO*
> 
> Another thing I constantly notice on my Nexus 7 is the stuttering when it switches from the low power mode core to the regular cores when I'm watching a movie. There's always some background process checking mail, updating apps or what have you that makes the core swapping annoying. I'd prefer Apple's own ARM based dual-core design over Nvidia's ARM-A9 in this device.


Does it? Eh I'm all for faster dual cores







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's better to have a dual-core with higher IPC rather than a quad-core with lower IPC. The latter is useful with apps that support the quad-core, and for intense multitasking. Dual-core speeds up everything -- launching apps, opening attachments, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Pointed out so many times how this simply isn't true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you present this to people as an opinion and not a fact?
Click to expand...

The nature of my statement is an opinion. I'm saying it's better because it improves everything, whereas the quad-core is limited to improving apps which support it, and for intense multitasking.


----------



## stargate125645

This defies reality. It makes no sense if true, or Apple is hiding something (which I doubt since everything they do is the first time it's ever been done so it must be advertised).


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Does it? Eh I'm all for faster dual cores
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nature of my statement is an opinion. I'm saying it's better because it improves everything, whereas the quad-core is limited to improving apps which support it, and for intense multitasking.


Incorrect.

The nature of your statement isn't necessarily wrong, it just ignores a few important things such as POWER CONSUMPTION... If it weren't such a lost cause I could go on, but alas...


----------



## grizzlyblunting

The only thing I think we can take away from these results is just how BAD the 4S really is. My 4 is garbage.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stargate125645*
> 
> This defies reality. It makes no sense if true, or Apple is hiding something (which I doubt since everything they do is the first time it's ever been done so it must be advertised).


The score shouldn't be compared to Android devices, if that's what you're referring to as "makes no sense". It does look to be more than two fold better than the 4S though.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The nature of your statement isn't necessarily wrong, it just ignores a few important things such as POWER CONSUMPTION... If it weren't such a lost cause I could go on, but alas...


I don't agree that a quad-core will improve battery life. It's possible that it uses a similar level of power as the dual-core because it simply isn't used, but if you fully stress the quad-core it will use twice as much power as a dual-core with the same architecture and clock speed.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> The only thing I think we can take away from these results is just how BAD the 4S really is. My 4 is garbage.


No. The Android and iOS results shouldn't be compared. The 4S is quite powerful and runs iOS incredibly smoothly -- it does very well in SunSpider compared to other Android devices with higher clock speeds and more cores. It also does pretty well in Peacekeeper too. The 5 is substantially faster, due mostly to improved IPC.


----------



## stargate125645

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *stargate125645*
> 
> This defies reality. It makes no sense if true, or Apple is hiding something (which I doubt since everything they do is the first time it's ever been done so it must be advertised).
> 
> 
> 
> The score shouldn't be compared to Android devices, if that's what you're referring to as "makes no sense". It does look to be more than two fold better than the 4S though.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The nature of your statement isn't necessarily wrong, it just ignores a few important things such as POWER CONSUMPTION... If it weren't such a lost cause I could go on, but alas...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree that a quad-core will improve battery life. It's possible that it uses a similar level of power as the dual-core because it simply isn't used, but if you fully stress the quad-core it will use twice as much power as a dual-core with the same architecture and clock speed.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> The only thing I think we can take away from these results is just how BAD the 4S really is. My 4 is garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The Android and iOS results shouldn't be compared. The 4S is quite powerful and runs iOS incredibly smoothly -- it does very well in SunSpider compared to other Android devices with higher clock speeds and more cores. It also does pretty well in Peacekeeper too. The 5 is substantially faster, due mostly to improved IPC.
Click to expand...

It is the same core architecture. How can the IPC be improved? And if it is improved, why is the score not notably higher than that of he international Galaxy S3? I haven't read anything on the GPU.


----------



## Nope oO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stargate125645*
> 
> It is the same core architecture. How can the IPC be improved? And if it is improved, why is the score not notably higher than that of he international Galaxy S3? I haven't read anything on the GPU.


The iPhone 5 CPU isn't the same architecture as the Tegra 3 or any other ARM variant out there. It's a custom SoC built by Apple.


----------



## ChronoBodi

Guys, this is the same damn story back in June when you compare the US SGS III to the International version.

The US version beats out the international version by virtue of its dual Krait (a15-class) cores versus the International's older A9 cortex quad cores.

And since not a whole lot of apps really took any advantage of 4 cores in phones (same thing as faster i7 quads better than AMD Phenom ii hexacore due to six-core optimized apps being rarer) and the result is obvious.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> It is the same core architecture. How can the IPC be improved? And if it is improved, why is the score not notably higher than that of he international Galaxy S3? I haven't read anything on the GPU.


We don't know what it's based off, but it's been extensively modified. You can read more about it here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6292/iphone-5-a6-not-a15-custom-core and here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6298/analyzing-iphone5-geekbench-results.

As I've said earlier you can't compare the scores from Android to the scores from iOS. The software interferes with the score, so it's not a fair comparison.

Besides that, the international S3 is running at 1.4GHz and has two more cores. Even the dual-core A15 only offers an improvement of 40% over the A9. With Apple doing custom architectures now they can suit the processor perfectly to iOS. According to Anand it looks like Apple have significantly overhauled the memory and cache aspect of the processor which is why it has such high memory scores and apparently that is also aiding everything else.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PsYcHo29388*
> 
> I'm gonna go ahead and call BS.
> Theres almost no way a 5 core cpu @ 1.3 ghz could lose to a dual core @ 1 ghz.
> plus the atrix 4g is almost 2 years old, why is that even on the charts anyways?


I didn't make that graph, I only copied it from the source (it was in the comments)

Also a quad-core running at 3.3GHz beating an octo-core running at 3.6GHz is possible, it's not just the amount of cores and clock speed that matters.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288


----------



## PsYcHo29388

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> I didn't make that graph, I only copied it from the source (it was in the comments)
> Also a quad-core running at 3.3GHz beating an octo-core running at 3.6GHz is possible, it's not just the amount of cores and clock speed that matters.
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288


yeah, i forgot to add in that factor, and like the other guy said it depends on how "good" the architecture is and how well the OS utilizes it, IE bulldozer vs Sandy bridge which I was gonna mention but couldn't think of a good way to explain it.

But the score is still wrong, doing a google search myself shows that it does indeed do better than the Iphone 5.



















others with one of these have already posted theirs or got some screens from the xda forums and got better scores than these. so I don't doubt for a second now that the results on that chart are rigged.


----------



## stargate125645

Steelbom, I realize those would be cherry-picked benchmarks even if true, but it is not conceivable that that much improvement was made with the changes the article suggests. That would mean that it was horribly inefficient in the first place, so why would ARM not improve the architecture themselves?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nope oO*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *stargate125645*
> 
> It is the same core architecture. How can the IPC be improved? And if it is improved, why is the score not notably higher than that of he international Galaxy S3? I haven't read anything on the GPU.
> 
> 
> 
> The iPhone 5 CPU isn't the same architecture as the Tegra 3 or any other ARM variant out there. It's a custom SoC built by Apple.
Click to expand...

It is still based on an A9. I never said anything about Tegra.


----------



## CJRhoades

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stargate125645*
> 
> It is still based on an A9.


Nope.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PsYcHo29388*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> lol the iPhone 5 did better than all the Android competitors, including some tablets. Even with less cores and a lower clock speed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna go ahead and call BS.
> 
> Theres almost no way a 5 core cpu @ 1.3 ghz could lose to a dual core @ 1 ghz.
> 
> plus the atrix 4g is almost 2 years old, why is that even on the charts anyways?
Click to expand...

Number of cores and clock speed mean nothing when comparing different architectures.

My i7 950 is faster than a Q6600, even when at a lower clock speed. There are plenty of dual-core processors out there that are faster than quad-cores, even higher clocked quad-cores.


----------



## lvlrdka22

Methinks this article is a ploy to get more sales on the benchmark app.

1. Post (real or fake) benchmark showing Android devices being slower than iDevices.
2. Android fan(boys) rage.
3. Android fans hit the store and buy the app to attempt to disprove the benchmark.
4. ???
5. Profit!!!

Note: doesn't work on Apple fan(boys) because they just don't care unless they're winning the benchmark (no offense to them







).


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stargate125645*
> 
> Steelbom, I realize those would be cherry-picked benchmarks even if true, but it is not conceivable that that much improvement was made with the changes the article suggests. That would mean that it was horribly inefficient in the first place, so why would ARM not improve the architecture themselves?


We don't know with 100% certainty that this is legit, but it seems so. Anandtech said if it is a fake they knew exactly how to do it. I couldn't tell you why -- maybe the performance improvements come at a cost to something else? Something which might be irrelevant to iOS. Apple can fine tune their processors to iOS now.

Anandtech was saying they must've overhauled the memory and cache aspects of the processors, which would be helping the other scores.


----------



## GrizzleBoy

Who cares about the benchmarks tbh.

They've already been proven to be wildy inaccurate/unreliable.


----------



## stargate125645

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CJRhoades*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *stargate125645*
> 
> It is still based on an A9.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...

Yes...


----------



## Piegoodman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stargate125645*
> 
> Yes...


It's more closely related to the A15 than the A9.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Piegoodman*
> 
> It's more closely related to the A15 than the A9.


I think it's Pixie Dust.

.... anyone seen tinker bell?


----------



## bengal

Well the benchmarks in the OP are legit. Engadget released their review of the iPhone 5. They got a score of 1628 in GeekBench. They got 924ms in Sunspider, which is faster than both the GSIII and HTC one X.
Quote:


> Two times faster? Twice the graphics performance? Better battery life? Actually, yes. The iPhone 5 over-delivers on all those promises. Running the Geekbench test suite on the iPhone 4S gave us an average score of 634. The iPhone 5 netted an average of 1,628. That's more than twice as fast and, while you won't necessarily see such huge increases in day-to-day usage, apps do load noticeably quicker, HDR images are processed in half the time and tasks like video rendering in iMovie are equally expedient.
> 
> SunSpider scores average at 924ms, which is more than twice as fast as the 2,200ms the iPhone 4S manages and still quite a bit quicker than the 1,400ms scored by the Galaxy S III and the 1,700ms managed by the HTC One X. More important than numbers, web pages load very quickly, snapping into view as fast as your data plan can shovel the bits into Safari and, once there, smoothly reacting to your gestures.


Source


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lvlrdka22*
> 
> Methinks this article is a ploy to get more sales on the benchmark app.
> 1. Post (real or fake) benchmark showing Android devices being slower than iDevices.
> 2. Android fan(boys) rage.
> 3. Android fans hit the store and buy the app to attempt to disprove the benchmark.
> 4. ???
> 5. Profit!!!
> Note: doesn't work on Apple fan(boys) because they just don't care unless they're winning the benchmark (no offense to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).


Lol i think so too. Make Android users go mad and buy the App.


----------



## bengal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Lol i think so too. Make Android users go mad and buy the App.


I say their plan is working perfectly too. Just look at all the mad android fanboys in this thread.


----------



## Erio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon*
> 
> Number of cores and clock speed mean nothing when comparing different architectures.
> My i7 950 is faster than a Q6600, even when at a lower clock speed. There are plenty of dual-core processors out there that are faster than quad-cores, even higher clocked quad-cores.


People already post many result in this thread that show that Samsung S3 have a score way higher than the one on the chart, and higher then the iphone 5 one according to the chart.
So he is correct.


----------



## j3st3r

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erio*
> 
> People already post many result in this thread that show that Samsung S3 have a score way higher than the one on the chart, and higher then the iphone 5 one according to the chart.
> So he is correct.


Too bad it still gets smoked by an 'inferior phone'

Android noobs have no bounds to the limits of their delusional fantasies.


----------



## Cryptedvick

Well, as far as my country goes, the cheapest 5 is $955 while the cheapest S3 is $755 (both 16GB). Thats a $200 dollar premium if I want a phone with a smaller screen, far less customization and other things (proprietary usb connector, cant connect with other non Apple phones through bluetooth AFAIK etc), just because its Apple. No thank you very much!


----------



## j3st3r

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cryptedvick*
> 
> Well, as far as my country goes, the cheapest 5 is $955 while the cheapest S3 is $755 (both 16GB). Thats a $200 dollar premium if I want a phone with a smaller screen, far less customization and other things (proprietary usb connector, cant connect with other non Apple phones through bluetooth AFAIK etc), just because its Apple. No thank you very much!


Too bad here in America the S3 cost $200 subsidized just like the iPhone 5 will be. And what did you get?

Laggy android platform that is slow to touch response compared to Windows or iOS
Fragmented, never expected updates
Comes with Touchwhiz so you can hate your standard OS even more
Appstore that is unregulated and full of malware and mostly Chinese apps
Inflated numbers and terrible battery life because of the giant screen


----------



## bengal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *j3st3r*
> 
> Too bad it still gets smoked by an 'inferior phone'
> Android noobs have no bounds to the limits of their delusional fantasies.


That's the thing about android fankids. They just can't accept a shameful loss.


----------



## Cryptedvick

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *j3st3r*
> 
> Too bad here in America the S3 cost $200 subsidized just like the iPhone 5 will be. And what did you get?
> Laggy android platform that is slow to touch response compared to Windows or iOS
> Fragmented, never expected updates
> Comes with Touchwhiz so you can hate your standard OS even more
> Appstore that is unregulated and full of malware and mostly Chinese apps
> Inflated numbers and terrible battery life because of the giant screen


Sorry, ware you expecting me to jump in Androids defense?
I don't engage in an argument with Apple fanboys.

And btw, those prices are full retail prices. The phones come completely network free, as is in the package.


----------



## Tman5293

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *j3st3r*
> 
> Too bad it still gets smoked by an 'inferior phone'
> Android noobs have no bounds to the limits of their delusional fantasies.


Please explain how the phone with the lower score (by over 200 points) is smoking the phone with the higher score. Your logic hurts my head.


----------



## hajile

Assuming that the Apple Geekbench score is accurate (and can't be compared to Android phone benchmarks). The results are still being inflated quite a bit by the memory bandwidth. Anand suggests that the A6 stuck with 1MB of cache because most iphone datasets didn't need more. If that is the case, then all the points gained by adding memory bandwidth don't really matter in real-world usage. That said, those are some healthy increases in theoretical performance.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bengal*
> 
> Well the benchmarks in the OP are legit. Engadget released their review of the iPhone 5. They got a score of 1628 in GeekBench. They got 924ms in Sunspider, which is faster than both the GSIII and HTC one X.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Two times faster? Twice the graphics performance? Better battery life? Actually, yes. The iPhone 5 over-delivers on all those promises. Running the Geekbench test suite on the iPhone 4S gave us an average score of 634. The iPhone 5 netted an average of 1,628. That's more than twice as fast and, while you won't necessarily see such huge increases in day-to-day usage, apps do load noticeably quicker, HDR images are processed in half the time and tasks like video rendering in iMovie are equally expedient.
> 
> SunSpider scores average at 924ms, which is more than twice as fast as the 2,200ms the iPhone 4S manages and still quite a bit quicker than the 1,400ms scored by the Galaxy S III and the 1,700ms managed by the HTC One X. More important than numbers, web pages load very quickly, snapping into view as fast as your data plan can shovel the bits into Safari and, once there, smoothly reacting to your gestures.
> 
> 
> 
> Source
Click to expand...

Ha, that's sweet. On iOS 6 the 4S would sit around 1800 on SunSpider so results of 900-1000 fit perfectly. Apparently frame rates are doubled too...


----------



## mavere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hajile*
> 
> Assuming that the Apple Geekbench score is accurate (and can't be compared to Android phone benchmarks). The results are still being inflated quite a bit by the memory bandwidth. Anand suggests that the A6 stuck with 1MB of cache because most iphone datasets didn't need more. *If that is the case, then all the points gained by adding memory bandwidth don't really matter in real-world usage*. That said, those are some healthy increases in theoretical performance.


(Emphasis mine)

Are you stating that based on your experience with mobile workloads?

ARM designs have historically been marred by a subpar memory controller. Improving that as much Apple did could potentially create a 1-to-1 percentage performance improvement in real world situations, as it would remove an old bottleneck.


----------



## Liranan

I don't care for these random benchmarks. I am really happy with my S II and have no interest in getting a new phone for at least two years to come. I don't know what you guys do with your phones that you need quad cores running an OS that is mostly single threaded. Bar games I can't see these chips actually doing anything, they certainly can't fold or run Boinc.


----------



## mtbiker033

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lvlrdka22*
> 
> Methinks this article is a ploy to get more sales on the benchmark app.
> 1. Post (real or fake) benchmark showing Android devices being slower than iDevices.
> 2. Android fan(boys) rage.
> 3. Android fans hit the store and buy the app to attempt to disprove the benchmark.
> 4. ???
> 5. Profit!!!
> Note: doesn't work on Apple fan(boys) because they just don't care unless they're winning the benchmark (no offense to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).


this at .99 a pop exactly


----------



## hajile

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mavere*
> 
> (Emphasis mine)
> Are you stating that based on your experience with mobile workloads?
> ARM designs have historically been marred by a subpar memory controller. Improving that as much Apple did could potentially create a 1-to-1 percentage performance improvement in real world situations, as it would remove an old bottleneck.


Most computer calculations for any particular problem/subroutine occur in close memory proximity. For this reason, processors take everything near where they're working and cache it in the processor's L1/L2/L3 (with each representing stuff farther away and thus less likely to be requested). When the processor needs a piece of data, it searches each cache (the caches being arranged as associated arrays). If the computer put the right data in the cache, it can pretend that it's accessing main memory (actually, in some cases such as x86, the architecture is so old that the ISA doesn't account for cache so designers have to put the cache in so that the processor doesn't realize that the cache exists), but saves huge amounts of time not having to wait for main memory to respond (and memory speed and bandwidth don't matter in this case since they aren't being used). Since most reads and writes occur in close proximity, this works well.

One problem that occurs is having too large a dataset to fit in cache. If a chip has 1MB of cache, but the working set (ie, the group of data and instructions the computer is reading/writing) is larger than 1MB, then lots of time is spent waiting on RAM (and also on changing out the cache ("cache thrashing") as the processor attempts to cache what is necessary despite the fact that it doesn't physically have the room).

Now, let's assume that Anand is right and Apple didn't change the cache size because most iOS workloads fit inside 1MB. If this is true, then memory bandwidth isn't the biggest concern as the data can be gradually changed in and out while most of the read/write activity is being done inside the processor. This principle is the same whether the processor is a microcontroller or a supercomputer. Being a mobile workload doesn't change this.

The only question is whether or not Apple chose to leave the cache alone for this reason. Anand believes this is the reason (only Apple would truly know and they probably won't ever say), so I took what he said in the spirit he intended (that is, an educated guess (not definitive) based on years doing what he does and his having an EE degree to back some of that up even more).


----------



## bengal

Just thought I leave it here










http://www.anandtech.com/show/6309/iphone-5a6-sunspider-performance
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tman5293*
> 
> Please explain how the phone with the lower score (by over 200 points) is smoking the phone with the higher score. Your logic hurts my head.


Look above.


----------



## 3930K

Susncript is better than the GNote II...


----------



## Sapientia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bengal*
> 
> Well the benchmarks in the OP are legit. Engadget released their review of the iPhone 5. They got a score of 1628 in GeekBench. They got 924ms in Sunspider, which is faster than both the GSIII and HTC one X.
> Source


Well I'll be. I didn't think they'd do it, but they did. The sunspider score is also lower than the Atom powered phone!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hajile*
> 
> Assuming that the Apple Geekbench score is accurate (and can't be compared to Android phone benchmarks). The results are still being inflated quite a bit by the memory bandwidth. Anand suggests that the A6 stuck with 1MB of cache because most iphone datasets didn't need more. If that is the case, then all the points gained by adding memory bandwidth don't really matter in real-world usage. That said, those are some healthy increases in theoretical performance.


Almost everything will benefit from the much improved memory interface. It's a big reason the Atom outperforms A9 SoCs.


----------



## renaldy

If this is true trust me i will buy it the week after release.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *j3st3r*
> 
> Too bad here in America the S3 cost $200 subsidized just like the iPhone 5 will be. And what did you get?
> Laggy android platform that is slow to touch response compared to Windows or iOS
> Fragmented, never expected updates
> Comes with Touchwhiz so you can hate your standard OS even more
> Appstore that is unregulated and full of malware and mostly Chinese apps
> Inflated numbers and terrible battery life because of the giant screen


Lol, what a load of crap you just posted









The GS3 isn't laggy at all.
Not Fragmented, updates come thick and fast.
TouchWiz is decent enough.
Appstore is regulated, it just doesn't require anal approval. Therefore once a developer has finished an update to an app you get it straight away (not waiting days like Dead Trigger on iOS ;rolleyes: )
That line makes no sense. Inflated numbers? Terrible battery life? Total rubbish. I can finish the day with my GS3 with battery left having used data all day.

Come back when you know anything about anything.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Lol, what a load of crap you just posted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GS3 isn't laggy at all.
> Not Fragmented, updates come thick and fast.
> TouchWiz is decent enough.
> Appstore is regulated, it just doesn't require anal approval. Therefore once a developer has finished an update to an app you get it straight away (not waiting days like Dead Trigger on iOS ;rolleyes: )
> That line makes no sense. Inflated numbers? Terrible battery life? Total rubbish. I can finish the day with my GS3 with battery left having used data all day.
> Come back when you know anything about anything.


Lmao, +1


----------



## perfectblade

I would take an iPhone 5 over a US gs3 and I prefer the android as a platform

1. Better performance

2. better sound card (for better calls). granted maybe I have somewhat different needs than most because I listen to music on my phone a lot.

Why does samsung think we should pay $200 for the gs3 when it doesn't have what the sII gave us (quality samsung cpu+and quality wolfram sound card). I bet American carriers are somehow involved in this...4g lte support isn't a good excuse, they've had the exynos version with 4g lte forever


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *perfectblade*
> 
> I would take an iPhone 5 over a US gs3 and I prefer the android as a platform
> 1. Better performance
> 2. better sound card (for better calls). granted maybe I have somewhat different needs than most because I listen to music on my phone a lot.
> Why does samsung think we should pay $200 for the gs3 when it doesn't have what the sII gave us (quality samsung cpu+and quality wolfram sound card). I bet American carriers are somehow involved in this...4g lte support isn't a good excuse, they've had the exynos version with 4g lte forever


Quad has that Wolfram DAC


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bengal*
> 
> Just thought I leave it here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/6309/iphone-5a6-sunspider-performance
> Look above.


I tried in on my GNex with 4.1.1 Stock ROM and got 1300ms. If i get one of those super tweaked ROMs i would get much lower.


----------



## Rubers

^ Most likely down to the memory optimisations of the CPU, because for integer and FP not as good as others on the market. Still pretty good, though


----------



## perfectblade

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Quad has that Wolfram DAC


I know, but I can't afford a phone out of contract, so that rules it out. Samsung needs to release the good version in the US


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> ^ Most likely down to the memory optimisations of the CPU, because for integer and FP not as good as others on the market. Still pretty good, though


Anand did an in depth analysis, explaining Apple's improvement with the A6's
Quote:


> Intel originally hinted at issues in the A9's memory interface as being why Atom was able to so easily outperform other ARM based SoCs in SunSpider. *As we surmised in our A6 Geekbench post, it looks like Apple specifically targeted improvements in the memory subsystem when designing the A6's CPU cores. The result is the fastest SunSpider test we've ever recorded on a smartphone - faster even than Intel's Atom Z2460.*
> 
> This doesn't tell us much about the A6's architecture other than it's likely got a better cache/memory interface than ARM's Cortex A9. What we really need is for someone to port SPECint to iOS...


----------



## grizzlyblunting

We have always known iOS is quick. Thats what you get from a bare-bones OS


----------



## Erio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tman5293*
> 
> Please explain how the phone with the lower score (by over 200 points) is smoking the phone with the higher score. Your logic hurts my head.


You are actually try to reason with them? I admire your patience.
I told them that the S3 benchmark number is higher, a Apple benchmark mind you.
Yet they still said S3 is "smoked" by iPhone.
At that point, I stopped trying, because not point to argue with someone that can't figure which number is larger. I not a elementary school teacher, nor have the patience of one.


----------



## bengal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erio*
> 
> You are actually try to reason with them? I admire your patience.
> I told them that the S3 benchmark number is higher, a Apple benchmark mind you.
> Yet they still said S3 is "smoked" by iPhone.
> At that point, I stopped trying, because not point to argue with someone that can't figure which number is larger. I not a elementary school teacher, nor have the patience of one.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *perfectblade*
> 
> I know, but I can't afford a phone out of contract, so that rules it out. Samsung needs to release the good version in the US


That's a carrier issue, not a sammy one. We like to be different and use different wireless bands than th rest of the world.

...and stuff has to travel future.

It still boggles my mind that my cell phones wireless signal can travel for miles.


----------



## Erio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bengal*
> 
> image


In core to core Performance iPhone 5 do win, in overall performance that factoring all core such as Geekbench S3 wins. But the original argument someone give was quad core beaten by duo core in Geekbench. I don't understand you intend at all, Sunspider is a browser benchmark.

Either way, I only just get my first smart phone within this month, not a fan of Android I was just pointing out that someones statement was not correct.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liranan*
> 
> I don't care for these random benchmarks. I am really happy with my S II and have no interest in getting a new phone for at least two years to come. I don't know what you guys do with your phones that you need quad cores running an OS that is mostly single threaded. Bar games I can't see these chips actually doing anything, they certainly can't fold or run Boinc.


Loading apps and other common tasks are occurring in half the time on the iPhone 5. You should watch Anandtech's hands-on video with the phone, everything runs incredibly smooth and fast, menus, internet, camera, etc. Basically anything you use your phone for, except maybe making a phone call, will take less of your time to do. That's not a bad thing. I do agree though that the benchmarks aren't all the useful to most users.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bengal*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Erio*
> 
> You are actually try to reason with them? I admire your patience.
> I told them that the S3 benchmark number is higher, a Apple benchmark mind you.
> Yet they still said S3 is "smoked" by iPhone.
> At that point, I stopped trying, because not point to argue with someone that can't figure which number is larger. I not a elementary school teacher, nor have the patience of one.
Click to expand...

lol
Run it on Chrome on Android and we'll talk.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> lol
> Run it on Chrome on Android and we'll talk.


Meh Chrome.

Constantly FC on my stock ICS 7+.


----------



## bengal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> lol
> Run it on Chrome on Android and we'll talk.


I am sure someone here will be able to help us out.


----------



## mavere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> lol
> Run it on Chrome on Android and we'll talk.


Unlikely to beat the Intel phone by much (if at all), certainly won't break the 1000 ms barrier, and most definitely won't surpass the iPhone 5.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mavere*
> 
> Unlikely to beat the Intel phone by much (if at all), certainly won't break the 1000 ms barrier, and most definitely won't surpass the iPhone 5.


unlikely... won't... can't... yada yada yada. Post when you know things like IS or DOES


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bengal*
> 
> I am sure someone here will be able to help us out.


1330ms first run. Better than stock browser (though the stock browser gets a way better browsermark score)


----------



## j3st3r

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bengal*


Owned. Pure and simple. Just shows you how badly coded the Android platform is.

This debate really just comes down to the Intel vs. AMD debate. People who claim that the FX series is as good as the SB/IB processors.

When a QUAD core processor gets wrecked by a DUAL core processor - something is up. Get real android, even with a dual core processor the OS is coded so well that it still stomps the best Android can come up with. And lets get one thing straight: samsungs best 'selling point' is its 'superior' hardware to Apple - that is it. They don't add anything new to the smartphone market besides a bigger screen and processing power. Now that Apple has the best of both, I am curious who will be switching. Should be a large portion considering those selling points were the biggest slams you guys had against Apple.

Better screen? Check.
Better battery life? Check.
LTE? Check.
Faster hardware? Check.








Good on you, Apple.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *j3st3r*
> 
> Owned. Pure and simple. Just shows you how badly coded the Android platform is.


Hi,

We've all seen this posted about 17x now.

Thanks,
The World


----------



## mavere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> 1330ms first run. Better than stock browser (though the stock browser gets a way better browsermark score)


Model? SoC?

Edit: Companies like Samsung usually introduce their own browser optimizations. Might explain the discrepancies.


----------



## Georgevonfrank

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> lol
> Run it on Chrome on Android and we'll talk.




My galaxy nexus, only at 1350 MHz. Got about -500 ms off of the score on that list.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

the scores of 6k... those seem like obvious fliers


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *j3st3r*
> 
> Owned. Pure and simple. Just shows you how badly coded the Android platform is.
> This debate really just comes down to the Intel vs. AMD debate. People who claim that the FX series is as good as the SB/IB processors.
> When a QUAD core processor gets wrecked by a DUAL core processor - something is up. Get real android, even with a dual core processor the OS is coded so well that it still stomps the best Android can come up with. And lets get one thing straight: samsungs best 'selling point' is its 'superior' hardware to Apple - that is it. They don't add anything new to the smartphone market besides a bigger screen and processing power. Now that Apple has the best of both, I am curious who will be switching. Should be a large portion considering those selling points were the biggest slams you guys had against Apple.
> Better screen? Check.
> Better battery life? Check.
> LTE? Check.
> Faster hardware? Check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good on you, Apple.


Lol, again, the CPU fails at integer and floating point operations compared to the quads and many other duals. Where this score comes from is the MEMORY optimisations in the new A6.

So, LOL at your rubbish "Android is poorly optimised" crap.

I think I asked you to only reply when you know something about anything earlier. That point still stands.

Better screen? debatable
Better battery life? Remains to be seen.
LTE? Just like every other flagship Android phone for the last 6 months?








Faster hardware? halfway there.

Knowing what the hell you're talking about? Not quite.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mavere*
> 
> Model? SoC?
> Edit: Companies like Samsung usually introduce their own browser optimizations. Might explain the discrepancies.


GT-i9300, Exynos 4412


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Lol, again, the CPU fails at integer and floating point operations compared to the quads and many other duals. Where this score comes from is the MEMORY optimisations in the new A6.
> So, LOL at your rubbish "Android is poorly optimised" crap.
> I think I asked you to only reply when you know something about anything earlier. That point still stands.
> Better screen? debatable
> Better battery life? Remains to be seen.
> LTE? Just like every other flagship Android phone for the last 6 months?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faster hardware? halfway there.
> Knowing what the hell you're talking about? Not quite.


The AMOLED on the Samsung is by far the most beautiful screen on the market. I know that is subjective, but it is just so far ahead of the Retina display in terms of color brightness and black levels.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> The AMOLED on the Samsung is by far the most beautiful screen on the market. I know that is subjective, but it is just so far ahead of the Retina display in terms of color brightness and black levels.


Can't beat AMOLEDs Black levels, but accurate color representation is up for debate








. I prefer accuracy to over-saturation, personally







.

And the damn thing is bright. It's one of the first screens I've used that I can see in broad daylight.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mavere*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> lol
> Run it on Chrome on Android and we'll talk.
> 
> 
> 
> Unlikely to beat the Intel phone by much (if at all), certainly won't break the 1000 ms barrier, and most definitely won't surpass the iPhone 5.
Click to expand...

Chroem on Intel phone...









Or on the Note II.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *j3st3r*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *bengal*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Owned. Pure and simple. Just shows you how badly coded the Android platform is.
> 
> This debate really just comes down to the Intel vs. AMD debate. People who claim that the FX series is as good as the SB/IB processors.
> 
> *Depends on your application.
> 
> Comes from an Intel fan.*
> 
> When a QUAD core processor gets wrecked by a DUAL core processor *on a SINGLE CORE BENCHMARK!!!!* - something is up. Get real android, even with a dual core processor the OS is coded so well that it still stomps the best Android can come up with. And lets get one thing straight: samsungs best 'selling point' is its 'superior' hardware to Apple - that is it. They don't add anything new to the smartphone market besides a bigger screen and processing power. Now that Apple has the best of both, I am curious who will be switching. Should be a large portion considering those selling points were the biggest slams you guys had against Apple.
> 
> *You have forgotten Chrome. Main;y because you have no interest in remembering.*
> 
> Better screen? Check. *That depends on opinion.*
> Better battery life? Check. *lolno. Bigger, 7.17Whr removable battery.*
> LTE? Check. *Ditto for the S3.*
> Faster hardware? Check. *On SINGLE CORE BENCHMARKS. Or cherrypicked ones too.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good on you, *Samsung*.
Click to expand...

I lol'd.

Fixed that piece of "message" for ya.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Can't beat AMOLEDs Black levels, but accurate color representation is up for debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I prefer accuracy to over-saturation, personally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> And the damn thing is bright. It's one of the first screens I've used that I can see in broad daylight.


For a monitor I agree, but I really like a pretty little thang by my side all day.

Try looking at a iphone in daylight with polarized sunglasses... Almost pointless.


----------



## Rubers

IT made me lol when one of the selling points for the iPhone in the presentation was "MOAR SATURATION LOLZ" because I turn down the saturation on my GS3 to get a more accurate colour representation.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Can't beat AMOLEDs Black levels, but accurate color representation is up for debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I prefer accuracy to over-saturation, personally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> And the damn thing is bright. It's one of the first screens I've used that I can see in broad daylight.
> 
> 
> 
> For a monitor I agree, but I really like a pretty little thang by my side all day.
> 
> Try looking at a iphone in daylight with polarized sunglasses... Almost pointless.
Click to expand...

It is completely useless... I agree.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> IT made me lol when one of the selling points for the iPhone in the presentation was "MOAR SATURATION LOLZ" because I turn down the saturation on my GS3 to get a more accurate colour representation.


I think that is a good problem to have lol.

It's like having a supermodel girlfriend who is just too pretty.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> It is completely useless... I agree.


Never tried







. AMOLEDs are power hungry though







.

And they can't get very dark. The darkest setting (what I keep my phone set to inside) is half brightness for my old TP2.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> It is completely useless... I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Never tried
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . AMOLEDs are power hungry though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> And they can't get very dark. The darkest setting (what I keep my phone set to inside) is half brightness for my old TP2.
Click to expand...

Depends, they don't suck no power on all-black screens.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Never tried
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . AMOLEDs are power hungry though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> And they can't get very dark. The darkest setting (what I keep my phone set to inside) is half brightness for my old TP2.


Good thing Samsung keeps pushing the battery capacity on each model. I think the biggest change is going to be when wireless charging becomes standard and you can set it up so whenever you are in your house your phone is charging. You office, car, campus, everything gives you MOAR POWERS


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> Good thing Samsung keeps pushing the battery capacity on each model. I think the biggest change is going to be when wireless charging becomes standard and you can set it up so whenever you are in your house your phone is charging. You office, car, campus, everything gives you MOAR POWERS


Yea but current implantation of wireless charging means you can't play with your phone (unless you want to be glued to the pad) while it charges.

I'm actually going to look around to see if I can find a larger battery in the same form factor eventually. 1800mwh isn't big enough for me needs







.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Depends, they don't suck no power on all-black screens.


I don't have any usage patterns that would be appropriate with an all black screen, except for maybe texting.


----------



## 3930K

Googleblack, change Android colour skin, the upcoming HTML5 OCN...


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Yea but current implantation of wireless charging means you can't play with your phone (unless you want to be glued to the pad) while it charges.
> I'm actually going to look around to see if I can find a larger battery in the same form factor eventually. 1800mwh isn't big enough for me needs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> I don't have any usage patterns that would be appropriate with an all black screen, except for maybe texting.


I know... but we can dream right?


----------



## Erio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *j3st3r*
> 
> When a QUAD core processor gets wrecked by a DUAL core processor - something is up.


Sunspider is a JavaScript benchmark, therefore only uses one core. It doesn't matter how many core the processor has.

After googling I found people saying iSO 6 use multi-thread for compile and running JavaScript (IE already does this, so it is possible), they say their iphone 4S got about 18% increase in SunSpider benchmark from update to iSO6. If this is true then we are comparing both core from iphone to 1 core from android phones. Obviously, the both core from iPhone is probably not used to full extend, but iPhone still have a unfiar adventage if you are comparing the processor.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erio*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *j3st3r*
> 
> When a QUAD core processor gets wrecked by a DUAL core processor - something is up.
> 
> 
> 
> Sunspider is a JavaScript benchmark, therefore only uses one core. It doesn't matter how many core the processor has.
Click to expand...

What I was getting to.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> I think that is a good problem to have lol.
> It's like having a supermodel girlfriend who is just too pretty.


Nah it's like setting your TV to "ONE BILLION" on Colour. Wasn't good. I usually turn down the colour on all things I have as they often have too much, so too much colour saturation is too much.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Can't beat AMOLEDs Black levels, but accurate color representation is up for debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I prefer accuracy to over-saturation, personally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> And the damn thing is bright. It's one of the first screens I've used that I can see in broad daylight.
> 
> 
> 
> For a monitor I agree, but I really like a pretty little thang by my side all day.
> 
> Try looking at a iphone in daylight with polarized sunglasses... Almost pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is completely useless... I agree.
Click to expand...

I'd say they're all pretty terrible in the sun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_vPxDDpMWg&feature=player_detailpage#t=47s


----------



## WhiteCrane

I read the whole thing... I'm not clear. Is this a Cortex A9, or not??? If not, what is it based on?


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon*
> 
> I'd say they're all pretty terrible in the sun:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_vPxDDpMWg&feature=player_detailpage#t=47s


It was weird when the camera phocused on the fones they were all fairly clear. I get more visibity on the gs2 than was shown on the video, but still, it's hard for any phone to compete with the sun.

Now the chromebook, by comparison, challenges the sun and gives it the finger.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WhiteCrane*
> 
> I read the whole thing... I'm not clear. Is this a Cortex A9, or not??? If not, what is it based on?


It's a customized A15.


----------



## Nope oO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> The AMOLED on the Samsung is by far the most beautiful screen on the market. I know that is subjective, but it is just so far ahead of the Retina display in terms of color brightness and black levels.


Yuck, fly-screen door effect screens, no thanks.

Twice as fast as the SIII for us in the US










☑ Faster CPU
☑ Faster GPU
☑ Higher DPI
☑ No Fly-Screen Door effect AMOLED screen
☑ Better connector
☑ Lighter and slimmer
☑ Fits in both men and women's pockets
☑ Better Camera lens and low light sensitivity

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> It's a customized A15.


Nah, this time it's Apple own custom SoC. It's not an A15. That was just early rumors.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Lol, what a load of crap you just posted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GS3 isn't laggy at all.
> Not Fragmented, updates come thick and fast.
> TouchWiz is decent enough.
> *Appstore is regulated, it just doesn't require anal approval. Therefore once a developer has finished an update to an app you get it straight away (not waiting days like Dead Trigger on iOS ;rolleyes: )*
> That line makes no sense. Inflated numbers? Terrible battery life? Total rubbish. I can finish the day with my GS3 with battery left having used data all day.
> 
> Come back when you know anything about anything.


How is that a good thing? It means it's vulnerable to malware.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> We have always known iOS is quick. Thats what you get from a bare-bones OS


It's not a bare-bones OS.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Lol, again, the CPU fails at integer and floating point operations compared to the quads and many other duals. Where this score comes from is the MEMORY optimisations in the new A6.
> 
> So, LOL at your rubbish "Android is poorly optimised" crap.
> 
> I think I asked you to only reply when you know something about anything earlier. That point still stands.
> 
> Better screen? debatable
> Better battery life? Remains to be seen.
> LTE? Just like every other flagship Android phone for the last 6 months?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faster hardware? halfway there.
> 
> Knowing what the hell you're talking about? Not quite.


I remember the FP score being 2000 for the 5 and about 3000 for the quad-core S3. That's pretty good for a dual-core.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> On SINGLE CORE BENCHMARKS. Or cherrypicked ones too.


It's faster for single and dual-core workloads which is most important. You'll probably find in all the "real world" benchmarks that the iPhone 5 wins.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erio*
> 
> Sunspider is a JavaScript benchmark, therefore only uses one core. It doesn't matter how many core the processor has.
> 
> After googling I found people saying iSO 6 use multi-thread for compile and running JavaScript (IE already does this, so it is possible), they say their iphone 4S got about 18% increase in SunSpider benchmark from update to iSO6. If this is true then we are comparing both core from iphone to 1 core from android phones. Obviously, the both core from iPhone is probably not used to full extend, but iPhone still have a unfiar adventage if you are comparing the processor.


iOS has done this for a while. I thought Android did too?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WhiteCrane*
> 
> I read the whole thing... I'm not clear. Is this a Cortex A9, or not??? If not, what is it based on?


It's likely based on the Cortex A9 but it's a custom processor, so it's heavily modified.


----------



## Erio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> iOS has done this for a while. I thought Android did too?


I don't know much about Android.
That is why I said that is what I heard.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erio*
> 
> I don't know much about Android.
> That is why I said that is what I heard.


Oh. I can't see where you said that, but ok.


----------



## Tom1121

For comparisons sake, would anyone with a pretty well spec'd Android phone download the new Dolphin Beta browser and run Sunspider on it? They claim it's the fastest, and it does score the highest on HTML5test as well.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> How is that a good thing? It means it's vulnerable to malware.
> 
> I remember the FP score being 2000 for the 5 and about 3000 for the quad-core S3. That's pretty good for a dual-core.


It's a good thing because, like I said, it enables app developers to immediately put out updates. Yeah, it means it's kind of vulnerable to malware. But, to be honest, anyone who downloads the malware on Android deserves everything coming to them, since you'd have to be a total idiot not to spot it. "KATY PERY BEWBS 4 FREE" and "STRIP NAKED POKE HER" etc. Whereas, the positive examples are: Dead Trigger. iOS is only just getting an update which the devs finalised and submitted last week. Android users had that as soon as they finished it. FPsE, a Playstation emulator release an update a couple of weeks ago which was generally positive, but then broke things for some people. The developers have been able to push updates thick and fast to fix things or implement new features.

And yes, the benchmark that is supposedly Apple-biased and the single core optimised SunSpider (though I'm impressed with the SS benches, but I contend it's the memory optimisations to thank for that.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> It's a good thing because, like I said, it enables app developers to immediately put out updates. Yeah, it means it's kind of vulnerable to malware. *But, to be honest, anyone who downloads the malware on Android deserves everything coming to them, since you'd have to be a total idiot not to spot it.* "KATY PERY BEWBS 4 FREE" and "STRIP NAKED POKE HER" etc. Whereas, the positive examples are: Dead Trigger. iOS is only just getting an update which the devs finalised and submitted last week. Android users had that as soon as they finished it. FPsE, a Playstation emulator release an update a couple of weeks ago which was generally positive, but then broke things for some people. The developers have been able to push updates thick and fast to fix things or implement new features.
> And yes, the benchmark that is supposedly Apple-biased and the single core optimised SunSpider (though I'm impressed with the SS benches, but I contend it's the memory optimisations to thank for that.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*


Well, let's face it, it's true!


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Well, let's face it, it's true!


I was agreeing LOL


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> I was agreeing LOL


I know


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> It's a good thing because, like I said, it enables app developers to immediately put out updates. Yeah, it means it's kind of vulnerable to malware. But, to be honest, anyone who downloads the malware on Android deserves everything coming to them, since you'd have to be a total idiot not to spot it. "KATY PERY BEWBS 4 FREE" and "STRIP NAKED POKE HER" etc. Whereas, the positive examples are: Dead Trigger. iOS is only just getting an update which the devs finalised and submitted last week. Android users had that as soon as they finished it. FPsE, a Playstation emulator release an update a couple of weeks ago which was generally positive, but then broke things for some people. The developers have been able to push updates thick and fast to fix things or implement new features.
> 
> And yes, the benchmark that is supposedly Apple-biased and the single core optimised SunSpider (though I'm impressed with the SS benches, but I contend it's the memory optimisations to thank for that.


It's not always detectable though. Of course the spam apps like you mentioned are easy to pick, but there could be legitimate looking apps which have malware in them. With no approval for updates a developer could release a legitimate app and then introduce malware into it at a later date after it's become largely popular and then simultaneously harm millions of users.

It's not Apple-biased. As Anand said though, the results from iOS and Android shouldn't be compared. Software is also effecting the score. The SunSpider benchmarks are impressive yes. I'm particularly interested in the graphics benchmarks... I'd like to see some of them soon.


----------



## Georgevonfrank

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tom1121*
> 
> For comparisons sake, would anyone with a pretty well spec'd Android phone download the new Dolphin Beta browser and run Sunspider on it? They claim it's the fastest, and it does score the highest on HTML5test as well.


Chrome


Dolphin


Galaxy Nexus, 1350 MHz


----------



## Nope oO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's not always detectable though. Of course the spam apps like you mentioned are easy to pick, but there could be legitimate looking apps which have malware in them. With no approval for updates a developer could release a legitimate app and then introduce malware into it at a later date after it's become largely popular and then simultaneously harm millions of users.
> It's not Apple-biased. As Anand said though, the results from iOS and Android shouldn't be compared. Software is also effecting the score. The SunSpider benchmarks are impressive yes. I'm particularly interested in the graphics benchmarks... I'd like to see some of them soon.


That's why I have to run a malware scanner all the time that slows down my device a little bit on Android. Lookout is pretty good. It's turning into Windows but oh well, the storage devices are getting faster with each generation so it's palatable.


----------



## stargate125645

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bengal*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Lol i think so too. Make Android users go mad and buy the App.
> 
> 
> 
> I say their plan is working perfectly too. Just look at all the mad android fanboys in this thread.
Click to expand...

It is important to realize that one doesn't have to be an Android fanboy to be anti-Apple and want to rid the world of their undeserved halo.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's not always detectable though. Of course the spam apps like you mentioned are easy to pick, but there could be legitimate looking apps which have malware in them. With no approval for updates a developer could release a legitimate app and then introduce malware into it at a later date after it's become largely popular and then simultaneously harm millions of users.
> It's not Apple-biased. As Anand said though, the results from iOS and Android shouldn't be compared. Software is also effecting the score. The SunSpider benchmarks are impressive yes. I'm particularly interested in the graphics benchmarks... I'd like to see some of them soon.


I can't tell if you're just super ridiculously paranoid or ridiculously paranoid for the sake of making your argument against the Android market.

Either way, I'm sorry, but anyone who makes a hugely popular app will probably make more money on in-game ads or app purchases then they will deliberately installing malware.

It's like saying, sure, I could learn how to drive and buy a car, but I might run someone over and kill them, so best not.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nope oO*
> 
> That's why I have to run a malware scanner all the time that slows down my device a little bit on Android. Lookout is pretty good. It's turning into Windows but oh well, the storage devices are getting faster with each generation so it's palatable.


I run Avast! which has this virus scanning malware feature, but doesn't slow down my device one single bit. But I run it solely for the lost phone features. It will lock your phone, disable USB debugging and stop the app drawer from opening and much more by either texting commands or using the website.

You absolutely do not need to run anti-malware programs on Android. Seriously.


----------



## Nope oO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> I run Avast! which has this virus scanning malware feature, but doesn't slow down my device one single bit. But I run it solely for the lost phone features. It will lock your phone, disable USB debugging and stop the app drawer from opening and much more by either texting commands or using the website.
> You absolutely do not need to run anti-malware programs on Android. Seriously.


If it's actually protecting you, then it's scanning apps and files which uses CPU and disk IO. Faster hardware will just make this less noticeable.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nope oO*
> 
> If it's actually protecting you, then it's scanning apps and files which uses CPU and disk IO. Faster hardware will just make this less noticeable.


It scans when they're installed, yes, and takes less than a second each time. It was the same on a HTC Desire. Barely noticeable. Slight drain on the battery on the Desire, but not that much to care. The trade off for being able to remotely lock, wipe and sound a loud arse siren on my phone was worth it.

Did it ever stop any malware? No, because I'm not a complete idiot.


----------



## Nocturin

BUT BEWBS!


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nope oO*
> 
> Yuck, fly-screen door effect screens, no thanks.
> Twice as fast as the SIII for us in the US
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ☑ Faster CPU
> ☑ Faster GPU
> ☑ Higher DPI
> ☑ No Fly-Screen Door effect AMOLED screen
> ☑ Better connector
> ☑ Lighter and slimmer
> ☑ Fits in both men and women's pockets
> ☑ Better Camera lens and low light sensitivity
> Nah, this time it's Apple own custom SoC. It's not an A15. That was just early rumors.


You do realize that has been posted by like 18 people now?

Faster CPU? Samsung
Faster GPU? Apple
Higher DPI? Samsung
Better color level? Samsung
Better connector? Samsung (micro usb)
Lighter and slimmer? Quite a few android devices
Fits in both men's and women's pockets? Both (buy some big boy pants you hipster)
Better camera? Samsung and Nokia

The CPU apple is using isn't some customer piece of magic dude. It's a customized (







) A15

Get off the koolaid bucket bro


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> BUT BEWBS!


I like bewbs! Where?


----------



## Kand

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nope oO*
> 
> Yuck, fly-screen door effect screens, no thanks.
> Twice as fast as the SIII for us in the US


I find that chart somewhat anomalous.

Why would a Sensation 4g have such a low score, being a Snapdragon S3, while the Optimus 3D and Galaxy Nexus share a similar processor and implementation?

Tastes of cherries, freshly picked.

Yeap.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kand*
> 
> I find that chart somewhat anomalous.
> Why would a Sensation 4g have such a low score, being a Snapdragon S3, while the Optimus 3D and Galaxy Nexus share a similar processor and implementation?
> Tastes of cherries, freshly picked.
> Yeap.


Someone understands


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> You do realize that has been posted by like 18 people now?
> Faster CPU? Samsung
> Faster GPU? Apple
> Higher DPI? Samsung
> Better color level? Samsung
> Better connector? Samsung (micro usb)
> Lighter and slimmer? Quite a few android devices
> Fits in both men's and women's pockets? Both (buy some big boy pants you hipster)
> Better camera? Samsung and Nokia
> The CPU apple is using isn't some customer piece of magic dude. It's a customized (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) A15
> Get off the koolaid bucket bro


Did you know that samsung makes the MBP-R's panel along with LG?

I learned something.

Now Samsung needs to get on the damn game and start offering more than 1 freaking 1440p monitor.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> BUT BEWBS!


I lol'd.


----------



## Tom1121

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kand*
> 
> I find that chart somewhat anomalous.
> Why would a Sensation 4g have such a low score, being a Snapdragon S3, while the Optimus 3D and Galaxy Nexus share a similar processor and implementation?
> Tastes of cherries, freshly picked.
> Yeap.


Lol come on man, it's Anandtech, there are no conspiracies going on. Th Sensations scored were with the Android 2.3 Stock Sense browser or whatever came stock on the phone. JavaScript scores were truly that bad. They leave it on the list more to show you how at the cores have come up with devices like the Galaxy Nexus. The ICS browser was literally worlds apart not just in scores but overall smoothness.


----------



## m3t4lh34d

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tom1121*
> 
> Lol come on man, it's Anandtech, there are no conspiracies going on. Th Sensations scored were with the Android 2.3 Stock Sense browser or whatever came stock on the phone. JavaScript scores were truly that bad. They leave it on the list more to show you how at the cores have come up with devices like the Galaxy Nexus. The ICS browser was literally worlds apart not just in scores but overall smoothness.


Anandtech isn't as clean as you think.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m3t4lh34d*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Tom1121*
> 
> Lol come on man, it's Anandtech, there are no conspiracies going on. Th Sensations scored were with the Android 2.3 Stock Sense browser or whatever came stock on the phone. JavaScript scores were truly that bad. They leave it on the list more to show you how at the cores have come up with devices like the Galaxy Nexus. The ICS browser was literally worlds apart not just in scores but overall smoothness.
> 
> 
> 
> Anandtech isn't as clean as you think.
Click to expand...

Please explain?


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nope oO*
> 
> That's why I have to run a malware scanner all the time that slows down my device a little bit on Android. Lookout is pretty good. It's turning into Windows but oh well, the storage devices are getting faster with each generation so it's palatable.


Ah, I see.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> I can't tell if you're just super ridiculously paranoid or ridiculously paranoid for the sake of making your argument against the Android market.
> 
> Either way, I'm sorry, but anyone who makes a hugely popular app will probably make more money on in-game ads or app purchases then they will deliberately installing malware.
> 
> It's like saying, sure, I could learn how to drive and buy a car, but I might run someone over and kill them, so best not.


I'm not ridiculously paranoid and nor is what I said. I just think you haven't considered the possibilities. And no it's not like saying that... that is a weird analogy.

That's speculation. They could make a free game or app which may or may not have ads and app purchases, so it looks like a completely legitimate app. And after they have a few hundred thousand or a few million users even they send out an update which pulls every bit of information from your device that it can, and then starts sending off premium texts until it's caught.

I'm saying the above is possible because there's no approval for updates. And then there's the malware which you might download from the get go. You don't need to be an idiot to download some of it -- there can be legitimate looking apps. Hence... Trojan.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> It scans when they're installed, yes, and takes less than a second each time. It was the same on a HTC Desire. Barely noticeable. Slight drain on the battery on the Desire, but not that much to care. The trade off for being able to remotely lock, wipe and sound a loud arse siren on my phone was worth it.
> 
> Did it ever stop any malware? No, because I'm not a complete idiot.


It scans against known malware. That's helpful. But what if the app updates like I said above? Or if it isn't known yet and is dormant? You don't need to be an idiot to download an app with malware. It can be installed in legitimate looking apps.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> You do realize that has been posted by like 18 people now?
> 
> Faster CPU? Samsung
> Faster GPU? Apple
> Higher DPI? Samsung
> Better color level? Samsung
> Better connector? Samsung (micro usb)
> Lighter and slimmer? Quite a few android devices
> Fits in both men's and women's pockets? Both (buy some big boy pants you hipster)
> Better camera? Samsung and Nokia
> 
> The CPU apple is using isn't some customer piece of magic dude. It's a customized (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) A15
> 
> Get off the koolaid bucket bro


1. Yes and no. It's likely that the dual-core S4 will beat out the A6 because of clock speed, but the quad-core A9 won't improve performance as much as the dual-cores. It's only going to benefit multitasking or apps that fully utilise all four cores.

2. Samsung's smartphones and tablets don't have full sRGB coverage though do they?

3. The camera in the 4S was already a little better than what's in the S 3. It's likely the 5 is even better. Will have to wait for reviews for facts though.

4. It's probably not based on the A15. It's likely based on the A9 with significant changes.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kand*
> 
> I find that chart somewhat anomalous.
> 
> Why would a Sensation 4g have such a low score, being a Snapdragon S3, while the Optimus 3D and Galaxy Nexus share a similar processor and implementation?
> 
> Tastes of cherries, freshly picked.
> 
> Yeap.


It's because of the software differences.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Ah, I see.
> I'm not ridiculously paranoid and nor is what I said. I just think you haven't considered the possibilities. And no it's not like saying that... that is a weird analogy.
> That's speculation. They could make a free game or app which may or may not have ads and app purchases, so it looks like a completely legitimate app. And after they have a few hundred thousand or a few million users even they send out an update which pulls every bit of information from your device that it can, and then starts sending off premium texts until it's caught.
> I'm saying the above is possible because there's no approval for updates. And then there's the malware which you might download from the get go. You don't need to be an idiot to download some of it -- there can be legitimate looking apps. Hence... Trojan.
> It scans against known malware. That's helpful. But what if the app updates like I said above? Or if it isn't known yet and is dormant? You don't need to be an idiot to download an app with malware. It can be installed in legitimate looking apps.
> 1. Yes and no. It's likely that the dual-core S4 will beat out the A6 because of clock speed, but the quad-core A9 won't improve performance as much as the dual-cores. It's only going to benefit multitasking or apps that fully utilise all four cores.
> 2. Samsung's smartphones and tablets don't have full sRGB coverage though do they?
> 3. The camera in the 4S was already a little better than what's in the S 3. It's likely the 5 is even better. Will have to wait for reviews for facts though.
> 4. It's probably not based on the A15. It's likely based on the A9 with significant changes.
> It's because of the software differences.


http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1771006

S3 beats it 80% of the time. Also all the iPhone 5 has it a better protective glass which adds nothing to quality.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1771006
> 
> *S3 beats it 80% of the time*. Also all the iPhone 5 has it a better protective glass which adds nothing to quality.


According to that poster, and the test. Other tests may vary. They do trade blows. And that's not the only improvement -- it's certainly not a huge jump like the 4 to 4S was, but it's still an improvement. Anyway here's some more: link 1, link 2. Both of those are from the same reviewer but different tests and smartphones.


----------



## perfectblade

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Did you know that samsung makes the MBP-R's panel along with LG?
> I learned something.
> Now Samsung needs to get on the damn game and start offering more than 1 freaking 1440p monitor.


not only that they make the version that isn't terribly flawed with extreme retention


----------



## stargate125645

What is the same GPU in the iPhone 5? The one in the 4S is no math for either SGS3 version so I'm curious. Did they put in the iPad 3 quad core?


----------



## Sapientia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erio*
> 
> Sunspider is a JavaScript benchmark, therefore only uses one core. It doesn't matter how many core the processor has.
> After googling I found people saying iSO 6 use multi-thread for compile and running JavaScript (IE already does this, so it is possible), they say their iphone 4S got about 18% increase in SunSpider benchmark from update to iSO6. If this is true then we are comparing both core from iphone to 1 core from android phones. Obviously, the both core from iPhone is probably not used to full extend, but iPhone still have a unfiar adventage if you are comparing the processor.


I assume Android does the same thing, otherwise we wouldn't see the Tegra 3 beating out Krait.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stargate125645*
> 
> What is the same GPU in the iPhone 5? The one in the 4S is no math for either SGS3 version so I'm curious. Did they put in the iPad 3 quad core?


The GPU in the 4S is beaten by the S3 but performance levels out at each smartphone's native resolution. The iPhone 5 could be running the SGX543MP4, or an SGX543MP3 with higher clocks. Or it could be the SGX554MP2. Hard to say.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Ah, I see.
> I'm not ridiculously paranoid and nor is what I said. I just think you haven't considered the possibilities. And no it's not like saying that... that is a weird analogy.
> That's speculation. They could make a free game or app which may or may not have ads and app purchases, so it looks like a completely legitimate app. And after they have a few hundred thousand or a few million users even they send out an update which pulls every bit of information from your device that it can, and then starts sending off premium texts until it's caught.
> I'm saying the above is possible because there's no approval for updates. And then there's the malware which you might download from the get go. You don't need to be an idiot to download some of it -- there can be legitimate looking apps. Hence... Trojan.
> It scans against known malware. That's helpful. But what if the app updates like I said above? Or if it isn't known yet and is dormant? You don't need to be an idiot to download an app with malware. It can be installed in legitimate looking apps.
> 1. Yes and no. It's likely that the dual-core S4 will beat out the A6 because of clock speed, but the quad-core A9 won't improve performance as much as the dual-cores. It's only going to benefit multitasking or apps that fully utilise all four cores.
> 2. Samsung's smartphones and tablets don't have full sRGB coverage though do they?
> 3. The camera in the 4S was already a little better than what's in the S 3. It's likely the 5 is even better. Will have to wait for reviews for facts though.
> 4. It's probably not based on the A15. It's likely based on the A9 with significant changes.
> It's because of the software differences.


It's just plain paranoid.

And the quad core WILL improve performance outside of multitasking apps. How many times does this need ot be shown to you before you stop spreading misinformation?


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> It's just plain paranoid.


It's not. It's a viable possibility for someone wanting to distribute malware.
Quote:


> And the quad core WILL improve performance outside of multitasking apps. How many times does this need ot be shown to you before you stop spreading misinformation?


I said it benefits multitasking (lots of apps running) and apps that support all its cores, where is the misinformation?


----------



## Nope oO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> You do realize that has been posted by like 18 people now?
> Faster CPU? Samsung
> Faster GPU? Apple
> Higher DPI? Samsung
> Better color level? Samsung
> Better connector? Samsung (micro usb)
> Lighter and slimmer? Quite a few android devices
> Fits in both men's and women's pockets? Both (buy some big boy pants you hipster)
> Better camera? Samsung and Nokia
> The CPU apple is using isn't some customer piece of magic dude. It's a customized (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) A15
> Get off the koolaid bucket bro










It's amazing how you can get every spec wrong. Clearly you haven't even bothered to read the SIII listing. The only thing it does better is screen brightness at the expense of eye-strain due to the fly-screen door effect. Keep sticking your head in the sand. The A6 is most definitely not an A15. It's a custom Apple SoC.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's not. It's a viable possibility for someone wanting to distribute malware.
> I said it benefits multitasking (lots of apps running) and apps that support all its cores, where is the misinformation?


The part where you said a quad won't improve performance as much as the dual cores :/

A quad core S4 would destroy the A6. No ifs no buts.

And modern phone OS's have lots of apps and processes running by default.


----------



## exnihilo

Ha, I scored 1100~ on a stock E4GT. At 1.45 Ghz, I got 800...

cg


----------



## criznit

I clicked on the geekbench browser site and I'm getting different numbers than what is shown. As of four hours ago, the S III has a score of 1759 while the iphone 5 has a score of 1576.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nope oO*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> You do realize that has been posted by like 18 people now?
> Faster CPU? Samsung
> Faster GPU? Apple
> Higher DPI? Samsung
> Better color level? Samsung
> Better connector? Samsung (micro usb)
> Lighter and slimmer? Quite a few android devices
> Fits in both men's and women's pockets? Both (buy some big boy pants you hipster)
> Better camera? Samsung and Nokia
> The CPU apple is using isn't some customer piece of magic dude. It's a customized (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) A15
> Get off the koolaid bucket bro
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how you can get every spec wrong. Clearly you haven't even bothered to read the SIII listing. The only thing it does better is screen brightness at the expense of eye-strain due to the fly-screen door effect. Keep sticking your head in the sand. The A6 is most definitely not an A15. It's a custom Apple SoC.
Click to expand...

Get off the peppermint koolaid.
DPI is wrong, I admit that, but have you heard of the LUMIA 920? Or ANY of Sony's phones?


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Get off the peppermint koolaid.
> DPI is wrong, I admit that, but have you heard of the LUMIA 920? Or ANY of Sony's phones?


Technically you weren't wrong, guess who made the screen?


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Get off the peppermint koolaid.
> DPI is wrong, I admit that, but have you heard of the LUMIA 920? Or ANY of Sony's phones?
> 
> 
> 
> Technically you weren't wrong, guess who made the screen?
Click to expand...

LG makes thos amazing 461PPI screens as well. /ot
Probably Samsung or LG or Sharp.


----------



## perfectblade

benchmark wars for phone are so dumb. do you honestly think that most games push the hardware on phones anyway? the only ones are probably iOS-only games, so it's kind of a mute point.

what matters on a phone is that it performs reasonably fast and has a nice screen and soundcard (if you care about those things).


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *perfectblade*
> 
> benchmark wars for phone are so dumb. do you honestly think that most games push the hardware on phones anyway? the only ones are probably iOS-only games, so it's kind of a mute point.
> 
> what matters on a phone is that it performs reasonably fast and has a nice screen and soundcard (if you care about those things).


Yes, yes I do.


----------



## perfectblade

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Yes, yes I do.


well buy an s3 international then or iphone 5. because pretty much all other phones have crap sound cards. when you narrow it down like that, the choices become easy


----------



## mavere

Some (very unofficial) GLBenchmark results for the A6's GPU: http://twitpic.com/awwael . Seems like what we'd expect: capable but not overwhelming. However, I guess that if it was actually overwhelming, Apple would have stated a 10x GPU boost instead of 2x.









Comparing those results to the official GL team results shows that the S3 in that graph is the international, not US, version. Contrary to what one of the other posters above stated, the GPU in the US GS3's S4 SoC is vastly inferior to other high end smartphones.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *perfectblade*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Yes, yes I do.
> 
> 
> 
> well buy an s3 international then or iphone 5. because pretty much all other phones have crap sound cards. when you narrow it down like that, the choices become easy
Click to expand...

That is my plan.

I live in the UK, no need to say itn'l


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mavere*
> 
> Some (very unofficial) GLBenchmark results for the A6's GPU: http://twitpic.com/awwael . Seems like what we'd expect: capable but not overwhelming. However, I guess that if it was actually overwhelming, Apple would have stated a 10x GPU boost instead of 2x.


Looks like 2x the performance of the Mali-400 (one of the fastest mobile GPUs) found in the international Galaxy S3. If we add in the fact that the US GS3 has an inferior GPU compared to the international, the US GS3 is vastly inferior to the iPhone 5.


----------



## bengal

It's amusing watching the fandroids in this thread.


----------



## GrizzleBoy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bengal*
> 
> It's amusing watching the fandroids in this thread.


Not as amusing as quite an obvious "fan" of another obvious brand amusing himself by amusing me with his amusement.

Please, do more things like what you just did. Its hilarious!


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrizzleBoy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *bengal*
> 
> It's amusing watching the fandroids in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Not as amusing as quite an obvious "fan" of another obvious brand amusing himself by amusing me with his amusement.
> 
> Please, do more things like what you just did. Its hilarious!
Click to expand...

Great reply!


----------



## Foolsmasher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mavere*
> 
> Some (very unofficial) GLBenchmark results for the A6's GPU: http://twitpic.com/awwael . Seems like what we'd expect: capable but not overwhelming. However, I guess that if it was actually overwhelming, Apple would have stated a 10x GPU boost instead of 2x.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing those results to the official GL team results shows that the S3 in that graph is the international, not US, version. Contrary to what one of the other posters above stated, the GPU in the US GS3's S4 SoC is vastly inferior to other high end smartphones.


Am I reading those graphs wrong, or is it you?

It's you, isn't it......


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> Am I reading those graphs wrong, or is it you?
> It's you, isn't it......


"Lower is better" for the last graph. His conclusion is correct so I don't know what you mean when you say "he is reading the graph wrong."


----------



## Foolsmasher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mavere*
> 
> Some (very unofficial) GLBenchmark results for the A6's GPU: http://twitpic.com/awwael . Seems like what we'd expect: capable but not overwhelming. However, I guess that if it was actually overwhelming, Apple would have stated a 10x GPU boost instead of 2x.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing those results to the official GL team results shows that the S3 in that graph is the international, not US, version. Contrary to what one of the other posters above stated, *the GPU in the US GS3's S4 SoC is vastly inferior to other high end smartphones*.


My apologies, my brain assumed he was inferring the iPhone 5 was lagging behind in context with the rest of the post.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> The part where you said a quad won't improve performance as much as the dual cores :/


It won't have an effect on as many things. Quad-core is apps that support four cores, and then multitasking. Dual-core is everything. Launching apps, saving a photo, etc., even the simplest of things.
Quote:


> A quad core S4 would destroy the A6. No ifs no buts.
> 
> And modern phone OS's have lots of apps and processes running by default.


And yes it would because the S4 is Krait.

>>>>>

Here's results for the iPhone 5's GLBenchmark 2.5 test: http://www.glbenchmark.com/phonedetails.jsp?D=Apple+iPhone+5&benchmark=glpro25

28.9 FPS at 1080p on Egypt HD (off screen) compared to the iPad 3's 22 FPS. It's more powerful... and it's running 1136x640. Wow.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It won't have an effect on as many things. Quad-core is apps that support four cores, and then multitasking. Dual-core is everything. Launching apps, saving a photo, etc., even the simplest of things.
> And yes it would because the S4 is Krait.
> >>>>>
> Here's results for the iPhone 5's GLBenchmark 2.5 test: http://www.glbenchmark.com/phonedetails.jsp?D=Apple+iPhone+5&benchmark=glpro25
> 28.9 FPS at 1080p on Egypt HD (off screen) compared to the iPad 3's 22 FPS. It's more powerful... and it's running 1136x640. Wow.


Quad core is all things.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Quad core is all things.


Quad-core is small things









Please tell me what performance benefit a quad-core has other than in supported apps and for keeping things smooth when multitasking.

A dual-core benefits everything -- launching apps, opening attachments, saving images, etc., just to name a few small things.


----------



## GrizzleBoy

I like how you present your argument in a way that belittles the importance of multi tasking/smoothness while multi tasking, as if to say it doesn't matter to anybody









"Yeah but it only makes the phone smoother while multi-tasking. Who even does that anyway lol?"


----------



## Clairvoyant129

The quad core A9 found in the international Galaxy S3 offers some improvements in heavily multi-threaded apps but performance loss in a majority of the applications compared to the A6 SoC, however the GPU in the iPhone 5 is vastly more powerful, offering twice the performance of Mali 400.

I'll take the A6 SoC over the inferior Exynos 4410.

Architecture > Core count.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrizzleBoy*
> 
> So I guess all the "fan club" links in your sig are just there by accident eh? Its obvious your a fan of those obvious brands.
> Obviously!
> Oh, wait!
> You didn't think I was calling you an _Apple_ fanboy did you?
> Because if you did, that would be quite a baseless assumption, given that I never mentioned Apple.
> Coupled with your denial regarding the aforementioned brand fan clubs in your sig and your distasteful (hateful even) posting towards those of an Android inclined nature, I have to wonder if you might possibly be schizophrenic because you're describing your own demeanour!
> Keep doing that thing you're doing there though. It is most delightful to observe!


ZING!


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrizzleBoy*
> 
> I like how you present your argument in a way that belittles the importance of multi tasking/smoothness while multi tasking, as if to say it doesn't matter to anybody
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Yeah but it only makes the phone smoother while multi-tasking. Who even does that anyway lol?"


I'm not belittling the importance of a smooth experience, I just don't believe that a smartphone is going to be stressed to the point where a dual-core (with an improved architecture) can't handle it for 99.9% of all people, and for the other 0.1% I don't see how they could be doing that sort of work load for any extended period of time.

The dual-core w/ a better architecture improves everything. I'd be surprised if a 1.4GHz quad-core A9 would ever be necessary over a 1.5GHz dual-core A15.


----------



## GrizzleBoy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> I'm not belittling the importance of a smooth experience, I just don't believe that a smartphone is going to be stressed to the point where a dual-core (with an improved architecture) can't handle it for 99.9% of all people, and for the other 0.1% I don't see how they could be doing that sort of work load for any extended period of time.
> The dual-core w/ a better architecture improves everything. I'd be surprised if a 1.4GHz quad-core A9 would ever be necessary over a 1.5GHz dual-core A15.


"Everything", except what it doesn't improve over a quad core.

You may believe what you'd like, but I'm not about to have any kind of discussion of length about beliefs.

We're not allowed to discuss religion and besides, this is a science based forum


----------



## Clairvoyant129

If the situation was reversed and the iPhone 5 had an A9 quad core + vastly inferior GPU, OCN users would be jumping all over it.

Both Android and iOS are good options but the fact of the matter is, the A6 SoC offers A15 performance + a vastly more powerful GPU. I'll gladly take an i5 2500K + HD7970 over a FX-8150 + HD7850. While the FX-8150 offers better multi-threaded performance over the 2500K (not by much which is the same situation as the A6 vs Exynos 4410), the HD7970 offers 2x the performance of the HD7850 (same situation as the A6 GPU vs Mali-400, 2x performance over the Exynos 4410).


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrizzleBoy*
> 
> "Everything", except what it doesn't improve over a quad core.
> 
> You may believe what you'd like, but I'm not about to have any kind of discussion of length about beliefs.
> 
> We're not allowed to discuss religion and besides, this is a science based forum


Which is very little.

The quad-core will only be a benefit when it comes to multitasking (in that it can handle larger work loads) and in supported apps. The dual-core will benefit everything which can only use one or two cores which is the majority of anything a smartphone does, and it still handles multitasking very well and demanding apps.

My belief that a quad-core is unnecessary on a mobile device has nothing to do with religion


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Which is very little.
> The quad-core will only be a benefit when it comes to multitasking (in that it can handle larger work loads) and in supported apps. The dual-core will benefit everything which can only use one or two cores which is the majority of anything a smartphone does, and it still handles multitasking very well and demanding apps.
> My belief that a quad-core is unnecessary on a mobile device has nothing to do with religion


I wonder why more people don't follow their advice and buy a FX-8150/20 platform over the i5 2500K. Same situation as this? Not to mention you get a vastly more powerful GPU.


----------



## GrizzleBoy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Which is very little.
> The quad-core will only be a benefit when it comes to multitasking (in that it can handle larger work loads) and in supported apps. The dual-core will benefit everything which can only use one or two cores which is the majority of anything a smartphone does, and it still handles multitasking very well and demanding apps.
> My belief that a quad-core is unnecessary on a mobile device has nothing to do with religion


Beliefs are beliefs.

Belief is personal, therefore your belief of whether quad cores are necessary stems from your opinion and personal experience.

However, beliefs and opinions are completely irrelevant when it comes to this type of discussion as the truth cannot be gained from what your beliefs and opinion deem to be so.

You could say that you do not find quad cores necessary for your needs and there'd be nothing wrong with that, but until having a quad core in a phone does nothing at all, your belief is not worthy of deeming it unworthy.


----------



## FlawleZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nope oO*
> 
> Most apps are single-threaded or have a main-thread. More powerful cores > moar cores. Have you not learned anything from the AMD/Intel fistfights? Instructions per clock is very important.


This x100.

I'm still dumbfounded why you guys still want 1GB ram over 2GB. Android caches a lot and before you can use more than 2 threads in real world use your runninglow or out of RAM. Its like comparing E8400 and 4GB vs Q6600 and 2GB. Which system played games better?


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrizzleBoy*
> 
> Beliefs are beliefs.
> 
> Belief is personal, therefore your belief of whether quad cores are necessary stems from your opinion and personal experience.
> 
> However, beliefs and opinions are completely irrelevant when it comes to this type of discussion as the truth cannot be gained from what your beliefs and opinion deem to be so.
> 
> You could say that you do not find quad cores necessary for your needs and there'd be nothing wrong with that, but until having a quad core in a phone does nothing at all, your belief is not worthy of deeming it unworthy.


But what I said still has nothing to do with religion.

Nevertheless belief has nothing to do with my argument about a dual-core being better. It had to do with me saying that I don't think intense work loads on smartphones are realistic.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> If the situation was reversed and the iPhone 5 had an A9 quad core + vastly inferior GPU, OCN users would be jumping all over it.
> 
> Both Android and iOS are good options but the fact of the matter is, the A6 SoC offers A15 performance + a vastly more powerful GPU. I'll gladly take an i5 2500K + HD7970 over a FX-8150 + HD7850. While the FX-8150 offers better multi-threaded performance over the 2500K (not by much which is the same situation as the A6 vs Exynos 4410), the HD7970 offers 2x the performance of the HD7850 (same situation as the A6 GPU vs Mali-400, 2x performance over the Exynos 4410).


That is a very bad comparison, mainly because the 8core has truly no optimized applications.

A better comparison would be SNB i3 (no HT) + 7970 vs C2E w/ 7870 OC'd a small amount. However neither the i3 or the 7970 could be OC'd but the C2E and the 7870 could be OC'd to hell and back.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> *If the situation was reversed and the iPhone 5 had an A9 quad core + vastly inferior GPU, OCN users would be jumping all over it.*
> Both Android and iOS are good options but the fact of the matter is, the A6 SoC offers A15 performance + a vastly more powerful GPU. I'll gladly take an i5 2500K + HD7970 over a FX-8150 + HD7850. While the FX-8150 offers better multi-threaded performance over the 2500K (not by much which is the same situation as the A6 vs Exynos 4410), the HD7970 offers 2x the performance of the HD7850 (same situation as the A6 GPU vs Mali-400, 2x performance over the Exynos 4410).


Doubtful - plenty more things in an iPhone that would not suit the generality that are "OCN users"


----------



## Skylit

And the same people are still going at it.....


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quad-core is small things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me what performance benefit a quad-core has other than in supported apps and for keeping things smooth when multitasking.
> A dual-core benefits everything -- launching apps, opening attachments, saving images, etc., just to name a few small things.


I've kind of told you this to the point of nausea:

So, an app is only dual core/two threaded? Great, so Android moves other processes onto free cores and the app gets the whole two cores to itself.

Quad core > dual core.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quad-core is small things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me what performance benefit a quad-core has other than in supported apps and for keeping things smooth when multitasking.
> A dual-core benefits everything -- launching apps, opening attachments, saving images, etc., just to name a few small things.
> 
> 
> 
> I've kind of told you this to the point of nausea:
> 
> So, an app is only dual core/two threaded? Great, so Android moves other processes onto free cores and the app gets the whole two cores to itself.
> 
> Quad core > dual core.
Click to expand...

ygpm

^this


----------



## bencher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> I've kind of told you this to the point of nausea:
> So, an app is only dual core/two threaded? Great, so Android moves other processes onto free cores and the app gets the whole two cores to itself.
> Quad core > dual core.


This


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> I've kind of told you this to the point of nausea:
> So, an app is only dual core/two threaded? Great, so Android moves other processes onto free cores and the app gets the whole two cores to itself.
> Quad core > dual core.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Yea but yea but Apple custom designed their cores so it's obviously going to be better than regular dual cores thus better than a quad core. This is my belief anyways.

AmIriteSteelbom?


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> Yea but yea but Apple custom designed their cores so it's obviously going to be better than regular dual cores thus better than a quad core. This is my belief anyways.
> 
> AmIriteSteelbom?


lol


----------



## sugiik

i love apple, (because till now they put prestige-feeling on their product)
(i just own some, not all of apple, they're really expensive for me!!)

but the fact on hardware, s3 wins i think (specially processor) if somewhere said s3 beaten by apple, i guess it lacks OS-hardware optimalization only or something...how can dual core beats quad core on near freq, and if on optimally used by os or app ?

(dunno about soundcard, guess apple win here)

i suspect apple still on development/ or holding quadcore for iphone line, maybe 5s gonna use it (and then apple lovers gonna "wow" again.

what best phone out there ?(if there just s3 and iphone5)
i only can say back to wich u like more : android or ios.

and i dont understand why we consumer debate about this, just use phone that suits u,
instead of debating or pushing ur tought to people, i think its best to push ur though trough the product manufacturer for better future product....like as feedback maybE ?

patent fight or anything, leave them fight (in the end patent fight give us no benefit, but nerfed like : lesser choice of gadget, discontinued distribution and support for some kind of product , etc)


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugiik*
> 
> i love apple, (because till now they put prestige-feeling on their product)
> (i just own some, not all of apple, they're really expensive for me!!)
> but the fact on hardware, s3 wins i think (specially processor) if somewhere said s3 beaten by apple, i guess it lacks OS-hardware optimalization only or something...how can dual core beats quad core on near freq, and if on optimally used by os or app ?
> (dunno about soundcard, guess apple win here)
> i suspect apple still on development/ or holding quadcore for iphone line, maybe 5s gonna use it (and then apple lovers gonna "wow" again.
> what best phone out there ?(if there just s3 and iphone5)
> i only can say back to wich u like more : android or ios.
> and i dont understand why we consumer debate about this, just use phone that suits u,
> instead of debating or pushing ur tought to people, i think its best to push ur though trough the product manufacturer for better future product....like as feedback maybE ?
> patent fight or anything, leave them fight (in the end patent fight give us no benefit, but nerfed like : lesser choice of gadget, discontinued distribution and support for some kind of product , etc)


At the end of the day, ignoring a few semantics, pretty spot on man. It is truly an iOS vs. Android debate. The hardware between the two is pretty similar. Super AMOLED HD or Retina IPS? Jellybean or iOS 6?

That's where my mind is made up anyways.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Relevant


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> Relevant


I lol'd.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> I've kind of told you this to the point of nausea:
> 
> So, an app is only dual core/two threaded? Great, so Android moves other processes onto free cores and the app gets the whole two cores to itself.
> 
> Quad core > dual core.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> ygpm
> 
> ^this


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bencher*
> 
> This


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*


And I've also told you this over and over again: you don't get any benefit from anything else. It's supported apps and multitasking but nothing else. The dual-core (with a better architecture) will perform very well in those "supported apps" which can benefit from a quad-core and it'll improve multitasking, but it also speeds up the entire OS. It's far more important that single threaded performance goes up rather than just adding more cores.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> And I've also told you this over and over again: you don't get any benefit from anything else. It's supported apps and multitasking but nothing else. The dual-core (with a better architecture) will perform very well in those "supported apps" which can benefit from a quad-core and it'll improve multitasking, but it also speeds up the entire OS. It's far more important that single threaded performance goes up rather than just adding more cores.


Hey come off it man, I like telling everyone I have a quad-core CPU in my phone so beat it!


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> And I've also told you this over and over again: you don't get any benefit from anything else. It's supported apps and multitasking but nothing else. The dual-core (with a better architecture) will perform very well in those "supported apps" which can benefit from a quad-core and it'll improve multitasking, but it also speeds up the entire OS. It's far more important that single threaded performance goes up rather than just adding more cores.


No, you repeat your opinion and ignore the fact.

Not many apps on the Play Store are singled threaded (anymore) and the one that are won't benefit from a higher clock speed or faster architecture because they're extremely simple. (For instance, DirectoryBind on Android, which is single threaded, but is literally a small interface to choose custom mounts. Not going to get any faster than it already is).

Like I said, time and time over, a dual threaded app will have two cores all to itself and won't have to share resources with system processes. Also, quads use less power performing the same tasks.

You keep stating your opinion and ignoring the facts.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Hey come off it man, I like telling everyone I have a quad-core CPU in my phone so beat it!


Haha, faur enuffs








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> No, you repeat your opinion and ignore the fact.


So do you.
Quote:


> Not many apps on the Play Store are singled threaded (anymore) and the one that are won't benefit from a higher clock speed or faster architecture because they're extremely simple. (For instance, DirectoryBind on Android, which is single threaded, but is literally a small interface to choose custom mounts. Not going to get any faster than it already is).
> 
> Like I said, time and time over, a dual threaded app will have two cores all to itself and won't have to share resources with system processes. Also, quads use less power performing the same tasks.


The majority of apps use one or two cores. And they will benefit from a higher clock speed and a better architecture. I've heard you say over and over again that a quad-core will allow an app to have two cores to itself, which is true, but that dual-core will still run that app better. The quad will only be ahead when all four cores can be utilised at 100% and when you're running enough background tasks to overwhelm a fast dual-core A15.
Quote:


> You keep stating your opinion and ignoring the facts.


So do you lol.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Haha, faur enuffs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you.
> The majority of apps use one or two cores. And they will benefit from a higher clock speed and a better architecture. I've heard you say over and over again that a quad-core will allow an app to have two cores to itself, which is true, but that dual-core will still run that app better. The quad will only be ahead when all four cores can be utilised at 100% and when you're running enough background tasks to overwhelm a fast dual-core A15.
> So do you lol.


In all reality, you keep saying faster cores run faster (duh). But the benefits of quad cores can't be discounted purely by saying a dual core is faster at one specific thing when multiple things are always going on in the system


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> In all reality, you keep saying faster cores run faster (duh). But the benefits of quad cores can't be discounted purely by saying a dual core is faster at one specific thing when multiple things are always going on in the system


Uh no I'm not saying faster cores run faster, I'm saying a faster dual-core processor is more beneficial to a mobile device than a quad-core. The former will improve performance of everything on the smartphone because of the higher IPC but the quad-core will only improve performance in supported apps or when multitasking.

Higher IPC > multiple cores.


----------



## eternal7trance

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> In all reality, you keep saying faster cores run faster (duh). But the benefits of quad cores can't be discounted purely by saying a dual core is faster at one specific thing when multiple things are always going on in the system


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Uh no I'm not saying faster cores run faster, I'm saying a faster dual-core processor is more beneficial to a mobile device than a quad-core. The former will improve performance of everything on the smartphone because of the higher IPC but the quad-core will only improve performance in supported apps or when multitasking.
> Higher IPC > multiple cores.


I can't believe this is still going on. Steelbom is right, just look at AMD and their MOAR CORES philosophy. Apple did the right thing by going with a strong dual core and it shows.


----------



## hajile

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Uh no I'm not saying faster cores run faster, I'm saying a faster dual-core processor is more beneficial to a mobile device than a quad-core. The former will improve performance of everything on the smartphone because of the higher IPC but the quad-core will only improve performance in supported apps or when multitasking.
> Higher IPC > multiple cores.


M-M-M-M-MegaPost

A higher IPC isn't always beneficial, especially in the mobile market. Techniques to give higher IPC are limited and each balloons die size. All major RISC designs since the 80's have been pipelined with one instruction executing each cycle. The only ways to improve this IPC are to execute multiple instructions each cycle, detect when the architecture is busy with a multi-cycle instruction (primarily the 3-cycle multiply or 34-cycle divide or memory load -- numbers are from MIPS), correctly guess which side of a conditional branch is to be taken, or to remove latencies to memory.

Let's look at parallelism. The first kind of parallelism is instruction-level parallelism. This is where non-dependent instructions are executed in parallel. This can be done when the instructions don't depend on each other (ex. in A = b + c + e + f , b + c and e + f can be done in parallel because addition is commutative and they aren't dependent on each other. In contrast A = b + c * d requires that c * d be solved before b plus the answer is solved). This can also be done when instructions are of a different type, but don't affect states or registers (ex. a float and an integer calculation can normally be done together as they use different registers, but in some architectures one may set a flag that the other uses, so the instruction later in the pipeline must wait. Another example is loading from memory while a calculation is done. This is possible if the register being changed isn't being used for calculations that must take place before the register is loaded). The amount of different instructions that can be executed at any given time is the issue width. This is the first IPC/power tradeoff. A wider issue has a chance to crunch more numbers at one time (speeding things up), but once it reaches a certain point, the extra units go mostly unused (while sucking up power). Dual-issue (such as the A9) are efficient because the second is used most of the time. A third unit (like A15 or Krait -- or Athlon) has much less of a usage chance, but still stands to offer 20+% performance improvements if the power usage is acceptable. A fourth unit only adds 5-8% performance and each unit past adds even less for normal workloads (some highly parallel loads can make use of lots of these, but these kinds of loads are typically faster on a GPU anyway). This is why 3 and 4 issue have been confined to desktops until this year (in fact, IIRC, AMD didn't switch from a 3-issue until Bulldozer).

The next kind of attempt is one where an instruction take lots of cycles. While most RISC architectures (save the somewhat CISC ARM) execute all the basic commands in one cycle, some common, but complex operations such as division take much more time (note: it still takes less time and instruction space than manually calculating and executing the appropriate shift, add, sub, etc commands). The idea is that the processor can push something else through (once again, if there are no dependencies) while the long waits are happening. Unlike the previous example where only the next instruction or two need to be looked at (and are still executed in order), this requires that the computer be able to look ahead a bunch of instructions and correctly determine dependencies. Based on this reading ahead, the computer can push through instructions before they are officially supposed to execute (thus out of order execution). This comes at a cost. Looking ahead farther and ensuring complete accuracy (a requirement here) add extensive die area though there can be great performance gains here (greater than 20%). The more stages that can reordered, the more die area is used (once again, there's a tradeoff between increasing the IPC and saving power). Snapdragon went partial out of order and all the high-end ARM processors since then (A9, A15, Krait, etc) have been even more out of order.

Branch prediction is an attempt to guess which branch (direction) a conditional (if-then-else) will take. Imagine that there's a car factory (a somewhat incomplete comparison, but I'll try). In this factory are five stages and each stage has a gate separating it from the next. When every group is done with its stuff, all the gates open and the partial car shifts to the next place for work. There's a lot of work to do at each one of these five steps, but you can't just have a hundred people all work on one car (there isn't room). One solution is to make more stages and have just a few people work at each stage (you can get more people working at one time this way). On the surface, there's no down side, but let's say that you get an order for a car (you're cars are expensive, so production isn't started until the order is received). The man who orders knows the type of car he wants, but isn't sure yet which options and accessories he wants. At this point, the factory can either grind to a halt until he makes up his mind or the factory can make it's best guess (maybe attaching the options that are popular for the group this man appears to fit in). If the guess is correct, then the factory hasn't wasted money paying the workers to wait around. If the guess was wrong, the factory must get rid of the car and start over from however far they had gotten. If there were only 5-stages, the impact of starting over wouldn't be as great as if there were 20-stages. In computing terms, a processor with more (smaller) stages can run at a higher clockspeed (it's related to several physical restrictions such as gate delay). The flip side is that since the processor must guess at every if statement which code to execute (it's better than doing nothing), the choice becomes harder with each stage added (though not quite accurate, viewing it as a factorial! problem might help explain why). Here is another tradeoff between IPC and diesize/power consumption.

I don't feel like talking about memory latencies (most people probably have some idea about this anyway). Suffice it to say that there's a tradeoff between cache size (and corresponding power usage) and cache hits.

A final single-core option is SMT (aka hyperthreading) as it uses existing cores, but this requires multiple threads.

Now to my point:
IPC is just a means to an end. Everything in electronics design is a trade-off. While instruction-level parallelism has it's uses, quad-core devices also have their uses (they offer better performance per mm^2 as they suffer much less from diminishing returns) and they will improve performance provided that there are more than 4 threads available (most phones have dozens of threads). It seems that the final answer here could be the big-little solution where one or two big cores handle the immediate task while smaller cores handle background tasks or are used to lower the power of immediate tasks. This strategy has been implemented in OMAP chips already (2 A9 and 2 M3 for OMAP 4 while 2 A15 and 2 A4 will be used for OMAP 5). Nvidia uses this too. Apple has used yet another method. None of these are inherently better. They are at best better for some specific application (and which is better has yet to be seen).


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hajile*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Uh no I'm not saying faster cores run faster, I'm saying a faster dual-core processor is more beneficial to a mobile device than a quad-core. The former will improve performance of everything on the smartphone because of the higher IPC but the quad-core will only improve performance in supported apps or when multitasking.
> Higher IPC > multiple cores.
> 
> 
> 
> M-M-M-M-MegaPost
> 
> A higher IPC isn't always beneficial, especially in the mobile market. Techniques to give higher IPC are limited and each balloons die size. All major RISC designs since the 80's have been pipelined with one instruction executing each cycle. The only ways to improve this IPC are to execute multiple instructions each cycle, detect when the architecture is busy with a multi-cycle instruction (primarily the 3-cycle multiply or 34-cycle divide or memory load -- numbers are from MIPS), correctly guess which side of a conditional branch is to be taken, or to remove latencies to memory.
> 
> Let's look at parallelism. The first kind of parallelism is instruction-level parallelism. This is where non-dependent instructions are executed in parallel. This can be done when the instructions don't depend on each other (ex. in A = b + c + e + f , b + c and e + f can be done in parallel because addition is commutative and they aren't dependent on each other. In contrast A = b + c * d requires that c * d be solved before b plus the answer is solved). This can also be done when instructions are of a different type, but don't affect states or registers (ex. a float and an integer calculation can normally be done together as they use different registers, but in some architectures one may set a flag that the other uses, so the instruction later in the pipeline must wait. Another example is loading from memory while a calculation is done. This is possible if the register being changed isn't being used for calculations that must take place before the register is loaded). The amount of different instructions that can be executed at any given time is the issue width. This is the first IPC/power tradeoff. A wider issue has a chance to crunch more numbers at one time (speeding things up), but once it reaches a certain point, the extra units go mostly unused (while sucking up power). Dual-issue (such as the A9) are efficient because the second is used most of the time. A third unit (like A15 or Krait -- or Athlon) has much less of a usage chance, but still stands to offer 20+% performance improvements if the power usage is acceptable. A fourth unit only adds 5-8% performance and each unit past adds even less for normal workloads (some highly parallel loads can make use of lots of these, but these kinds of loads are typically faster on a GPU anyway). This is why 3 and 4 issue have been confined to desktops until this year (in fact, IIRC, AMD didn't switch from a 3-issue until Bulldozer).
> 
> The next kind of attempt is one where an instruction take lots of cycles. While most RISC architectures (save the somewhat CISC ARM) execute all the basic commands in one cycle, some common, but complex operations such as division take much more time (note: it still takes less time and instruction space than manually calculating and executing the appropriate shift, add, sub, etc commands). The idea is that the processor can push something else through (once again, if there are no dependencies) while the long waits are happening. Unlike the previous example where only the next instruction or two need to be looked at (and are still executed in order), this requires that the computer be able to look ahead a bunch of instructions and correctly determine dependencies. Based on this reading ahead, the computer can push through instructions before they are officially supposed to execute (thus out of order execution). This comes at a cost. Looking ahead farther and ensuring complete accuracy (a requirement here) add extensive die area though there can be great performance gains here (greater than 20%). The more stages that can reordered, the more die area is used (once again, there's a tradeoff between increasing the IPC and saving power). Snapdragon went partial out of order and all the high-end ARM processors since then (A9, A15, Krait, etc) have been even more out of order.
> 
> Branch prediction is an attempt to guess which branch (direction) a conditional (if-then-else) will take. Imagine that there's a car factory (a somewhat incomplete comparison, but I'll try). In this factory are five stages and each stage has a gate separating it from the next. When every group is done with its stuff, all the gates open and the partial car shifts to the next place for work. There's a lot of work to do at each one of these five steps, but you can't just have a hundred people all work on one car (there isn't room). One solution is to make more stages and have just a few people work at each stage (you can get more people working at one time this way). On the surface, there's no down side, but let's say that you get an order for a car (you're cars are expensive, so production isn't started until the order is received). The man who orders knows the type of car he wants, but isn't sure yet which options and accessories he wants. At this point, the factory can either grind to a halt until he makes up his mind or the factory can make it's best guess (maybe attaching the options that are popular for the group this man appears to fit in). If the guess is correct, then the factory hasn't wasted money paying the workers to wait around. If the guess was wrong, the factory must get rid of the car and start over from however far they had gotten. If there were only 5-stages, the impact of starting over wouldn't be as great as if there were 20-stages. In computing terms, a processor with more (smaller) stages can run at a higher clockspeed (it's related to several physical restrictions such as gate delay). The flip side is that since the processor must guess at every if statement which code to execute (it's better than doing nothing), the choice becomes harder with each stage added (though not quite accurate, viewing it as a factorial! problem might help explain why). Here is another tradeoff between IPC and diesize/power consumption.
> 
> I don't feel like talking about memory latencies (most people probably have some idea about this anyway). Suffice it to say that there's a tradeoff between cache size (and corresponding power usage) and cache hits.
> 
> A final single-core option is SMT (aka hyperthreading) as it uses existing cores, but this requires multiple threads.
> 
> Now to my point:
> IPC is just a means to an end. Everything in electronics design is a trade-off. While instruction-level parallelism has it's uses, quad-core devices also have their uses (they offer better performance per mm^2 as they suffer much less from diminishing returns) and they will improve performance provided that there are more than 4 threads available (most phones have dozens of threads). It seems that the final answer here could be the big-little solution where one or two big cores handle the immediate task while smaller cores handle background tasks or are used to lower the power of immediate tasks. This strategy has been implemented in OMAP chips already (2 A9 and 2 M3 for OMAP 4 while 2 A15 and 2 A4 will be used for OMAP 5). Nvidia uses this too. Apple has used yet another method. None of these are inherently better. They are at best better for some specific application (and which is better has yet to be seen).
Click to expand...

+Rep for the post. Thanks for the info.

I agree with what you say, and I understand now there's only so much that can be improved in terms of IPC, but I still think if given the choice between a dual-core A15 (which has better performance per core) and a quad-core A9 (which has less) that the better choice is the dual-core.

Perhaps you have some insight on this as well, but I'm not convinced that there are that many apps which can support three or four cores. I understand that they can be of use when multitasking -- say when you've got lots background tasks running. But I really have a hard time seeing how it's practical over a dual-core.

To make it simple say we're talking about a 1.5GHz dual-core Cortex A9 and a 1.5GHz quad-core Cortex A9. With the latter you can do more multitasking and you gain additional performance in apps that support it. But is it really going to be fully utilised for multitasking? Are there realistic work loads that people do on their smartphones every day to justify it? I just can't see it. Maybe you want to play a game whilst downloading in the background, but wouldn't the dual-core handle that just fine? That's where I'm coming from. And then you've the issue with supported apps... are there really that many? I don't think there are.

In this case it wouldn't really hurt going to the quad-core -- at best you'll have less battery life if all cores are being fully utilised, and similar battery life if not. You do have more leakage and a bigger die size from a quad-core though.

But switch that dual-core A9 to the A15 and you should see why I think the dual is better. Am I incorrect that the dual will improve apps which only support one or two cores?


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Haha, faur enuffs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you.
> The majority of apps use one or two cores. And they will benefit from a higher clock speed and a better architecture. I've heard you say over and over again that a quad-core will allow an app to have two cores to itself, which is true, but that dual-core will still run that app better. The quad will only be ahead when all four cores can be utilised at 100% and when you're running enough background tasks to overwhelm a fast dual-core A15.
> So do you lol.


No, I state the facts. It's just at this point I've given up and there will be no more mega posts from me putting you right.

The Quad A9 Exynos already out paces the dual A15 based S4 Krait in multithreaded apps.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> No, I state the facts. It's just at this point I've given up and there will be no more mega posts from me putting you right.


As do I. That's why I keep saying there's no benefit to a quad-core outside of intense multitasking and supported apps. The dual-core is better because it benefits so many more apps than the quad-core yet still fairs well in those heavily multithreaded apps and in multitasking, though not as well as the quad-core.
Quote:


> The Quad A9 Exynos already out paces the dual A15 based S4 Krait in multithreaded apps.


I haven't said otherwise.


----------



## Rubers

Multi-threaded = 1 or more threads.

It's pure rubbish to say there is no benefit to quad cores outside of stressing the CPU and that's part of my point. The dual core benefits NO MORE apps than the quad core.


----------



## PhantomTaco

Honestly most of these benchmarks add up to nothing for most consumers. All the phones are incredibly fast. Are you really gonna notice/***** over a difference of how many seconds tops to complete the same operation between all these leading phones? This isn't a PC where you're folding/heavy gaming guys.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hajile*
> 
> M-M-M-M-MegaPost
> A higher IPC isn't always beneficial, especially in the mobile market. Techniques to give higher IPC are limited and each balloons die size. All major RISC designs since the 80's have been pipelined with one instruction executing each cycle. The only ways to improve this IPC are to execute multiple instructions each cycle, detect when the architecture is busy with a multi-cycle instruction (primarily the 3-cycle multiply or 34-cycle divide or memory load -- numbers are from MIPS), correctly guess which side of a conditional branch is to be taken, or to remove latencies to memory.
> 
> --MEGA SNIP!--


Beautiful!


----------



## 3930K

Please tell me how many people here actually shut down apps after finishing using them?


----------



## drufause

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Please tell me how many people here actually shut down apps after finishing using them?


Well on my iPhone I do it all the time now right before it gets stowed back into my pocket. I did not used to heck for a while with first iPhone I did not even know it could be done till I had to make a shameful phone call to AT&T support complaining I could not suddenly post a picture to the Facebook app. The CS from AT&T said sir are you also finding your battery life is not staying charged as long. I was like I must be takins to the cracking oracle of tech support. Yes I responded. She reports well the error your getting and performance your describing indicate you have too many applications open lets close some. Looking dumbly at the screen I say I only have Facebook open. I then get the instructions on how to close things. I probably had every application Mac life had recommended and I downloaded open and churning away : )

Now I make a habit of closing things and am happy 2.5 years running.


----------



## 3930K

For me it has no difference, oddly, on my iCrap 4. It's still a laggy mess though.


----------



## lordikon

Reading this thread is just sad. It's like a boy's club where everyone high-fives each other when someone makes a post, so they can all assure each other that they are correct.

There are arguments for a faster dual-core, or a slower quad-core, and both arguments have fair points. Anyone saying one is absolutely better than the other for a phone, is absolutely wrong. Years ago an E8400 was much better for games than a Q6600, 20-25% in many games. Nowadays PC games are utilizing more threads and I imagine that the Q6600 would win out in many cases.

My point, a faster dual-core may have more tangible benefits when running an application with fewer threads, if the OS isn't busy running many other processes in the background. A quad-core may be faster in the opposite case. What the phone manufacturers need to decide is which scenarios are more likely to occur, and which CPU choice will most benefit the user from not only a performance standpoint, but also in terms of battery life.

Long story short: You're all wrong, and also right, now please shut up and /thread.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Please tell me how many people here actually shut down apps after finishing using them?


Me. Saves on battery to not have stuff like Facebook still running and pushing me notifications in the background.


----------



## 3930K

Interesting.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon*
> 
> Reading this thread is just sad. It's like a boy's club where everyone high-fives each other when someone makes a post, so they can all assure each other that they are correct.
> There are arguments for a faster dual-core, or a slower quad-core, and both arguments have fair points. Anyone saying one is absolutely better than the other for a phone, is absolutely wrong. Years ago an E8400 was much better for games than a Q6600, 20-25% in many games. Nowadays PC games are utilizing more threads and I imagine that the Q6600 would win out in many cases.
> My point, a faster dual-core may have more tangible benefits when running an application with fewer threads, if the OS isn't busy running many other processes in the background. A quad-core may be faster in the opposite case. What the phone manufacturers need to decide is which scenarios are more likely to occur, and which CPU choice will most benefit the user from not only a performance standpoint, but also in terms of battery life.
> Long story short: You're all wrong, and also right, now please shut up and /thread.
> Me. Saves on battery to not have stuff like Facebook still running and pushing me notifications in the background.


Yeah, but those situations where the E8400 was faster was purely games and was never measured by the overall system performance while running those games (you didn't want text messages or phone calls mid-game) and all the rest.


----------



## eternal7trance

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon*
> 
> Reading this thread is just sad. It's like a boy's club where everyone high-fives each other when someone makes a post, so they can all assure each other that they are correct.
> There are arguments for a faster dual-core, or a slower quad-core, and both arguments have fair points. Anyone saying one is absolutely better than the other for a phone, is absolutely wrong. Years ago an E8400 was much better for games than a Q6600, 20-25% in many games. Nowadays PC games are utilizing more threads and I imagine that the Q6600 would win out in many cases.
> My point, a faster dual-core may have more tangible benefits when running an application with fewer threads, if the OS isn't busy running many other processes in the background. A quad-core may be faster in the opposite case. What the phone manufacturers need to decide is which scenarios are more likely to occur, and which CPU choice will most benefit the user from not only a performance standpoint, but also in terms of battery life.
> Long story short: You're all wrong, and also right, now please shut up and /thread.
> Me. Saves on battery to not have stuff like Facebook still running and pushing me notifications in the background.


Aw yea high five


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eternal7trance*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *lordikon*
> 
> Reading this thread is just sad. It's like a boy's club where everyone high-fives each other when someone makes a post, so they can all assure each other that they are correct.
> There are arguments for a faster dual-core, or a slower quad-core, and both arguments have fair points. Anyone saying one is absolutely better than the other for a phone, is absolutely wrong. Years ago an E8400 was much better for games than a Q6600, 20-25% in many games. Nowadays PC games are utilizing more threads and I imagine that the Q6600 would win out in many cases.
> My point, a faster dual-core may have more tangible benefits when running an application with fewer threads, if the OS isn't busy running many other processes in the background. A quad-core may be faster in the opposite case. What the phone manufacturers need to decide is which scenarios are more likely to occur, and which CPU choice will most benefit the user from not only a performance standpoint, but also in terms of battery life.
> Long story short: You're all wrong, and also right, now please shut up and /thread.
> Me. Saves on battery to not have stuff like Facebook still running and pushing me notifications in the background.
> 
> 
> 
> Aw yea high five
Click to expand...

Killin' me.


----------



## eternal7trance

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon*
> 
> Killin' me.


Does anyone actually do high fives anymore? I haven't seen one since high school.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eternal7trance*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *lordikon*
> 
> Killin' me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone actually do high fives anymore? I haven't seen one since high school.
Click to expand...

OCN does plenty of metaphorical ones. Large swaths of fanboys from each side pour into the new threads and group up to prove each group that the other is wrong. It's like being in middle/high school all over again.


----------



## hajile

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon*
> 
> Reading this thread is just sad. It's like a boy's club where everyone high-fives each other when someone makes a post, so they can all assure each other that they are correct.
> There are arguments for a faster dual-core, or a slower quad-core, and both arguments have fair points. Anyone saying one is absolutely better than the other for a phone, is absolutely wrong. Years ago an E8400 was much better for games than a Q6600, 20-25% in many games. Nowadays PC games are utilizing more threads and I imagine that the Q6600 would win out in many cases.
> My point, a faster dual-core may have more tangible benefits when running an application with fewer threads, if the OS isn't busy running many other processes in the background. A quad-core may be faster in the opposite case. What the phone manufacturers need to decide is which scenarios are more likely to occur, and which CPU choice will most benefit the user from not only a performance standpoint, but also in terms of battery life.
> Long story short: You're all wrong, and also right, now please shut up and /thread.
> Me. Saves on battery to not have stuff like Facebook still running and pushing me notifications in the background.


I hope that this isn't referring to my post where I explicitly stated (repeatedly) that IPC and more cores both offer a tradeoff (which implicitly states that both are equal, though not the same, and neither is provably better for all applications).


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hajile*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *lordikon*
> 
> Reading this thread is just sad. It's like a boy's club where everyone high-fives each other when someone makes a post, so they can all assure each other that they are correct.
> There are arguments for a faster dual-core, or a slower quad-core, and both arguments have fair points. Anyone saying one is absolutely better than the other for a phone, is absolutely wrong. Years ago an E8400 was much better for games than a Q6600, 20-25% in many games. Nowadays PC games are utilizing more threads and I imagine that the Q6600 would win out in many cases.
> My point, a faster dual-core may have more tangible benefits when running an application with fewer threads, if the OS isn't busy running many other processes in the background. A quad-core may be faster in the opposite case. What the phone manufacturers need to decide is which scenarios are more likely to occur, and which CPU choice will most benefit the user from not only a performance standpoint, but also in terms of battery life.
> Long story short: You're all wrong, and also right, now please shut up and /thread.
> Me. Saves on battery to not have stuff like Facebook still running and pushing me notifications in the background.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that this isn't referring to my post where I explicitly stated (repeatedly) that IPC and more cores both offer a tradeoff (which implicitly states that both are equal, though not the same, and neither is provably better for all applications).
Click to expand...

Your post was one of the few sane and well thought-out posts in this thread. My post was an appeal to the others to quit bickering about which is better, to let them know they each have advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Multi-threaded = 1 or more threads.
> 
> It's pure rubbish to say there is no benefit to quad cores outside of stressing the CPU and that's part of my point. The dual core benefits NO MORE apps than the quad core.


Huh? I'm pretty sure multithreaded is two or more threads?

That's not what I said. Everything automatically benefits from a better architecture and/or higher clock speed. The quad-core requires supported apps and otherwise only benefits when multitasking.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon*
> 
> Reading this thread is just sad. It's like a boy's club where everyone high-fives each other when someone makes a post, so they can all assure each other that they are correct.
> 
> There are arguments for a faster dual-core, or a slower quad-core, and both arguments have fair points. Anyone saying one is absolutely better than the other for a phone, is absolutely wrong. Years ago an E8400 was much better for games than a Q6600, 20-25% in many games. Nowadays PC games are utilizing more threads and I imagine that the Q6600 would win out in many cases.
> 
> My point, a faster dual-core may have more tangible benefits when running an application with fewer threads, if the OS isn't busy running many other processes in the background. A quad-core may be faster in the opposite case. What the phone manufacturers need to decide is which scenarios are more likely to occur, and which CPU choice will most benefit the user from not only a performance standpoint, but also in terms of battery life.
> 
> Long story short: You're all wrong, and also right, now please shut up and /thread.


We're talking about a smartphone (or tablet) here though, not a computer. The latter is great at multitasking, the former is limited to one full screen app at a time and then background tasks like downloading and whatnot.

As I said earlier the quad-core is limited to improving multitasking (preventing bottlenecks) and supported apps. The faster dual-core will speed up the entire system.
Quote:


> Me. Saves on battery to not have stuff like Facebook still running and pushing me notifications in the background.


Curious, why not just turn off Push Notifications for FaceBook?


----------



## FlawleZ

Honestly we should all take a huge step back and just look and admire the level of computing power we have available that can fit in our pockets. Whether its an IPhone, HTC, or Galaxy S3, they all have tons of power for simply being cell phones. We need to stop arguing at which is better and just be content that we have these available to us. I have the (looked down upon) US Galaxy S3 and I can out bench older mobile Core 2's and mobile A64 X2's. That's impressive for a phone IMO.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Huh? I'm pretty sure multithreaded is two or more threads?
> That's not what I said. Everything automatically benefits from a better architecture and/or higher clock speed. The quad-core requires supported apps and otherwise only benefits when multitasking.
> We're talking about a smartphone (or tablet) here though, not a computer. The latter is great at multitasking, the former is limited to one full screen app at a time and then background tasks like downloading and whatnot.
> As I said earlier the quad-core is limited to improving multitasking (preventing bottlenecks) and supported apps. The faster dual-core will speed up the entire system.
> Curious, why not just turn off Push Notifications for FaceBook?


The quad core speeds up the entire system


----------



## tompsonn

Sometimes parallelism is better than faster clock speeds. Sometimes it is not. It is very subjective and dependent on the application at hand.


----------



## mtbiker033

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> The quad core speeds up the entire system


especially an oc'd one:



I'm surprised an owner of an ip5 hasn't showed us real benchmark numbers.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Sometimes parallelism is better than faster clock speeds. Sometimes it is not. It is very subjective and dependent on the application at hand.


Yes, but the whole system?


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Yes, but the whole system?


No I definitely agree that a multi-core CPU definitely has its benefits for the whole system








And I meant application in a generic way, i.e. not an "app" or "program". Probably should have added that...


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> The quad core speeds up the entire system


You should've known I wasn't referring to multitasking by that









I'm talking about launching apps, web browser performance, and anything and everything else which is limited to using one or two cores. Those things... the quad-core just doesn't help or help much.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Sometimes parallelism is better than faster clock speeds. Sometimes it is not. It is very subjective and dependent on the application at hand.


I agree, on a computer. But I can't see how the benefits of a quad-core outweigh the benefits of a dual-core on a mobile device. The latter will speed up every aspect of the system -- launching apps, web browser performance, saving images, or documents, anything which is limited to one or two cores. The latter just lets you run more apps at once and improves performance in supported apps.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> You should've known I wasn't referring to multitasking by that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about launching apps, web browser performance, and anything and everything else which is limited to using one or two cores. Those things... the quad-core just doesn't help or help much.
> I agree, on a computer. But I can't see how the benefits of a quad-core outweigh the benefits of a dual-core on a mobile device. The latter will speed up every aspect of the system -- launching apps, web browser performance, saving images, or documents, anything which is limited to one or two cores. The latter just lets you run more apps at once and improves performance in supported apps.


Well there's also more headroom for running system tasks as well...Less context switches are great for performance! This is all theoretical of course. Do most people really care? Probably not. Will they notice a difference? Unlikely unless they really push their phone usage.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Well there's also more headroom for running system tasks as well...Less context switches are great for performance! This is all theoretical of course. Do most people really care? Probably not. Will they notice a difference? Unlikely unless they really push their phone usage.


Yes that's true, but so is much higher per core performance. I absolutely believe the difference between a 1.5GHz dual-core A9 and A15 would be noticeable. But with a 1.5GHz quad-core A9 instead of the A15? Not so much. Quad-cores are useful in a computer, not so much a mobile device.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> You should've known I wasn't referring to multitasking by that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about launching apps, web browser performance, and anything and everything else which is limited to using one or two cores. Those things... the quad-core just doesn't help or help much.
> I agree, on a computer. But I can't see how the benefits of a quad-core outweigh the benefits of a dual-core on a mobile device. The latter will speed up every aspect of the system -- launching apps, web browser performance, saving images, or documents, anything which is limited to one or two cores. The latter just lets you run more apps at once and improves performance in supported apps.


Every year, mobile devices become more advanced COMPUTERS. They have been computers for a LONG time. Quad core processors are a big step forward over dual core. They allow developers to make advances in programming akin to what we have seen in desktops. Remember when people said there wasn't any reason to buy a quad core chip because no games would utilize it? Well, where are we today?


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> Every year, mobile devices become more advanced COMPUTERS. They have been computers for a LONG time. Quad core processors are a big step forward over dual core. They allow developers to make advances in programming akin to what we have seen in desktops. Remember when people said there wasn't any reason to buy a quad core chip because no games would utilize it? Well, where are we today?


For sure... a lot of things like async can be helped with multi-core. This is especially important on touch + mobile devices where the UI *must* remain responsive at all times.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> Every year, mobile devices become more advanced COMPUTERS. They have been computers for a LONG time. Quad core processors are a big step forward over dual core. They allow developers to make advances in programming akin to what we have seen in desktops. Remember when people said there wasn't any reason to buy a quad core chip because no games would utilize it? Well, where are we today?


Even a calculator is technically a computer. By "computer" I mean a desktop or laptop running a x86 OS.

A quad-core is a lot more powerful than a dual-core of the same clock speed and architecture, but that doesn't mean that power is going to be utilised and even if it is the benefits of it don't outweigh the benefits of the dual-core with a better architecture imo.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> Every year, mobile devices become more advanced COMPUTERS. They have been computers for a LONG time. Quad core processors are a big step forward over dual core. They allow developers to make advances in programming akin to what we have seen in desktops. Remember when people said there wasn't any reason to buy a quad core chip because no games would utilize it? Well, where are we today?
> 
> 
> 
> Even a calculator is technically a computer. By "computer" I mean a desktop or laptop running a x86 OS.
> 
> A quad-core is a lot more powerful than a dual-core of the same clock speed and architecture, but that doesn't mean that power is going to be utilised and even if it is the benefits of it don't outweigh the benefits of the dual-core with a better architecture imo.
Click to expand...

Yes it does.

In a dual core app, you HAVE got to only be using one core. Why? It needs THE ONE CORE FOR THE OS.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Yes it does.
> In a dual core app, you HAVE got to only be using one core. Why? It needs *THE ONE CORE FOR THE OS.*


Not technically correct, but I see your point


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Yes it does.
> 
> In a dual core app, you HAVE got to only be using one core. Why? It needs THE ONE CORE FOR THE OS.


1. The OS needs very little. Infinity Blade 2 runs on my iPhone 3GS with a 600MHz single-core Cortex A8. I could even play audio in the background (say from TubeBox) and it still should work just fine.

2. You'd be hard pressed to max out a dual-core on a mobile device, particularly an A15 at 1.5GHz. But if you did, that's the time a quad-core would be useful.


----------



## Rubers

IT makes me sad that you're still continuing to spout this crap, man. "The only time a quad core is useful is when..." ergo "quad cores are crap" That's exactly how I'm reading it and I'm not I'm not alone there.


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> IT makes me sad that you're still continuing to spout this crap, man. "The only time a quad core is useful is when..." ergo "quad cores are crap" That's exactly how I'm reading it and I'm not I'm not alone there.


This.

The only reason iOS isn't bogged down by a dual core is because it's essentialy a barebones OS.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> IT makes me sad that you're still continuing to spout this crap, man. "The only time a quad core is useful is when..." ergo "quad cores are crap" That's exactly how I'm reading it and I'm not I'm not alone there.


I'm not "spouting crap".

All I'm saying is the benefits of the dual-core A15 outweigh the benefits of the quad-core A9. It's far more important to have a substantial improvement in single threaded performance than it is to be able to run more apps at once and gain more performance from supported apps.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> This.
> 
> The only reason iOS isn't bogged down by a dual core is because it's essentialy a barebones OS.


It's not barebones at all.


----------



## hajile

Engadget is now reporting that the A6 is actually running at 1.3GHz.

Extrapolating from the performance/clock in integer and float leads to the conclusion that the IPC of the A6 is very similar to A15 or Krait. Chipworks said that the chip appeared to have large amounts of the chip laid out by hand, so it's my guess that Apple's using an A15 that they've modified for better performance/power consumption. The large CPU size also plays into this as hand-designed chips are often larger and the A15 has been criticised by quite a few people in the industry (according to a comment by Anand at Anandtech) for being too big for the performance it offers.

If this is true, while it's not quite as cool as creating a new design (which is hard to believe knowing that such an undertaking is 4-6 years of work), but is definitely worthy of congratulation. Perhaps it will spur other chip designers to spend a little more money to a few engineers to do the same.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> I'm not "spouting crap".
> All I'm saying is the benefits of the dual-core A15 outweigh the benefits of the quad-core A9. It's far more important to have a substantial improvement in single threaded performance than it is to be able to run more apps at once and gain more performance from supported apps.
> It's not barebones at all.


It is the very definition of barebones


----------



## xPwn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> It is the very definition of barebones


True, the OS is very bland (uniform color), unchangeable, and hardly crashes (because nothing besides iOS.exe is running haha)


----------



## kpreet1996

IMO, I would stick to a quad core even though I know a dual core will give me better performance in most apps as of now, but after another coupla months, the quad core would come out to be much better as (i hope) most of the apps would be optimised for quads. So if you are a frequent buyer of the phones, go for a dual core as of now and buy a quad later, but if you wanna keep your phone for another two years or so, then stick to the quad cores


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xPwn*
> 
> True, the OS is very bland (uniform color), unchangeable, and hardly crashes (because nothing besides iOS.exe is running haha)


I don't get how steelbom refuses to grasp that.


----------



## tompsonn

I think we're beating a dead horse here now. Maybe it is time to live and let live and shut up shop as its obvious everyone has their opinion or belief on what hardware configuration is best and often it is based on their own experience.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> It is the very definition of barebones


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> I don't get how steelbom refuses to grasp that.


It's not. What iOS lacks is customisation. But it's not a "barebones" OS at all.

How? Because it's not.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xPwn*
> 
> True, the OS is very bland (uniform color), unchangeable, and hardly crashes (because nothing besides iOS.exe is running haha)


What you listed may be true but that doesn't make it a barebones OS.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> I think we're beating a dead horse here now. Maybe it is time to live and let live and shut up shop as its obvious everyone has their opinion or belief on what hardware configuration is best and often it is based on their own experience.


It probably is.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It's not. What iOS lacks is customisation. But it's not a "barebones" OS at all.
> How? Because it's not.
> What you listed may be true but that doesn't make it a barebones OS.
> It probably is.


Again I think we may all have different opinions on "barebones".
To me, barebones means a simple kernel - no user APIs, completely self contained.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

iOS has the most basic functionality of a modern smartphone OS with ZERO extras. For example, android has all of the categorical functions that iOS has, but the vice versa isn't true... It is therefore less substantial and android. Now apply this argument to all current gen mobile OS platforms. iOS is largely the least substantial thus barebones for a mobile OS.

Simple logic


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Again I think we may all have different opinions on "barebones".
> To me, barebones means a simple kernel - no user APIs, completely self contained.


Yes you're probably right. To me it's the bare essentials.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> iOS has the most basic functionality of a modern smartphone OS with ZERO extras. For example, android has all of the categorical functions that iOS has, but the vice versa isn't true... It is therefore less substantial and android. Now apply this argument to all current gen mobile OS platforms. iOS is largely the least substantial thus barebones for a mobile OS.
> 
> Simple logic


Yeah... no. It's not a barebones OS at all. The word means "bare essentials" or "absolute basics". It's far from that.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Again I think we may all have different opinions on "barebones".
> To me, barebones means a simple kernel - no user APIs, completely self contained.


Things like this are relative. Compared to android and wp8, iOS is barebones with no extras.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> Things like this are relative. Compared to android and wp8, iOS is barebones with no extras.


Like I said, we all have different opinions







And yours is perfectly fine - but others can have theirs too! But yes, Android does pack an additional set of functionality that iOS does not.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Yes you're probably right. To me it's the bare essentials.


When you change something like that, its called spin and means you are arguing just to argue.

Thanks for admitting you agree it's barebones, or 'bare essentials' lol call it what u want. The idea is more important than the specifics anyways.

Like i said already, this is all relative to modern gen top tier smartphone equivalents. It always has been too


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Yes you're probably right. To me it's the bare essentials.
> 
> 
> 
> When you change something like that, its called spin and means you are arguing just to argue.
> 
> Thanks for admitting you agree it's barebones, or 'bare essentials' lol call it what u want. The idea is more important than the specifics anyways.
> 
> Like i said already, this is all relative to modern gen top tier smartphone equivalents. It always has been too
Click to expand...

That's not what I said... I said yes we probably have different opinions and to me it means the bare essentials, which is actually the definition of the word. I'm not spinning anything or arguing just to argue.

I didn't agree. I was talking about the word "barebones" meaning "bare essentials" to me, not iOS. I'll agree that Android has more customisation and more flexible home screen layouts and so on, but iOS is by no means barebones.


----------



## 3930K

iOS is basically a launcher: you press the home button in different ways to lauch different things. Siri and Voice Control are the only apps that come integrated that aren't barebones.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> iOS is basically a launcher: you press the home button in different ways to lauch different things. Siri and Voice Control are the only apps that come integrated that aren't barebones.


Aside from widgets what more can Android do on the home screen?


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Aside from *widgets* what more can Android do on the home screen?


Widgets = infinite ability.
So, home screen can do anything


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dronac*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Zcypot*
> 
> so..... What does all this new speed mean? I got my wife the S3 for her birthday, I dont see anything that phone can dont that my G2 cant.
> She got a major step up though LOL.
> 
> The phones are nice and all, but I just dont see why we need all this speed just yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Not much IMHO. People on OCN just like seeing high hardware scores. My 4S has no noticeable lag or issues with speed and it's benchmarks are far below the S3 or iPhone 5. Either one is probably overkill for all but the most demanding apps. The benefit is that it's more future proofed and you won't be stuck with a laggy phone that has trouble keeping up with the new models in 2 years. By then it will be just average. I wouldn't regret getting the S3 right now one bit.
Click to expand...

My SGS2 is 18 months old and still isn't lagging, even on JB without hardware acceleration, future proofing doesn't really apply with dual cores and 1GB of RAM.


----------



## Rubers

My phone is lagging with JB. I'm unsure if it's the testing kernel or just the software. It may be the RC build of the kernel, to be honest.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> That's not what I said... I said yes we probably have different opinions and to me it means the bare essentials, which is actually the definition of the word. I'm not spinning anything or arguing just to argue.
> I didn't agree. I was talking about the word "barebones" meaning "bare essentials" to me, not iOS. I'll agree that Android has more customisation and more flexible home screen layouts and so on, but iOS is by no means barebones.


Ok, what does iOS have above (see: unique) the 'bare essentials' of a modern top tier mobile OS? Please be specific.


----------



## bencher

Its a dual core 1.3ghz cpu fyi...
http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/26/apple-a6-cpu-13ghz-geekbench-confirmed-overclocking/


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> My phone is lagging with JB. I'm unsure if it's the testing kernel or just the software. It may be the RC build of the kernel, to be honest.


SGSII as well? The hardware accelleration for everything isn't working yet.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Widgets = infinite ability.
> So, home screen can do anything


Yes but it's still just widgets sitting on a background. Alongside empty space or apps. Apple just lacks the widgets.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> Ok, what does iOS have above (see: unique) the 'bare essentials' of a modern top tier mobile OS? Please be specific.


Honestly I don't care to give any thought to it. As far as I'm concerned, iOS, Android and WP are all top tier mobile OSes. They each have their own pros and cons, and none of them are by any means "barebones". They're all capable of doing the same things, more or less. Android does have widgets, but other than that the home screen is pretty much the same as iOS.

You're the one arguing that iOS is barebones, so why don't you be specific about what it lacks in comparison to Android that makes it "barebones"?


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> *Yes but it's still just widgets sitting on a background. Alongside empty space or apps. Apple just lacks the widgets.*
> Honestly I don't care to give any thought to it. As far as I'm concerned, iOS, Android and WP are all top tier mobile OSes. They each have their own pros and cons, and none of them are by any means "barebones". They're all capable of doing the same things, more or less. Android does have widgets, but other than that the home screen is pretty much the same as iOS.
> You're the one arguing that iOS is barebones, so why don't you be specific about what it lacks in comparison to Android that makes it "barebones"?


Calm down it was a joke


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Calm down it was a joke


I am calm ?


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> I am calm ?


YES BUT I AM NOT.

OK no but seriously I don't really know of anything else the home screen does other than widgets... and maybe the thumb pinch to see all of your home screens at once. Or on custom ROMs home screen can do anything really...


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> YES BUT I AM NOT.
> 
> *OK no but seriously I don't really know of anything else the home screen does other than widgets*... and maybe the thumb pinch to see all of your home screens at once. Or on custom ROMs home screen can do anything really...


This is surprising... you seemed so, so calm that I was unable to detect your uncalminess














lol

I know. That's kind of my point.


----------



## un-nefer

Yet in other news, the Samsung Galaxy SIII easily beats the iphone 5 in Geekbench...


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *un-nefer*
> 
> Yet in other news, the Samsung Galaxy SIII easily beats the iphone 5 in Geekbench...


Of course it does, but that doesn't change the fact that the 5 is still winning out in more real world tests such as SunSpider.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Of course it does, but that doesn't change the fact that the 5 is still winning out in more real world tests such as SunSpider.


This is the best I can get on my One X...


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Of course it does, but that doesn't change the fact that the 5 is still winning out in more real world tests such as SunSpider.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the best I can get on my One X...
Click to expand...

That's pretty good. The One X is a dual-core S4 at 1.5GHz isn't it?

The iPhone 5 has scored as low as 915 and it's running a dual-core at 1.3GHz. I'm sure your processor that processor would win out in Geek Bench for the integer and float scores though. It's just software that is pushing the 5's score so low.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> That's pretty good. The One X is a dual-core S4 at 1.5GHz isn't it?
> The iPhone 5 has scored as low as 915 and it's running a dual-core at 1.3GHz. I'm sure your processor that processor would win out in Geek Bench for the integer and float scores though. It's just software that is pushing the 5's score so low.


Nope, quad core Tegra 3 @ 1.5ghz - I have the non-LTE version.
And yep it smokes up in Geekbench lol.

Running SunSpider only uses a single core on my phone so that's moot anyway.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Nope, quad core Tegra 3 @ 1.5ghz - I have the non-LTE version.
> And yep it smokes up in Geekbench lol.
> 
> Running SunSpider only uses a single core on my phone so that's moot anyway.


Ah I see. What browser is that under?


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Ah I see. What browser is that under?


Stock







All other browsers can't get a score that low.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Running SunSpider only uses a single core on my phone so that's moot anyway.


It should use as many cores as possible? The score for the iPhone 4S halved in comparison to the 4, and the only change was a shift from a single-core A8 800MHz to a dual-core A9 800MHz.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Stock
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All other browsers can't get a score that low.


Ah I see. Is this on JB?


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> It should use as many cores as possible? The score for the iPhone 4S halved in comparison to the 4, and the only change was a shift from a single-core A8 800MHz to a dual-core A9 800MHz.
> Ah I see. Is this on JB?


Nope CPU usage is only showing single-core usage.
Yep on JB.

Its the same on my desktop PC using any browser - single core. Not that you can compare that









But I am 99.9999999% sure SunSpider is vastly single-threaded.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Nope CPU usage is only showing single-core usage.
> Yep on JB.


Maybe the stock browser doesn't split the Javascript load across multiple cores?
Quote:


> Its the same on my desktop PC using any browser - single core. Not that you can compare that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I am 99.9999999% sure SunSpider is vastly single-threaded.


It is, but some parts of it can be spread across multiple cores. That's why the 4S has such an improved score over the 4.


----------



## 3930K

I can show you proof when I get home, I don't have a Rainmeter 12cpu meter for nothing you know


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Maybe the stock browser doesn't split the Javascript load across multiple cores?
> It is, but some parts of it can be spread across multiple cores. That's why the 4S has such an improved score over the 4.


No clue what it does LOL.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> I can show you proof when I get home, I don't have a Rainmeter 12cpu meter for nothing you know


Proof of what?


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> I can show you proof when I get home, I don't have a Rainmeter 12cpu meter for nothing you know


Haha. I can link an article from Anandtech saying that some parts of it can utilise more than one core, but ultimately the massive performance improvement from the iPhone 4 to 4S should some solid evidence.

@tompsonn, are you able to post any of the single-threaded info from Geek Bench for your HTC One X? I'd like to compare the results to what the 5 scores.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> No clue what it does LOL.


Haha LOL!


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Haha. I can link an article from Anandtech saying that some parts of it can utilise more than one core, but ultimately the massive performance improvement from the iPhone 4 to 4S should some solid evidence.
> *@tompsonn, are you able to post any of the single-threaded info from Geek Bench for your HTC One X? I'd like to compare the results to what the 5 scores.*
> Haha LOL!


Hang on...
Here: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1098420


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Hang on...
> Here: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1098420


Here's my score: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1098437

They seem to trade blows on single core performance. I'm not sure what a lot of the tests are though. I'm off for the night, cya.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Here's my score: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1098437
> They seem to trade blows on single core performance. I'm not sure what a lot of the tests are though. I'm off for the night, cya.


It hasn't updated yet but my One X bench beats everything here: http://browser.primatelabs.com/android-benchmarks (Android)


----------



## Brutuz

Sunspider using multiple cores would be all down on whether the browsers JS engine uses more than one core.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Sunspider using multiple cores would be all down on whether the browsers JS engine uses more than one core.


No, surely not?


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Sunspider using multiple cores would be all down on whether the browsers JS engine uses more than one core.
> 
> 
> 
> No, surely not?
Click to expand...


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Sunspider using multiple cores would be all down on whether the browsers JS engine uses more than one core.
> 
> 
> 
> No, surely not?
Click to expand...

Well, the Android browser is probably be single threaded and the iOS one multithreaded, hence why Android scores so much lower despite being faster which _does_ make iOS faster for real world applications, that's why I hate crap like GeekBench and 3DMark, if you wanna measure performance then find ways to measure how the real application works, an approximation can only be close and a lot of the time it's no where near, for example 3DMark tends to place *way* too much credence on the CPU and be much more stressful than any game ever is.

I was mainly referring to the (Admittedly, weakly) implied JS is single-threaded only train of thought going along, although I was half asleep when I posted.


----------



## Foolsmasher

Here's my iPhone 5 score on LTE (I don't think your connection matters right?).


----------



## Rubers

I'd love to compare an iOS process manager to an Android 4.0+ one


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> Here's my iPhone 5 score on LTE (I don't think your connection matters right?).










dat horrible, unchangable blue coloured everything.


----------



## Foolsmasher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dat horrible, unchangable blue coloured everything.


I know, I'm not really digging some of these iOS6 color schemes. I might look into jailbreaking and tweaking it if I'm really bored one day.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Well, the Android browser is probably be single threaded and the iOS one multithreaded, hence why Android scores so much lower despite being faster which _does_ make iOS faster for real world applications, that's why I hate crap like GeekBench and 3DMark, if you wanna measure performance then find ways to measure how the real application works, an approximation can only be close and a lot of the time it's no where near, for example 3DMark tends to place *way* too much credence on the CPU and be much more stressful than any game ever is.
> I was mainly referring to the (Admittedly, weakly) implied JS is single-threaded only train of thought going along, although I was half asleep when I posted.


From SunSpider results it would appear as if you're correct. Although in saying that single core on my Tegra 3 chip isn't much slower than whats on the iPhone 5. Couple hundred milliseconds isn't that bad.

Although some of the JS tests are likely to be single threaded as it may not be possible to execute them in parallel.

I do agree but


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Well, the Android browser is probably be single threaded and the iOS one multithreaded, hence why Android scores so much lower despite being faster which _does_ make iOS faster for real world applications, that's why I hate crap like GeekBench and 3DMark, if you wanna measure performance then find ways to measure how the real application works, an approximation can only be close and a lot of the time it's no where near, for example 3DMark tends to place *way* too much credence on the CPU and be much more stressful than any game ever is.
> I was mainly referring to the (Admittedly, weakly) implied JS is single-threaded only train of thought going along, although I was half asleep when I posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From SunSpider results it would appear as if you're correct. Although in saying that single core on my Tegra 3 chip isn't much slower than whats on the iPhone 5. Couple hundred milliseconds isn't that bad.
> 
> Although some of the JS tests are likely to be single threaded as it may not be possible to execute them in parallel.
> 
> I do agree but
Click to expand...

I agree there, I'd probably say that 90% of JS operations aren't easily multithreaded..But then at the same time they'll run on any modern desktop or laptop CPU easily so it's only a matter of time before that filters down to Smartphones.

Most of Androids problem is the software now, but Google's constantly improving it.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> *Well, the Android browser is probably be single threaded and the iOS one multithreaded*, hence why Android scores so much lower despite being faster which _does_ make iOS faster for real world applications, that's why I hate crap like GeekBench and 3DMark, if you wanna measure performance then find ways to measure how the real application works, an approximation can only be close and a lot of the time it's no where near, for example 3DMark tends to place *way* too much credence on the CPU and be much more stressful than any game ever is.
> 
> I was mainly referring to the (Admittedly, weakly) implied JS is single-threaded only train of thought going along, although I was half asleep when I posted.


I don't think so, the score doesn't add up if that's the case. I think both of them are multithreaded, but the tests that actually support multithreading in the SunSpider benchmark are few, or don't take advantage of more than two cores.

I remember Anandtech saying that some tests in the SunSpider benchmark support multithreading, but it's not really a multithreaded benchmark. Software differences are capable of explaining the different scores.

>>>>>

Interestingly enough... the 5 is getting an insane amount of Mflops per second in Linpack. The 4S scores an average of about 80 in the single threaded test, and about 130 in the multithreaded test, the 5 is hitting an average of roughly 300-350 in the single threaded test, and around 560 for the multithreaded test


----------



## 3930K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> *Well, the Android browser is probably be single threaded and the iOS one multithreaded*, hence why Android scores so much lower despite being faster which _does_ make iOS faster for real world applications, that's why I hate crap like GeekBench and 3DMark, if you wanna measure performance then find ways to measure how the real application works, an approximation can only be close and a lot of the time it's no where near, for example 3DMark tends to place *way* too much credence on the CPU and be much more stressful than any game ever is.
> 
> I was mainly referring to the (Admittedly, weakly) implied JS is single-threaded only train of thought going along, although I was half asleep when I posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so, the score doesn't add up if that's the case. I think both of them are multithreaded, but the tests that actually support multithreading in the SunSpider benchmark are few, or don't take advantage of more than two cores.
> 
> I remember Anandtech saying that some tests in the SunSpider benchmark support multithreading, but it's not really a multithreaded benchmark. Software differences are capable of explaining the different scores.
> 
> >>>>>
> 
> Interestingly enough... the 5 is getting an insane amount of Mflops per second in Linpack. The 4S scores an average of about 80 in the single threaded test, and about 130 in the multithreaded test, the 5 is hitting an average of roughly 300-350 in the single threaded test, and around 560 for the multithreaded test
Click to expand...

Linpack optimizations.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3930K*
> 
> Linpack optimizations.


What?


----------



## Rubers

http://electro.fisica.unlp.edu.ar/arq/downloads/Software/Benchmarks/linpack_301/lpk_notes_lin.htm


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> http://electro.fisica.unlp.edu.ar/arq/downloads/Software/Benchmarks/linpack_301/lpk_notes_lin.htm


Thanks for the link, but I don't understand your point. I was just noting that the 5 is scoring very high on Linpack compared to the 4S -- several fold higher.


----------



## snelan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Can't beat AMOLEDs Black levels, but accurate color representation is up for debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I prefer accuracy to over-saturation, personally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> And the damn thing is bright. It's one of the first screens I've used that I can see in broad daylight.


Agreed, but as he said, it's really preference.

I know the One X doesn't over saturate everything like the S3 does, but then again, some people like that deeper look.

Also, a black screen takes more power than a white screen. The backlight is still on, but the pixels are in their closed position, which takes more power than an open position such as when there is a white screen. As I understand it, at least.

EDIT: Wow I just realized I quoted a quote like 4 pages back, and I'm on 50 posts per page...


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Thanks for the link, but I don't understand your point. I was just noting that the 5 is scoring very high on Linpack compared to the 4S -- several fold higher.


And he was stating linpack optimisations which I assume he means ones that have been made on iOS to get these scores.


----------



## grizzlyblunting

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Yes but it's still just widgets sitting on a background. Alongside empty space or apps. Apple just lacks the widgets.
> Honestly I don't care to give any thought to it. As far as I'm concerned, iOS, Android and WP are all top tier mobile OSes. They each have their own pros and cons, and none of them are by any means "barebones". They're all capable of doing the same things, more or less. Android does have widgets, but other than that the home screen is pretty much the same as iOS.
> You're the one arguing that iOS is barebones, so why don't you be specific about what it lacks in comparison to Android that makes it "barebones"?


It lacks any form of customization to start. I mean, really? Are you so in the dark about the other OS's that iOS seems comprehensive to you? Face unlock, multiple typing modes, NFC support, widgets, widgets and more widgets (iOS users will vastly underestimate eidgets), easy tethering, live wallpapers... I mean, C'MON MAN!!!!


----------



## Nocturin

mmmm live wallpapers.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> And he was stating linpack optimisations which I assume he means ones that have been made on iOS to get these scores.


I'm not sure they have. My 4S was scoring similarly to other dual-core smartphones a fair while back, but my point was the substantial difference between the 4S and the 5. It's like a four fold increase, roughly.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grizzlyblunting*
> 
> It lacks any form of customization to start. I mean, really? Are you so in the dark about the other OS's that iOS seems comprehensive to you? Face unlock, multiple typing modes, NFC support, widgets, widgets and more widgets (iOS users will vastly underestimate eidgets), easy tethering, live wallpapers... I mean, C'MON MAN!!!!


I'm not in the dark about anything. And not completely, but for the most part it does lack any kind of customisation. But iOS has plenty of its own benefits.


----------



## snelan

Don't get me wrong, I am Android for life, but a benefit of iOS and the iPhone is that Apple can SOLELY work on optimizing iOS for the iPhone. Where as Android has to be able to be ported to many different phones. I believe this is why Android phones (even with Cyanogen/etc) are just now catching up to the silky smooth feel of the iPhone. So it's not really a "iOS is better" or "iPhone is better", but just a benefit that Apple has since they only make a few phones].


----------

