is DED ok. There was at least 100 words less than his usual opus. There is even less sign of his usual foaming at the mouth rants! If this is a newer leaner and more focused writing style of DED then keep it up!
Are you saying that the Galaxy S6 beats the A9 in other?
According to this data the A9 in the 6S plus also beats the Galaxy S6 edge in multicore and the 6S is basically (4404 vs 4403) the same as the S6 in multicore. And the Galaxy is far outclassed in single core, which is the most important.
Meanwhile, in the real world:
Quote:
The Mobile CPU Core-Count Debate: Analyzing The Real World
...
In the end what we should take away from this analysis is that Android devices can make much better use of multi-threading than initially expected. There's very solid evidence that not only are 4.4 big.LITTLE designs validated, but we also find practical benefits of using 8-core "little" designs over similar single-cluster 4-core SoCs. For the foreseeable future it seems that vendors who rely on ARM's CPU designs will be well served with a continued use of 4.4 b.L designs.
Well, since iOS 9 has basically brought back the words 'lag' and 'delay' into my 6 experience, I might "need" to upgrade to a 6S to "fix" these issues.
In summary: iOS 9 on last year's 6 is not blazing fast. I have taught myself to take an extra split second with button presses; I am often waiting for the phone to catch up to me.
it's your phone not iOS 9, dude. Mine is faster especially Touch ID and browser scrolling. AI page scrolls smoother compared to rubber-band jump before the upgrade when it's in desktop mode.
l really don't know where you get your info from, and wish people were not one sided and talk the truth. l own both phones note 5 and iPhone 6s plus which l pick up yesterday and i love and yes the iPhone wins in single core but in multi core the note 5 gets 5145 and totally destroys the iPhone. if your going to write an article get your facts right.
The iPhone 6+ in that video is a dog and makes the 6S look much improved. I timed the 6S against my 6 and my 6 was somewhere between what is shown in the video and closer to the 6S.
The article does not mention Grand Central Dispatch technology. The article does not mention concurrency programming in Objective C. Surely these are worth a summary mention as both go a long way to actually make use of anything more than a single core in a processor.
Methodology Explained
I should start with a disclaimer that because the tools required for such an analysis rely heavily on the Linux kernel, that this analysis is constrained to the behaviour of Android devices and doesn't necessarily represent the behaviour of devices on other operating systems, in particular Apple's iOS. As such, any comparisons between such SoCs should be limited to purely to theoretical scenarios where a given CPU configuration would be running Android.
Same here. My 5S has noticeable delays with almost every interaction. Hoping that 9.1 fixes it.
I had a similar issue with my iPhone6 after getting iOS 9.0.
I can now confirm that backing the phone up to my iMac, resetting the iPhone fully and then syncing apps and data with the restored phone did the trick. No more stuttering. All is back to normal Apple-like fluidity. Love it!
In the end what we should take away from this analysis is that Android devices can make much better use of multi-threading than initially expected. There's very solid evidence that not only are 4.4 big.LITTLE designs validated, but we also find practical benefits of using 8-core "little" designs over similar single-cluster 4-core SoCs. For the foreseeable future it seems that vendors who rely on ARM's CPU designs will be well served with a continued use of 4.4 b.L designs.
"multi-threading than initially expected"
That is a bit irrelevant, if you talk about real-world. Apart from power consumption consideration, there is also a performance consideration. And the problem with that is that it is FAR easier to write an app that will run on a single core, comparing to a multi-core setup. In fact, ANY task can be executed on a single core-CPU at 100% efficiency (CPU bound task, that is), but it is not always the case that you can execute the same task just as efficiently on 4- or 8- core setup. Some tasks aren't easily parallellizable and sometimes it is simply impossible (even theoretically) to make them parallel. That is why it is always good to have LESS but faster cores, and not more (but weaker) cores. The more cores a CPU has, the less possibly you will have that you get 100% efficiency out of it.
That is why a two-core A9 with a single core (2500) result is MUCH better then 8 core S6 edge that has a single-core result of 1300.
A single threaded app will use 56% of full A9 performance, and 100% - with two threads.
In comparison, Galaxy S6 Edge CPU running a single threaded app will reach only 30% of the theoretical maximum (1300), while two-threaded app will access 50-60% (2200-2600, depending on what kind if interaction happens between cores) of its CPU potential.
So, if you compare apps that at maximum can be paralleled only to 2 threads, then A9 will always be 2 times faster no matter what and one needs to have an app running tasks on 4 threads in order to be able to stay at the same performance as A9.
Well, since iOS 9 has basically brought back the words 'lag' and 'delay' into my 6 experience, I might "need" to upgrade to a 6S to "fix" these issues.
In summary: iOS 9 on last year's 6 is not blazing fast. I have taught myself to take an extra split second with button presses; I am often waiting for the phone to catch up to me.
I actually find the iPad 3's iOS 9 performance to be rather... uh...
let's just say that every time I open safari I have to wait like 30 seconds after hitting the first soft-keyboard key for something to happen.
I wonder if Samsung is still rigging benchmarks by making their phones run faster (and burn more battery) during becnhmark tests than they can actually run for regular users.
They got caught doing that once, and said it was an accident... and then did it again anyway!
I don't think Samsung is cheating any more. The guy responsible got hired away to build Florida ballot machines or to go work for Volkswagon,,, I can;t remember for sure now.
Well, since iOS 9 has basically brought back the words 'lag' and 'delay' into my 6 experience, I might "need" to upgrade to a 6S to "fix" these issues.
In summary: iOS 9 on last year's 6 is not blazing fast. I have taught myself to take an extra split second with button presses; I am often waiting for the phone to catch up to me.
I actually find the iPad 3's iOS 9 performance to be rather... uh...
let's just say that every time I open safari I have to wait like 30 seconds after hitting the first soft-keyboard key for something to happen.
I've got the same version of iPad and noticed iOS9 lagging it down... but but but the new font was all worth it. /s
[SIZE=4]If you blow up that chart in this article you read the fine print where they are comparing the performance of the ARM processors to an old PowerMac G5 at 1.6 GHz. The chart then is saying the A9 is 2.5 times faster than the G5 when running one core, and 4.5 times faster when running both cores.[/SIZE]
[COLOR=blue]Now this begs the question, Why do people still think the ARM processor is sub-par for doing desktop work when the PowerMac G5 was no slouch? [/COLOR]
If you blow up that chart in this article you read the fine print where they are comparing the performance of the ARM processors to an old PowerMac G5 at 1.6 GHz. The chart then is saying the A9 is 2.5 times faster than the G5 when running one core, and 4.5 times faster when running both cores.
Now this begs the question, Why do people still think the ARM processor is sub-par for doing desktop work when the PowerMac G5 was no slouch?
For starters, Geekbench doesn't compare that well across different ISA's. It's also not often used as a reference for x86 processors.
It's not necessary the case that ARM is sub-par, but x86 is still ahead. We'll have to see what the future holds for both.
If you blow up that chart in this article you read the fine print where they are comparing the performance of the ARM processors to an old PowerMac G5 at 1.6 GHz. The chart then is saying the A9 is 2.5 times faster than the G5 when running one core, and 4.5 times faster when running both cores.
Now this begs the question, Why do people still think the ARM processor is sub-par for doing desktop work when the PowerMac G5 was no slouch?
It's very hard to get people to understand why "mobile" CPU's are not supposed to be in "desktop" systems. The point of a mobile CPU is to save power at all costs. A desktop CPU is the reverse, where it's to maximum performance while not burning a hole in the motherboard. Desktop CPU's are between 65watts and 130 watts, and if Intel had it's way back with the Pentium 4 and RAMBUS nonsense, your desktop would consume a full 12A to do what it does currently. The Prescott CPU's had the same TDP as Haswell does, some reaching 115 watts which is data center server territory.
Your mobile phone, 5 watts tops. So if the A9 burned through 20x as much power, it might actually be 20x faster than it currently is. But you'd get less than an hour of life on the battery. Software is optimized for a mobile device (eg a phone or tablet) with the understanding that you probably won't be using the app for more than 5-10 minutes unless you're a bus/train commuter. The iPhone is designed around being an iPod with the capability of doing more. The iPad is designed around being a portable text-book/e-reader with the capability of doing more. Prior to these devices there were PDA's that did exactly the same thing the iPod/iPhone did, and Cameraphones that did that as well, but their common weakness is that they were incapable of being more than the sum of those parts. J2ME was a great example of how to do everything wrong. I played a GB emulator on the first iPAQ, it worked, but was terrible to use that way. I later had two more of those devices, and they were great for being a notepad, but they did absolutely everything else poorly. My Nokia Cell phone of the same vintage of the first iPhone I got more use out of in the last 8 years up until google quit developing apps for it and Microsoft bought Nokia, ending the ability to do anything with it except make phone calls and receive text messages. A 10$ Prepaid phone from 7-11 can do the same then and now.
So, again, a smartphone is not a desktop computer. There are a few practical applications where you can essentially use the smartphone instead of a desktop, but those are generally centered around content consumption with cloud-services (eg gmail, VPN, Web browsing, Netflix) and not around content production. Nobody in their right mind would replace a high end PC with a smartphone. At best you could suggest that the iPhone should completely kill the "netbook/chromebook/sub-1000$ laptop" market because the performance gap between the two is reflective of the price. But hey, some people only need a 10$ hand bag and not a multi-thousand dollar Hermes or Louis Vuitton.
Tech evangelists make the worst sales people and even worse business people. They want the greatest thing without regard for the cost or practicality.
Even if a Samsung whatever matches or bests the latest iPhone on Geek-bench scores it is irrelevant, it is still running a crappy OS in a crappy eco system.
Well, since iOS 9 has basically brought back the words 'lag' and 'delay' into my 6 experience, I might "need" to upgrade to a 6S to "fix" these issues.
In summary: iOS 9 on last year's 6 is not blazing fast. I have taught myself to take an extra split second with button presses; I am often waiting for the phone to catch up to me.
Comments
is DED ok. There was at least 100 words less than his usual opus. There is even less sign of his usual foaming at the mouth rants! If this is a newer leaner and more focused writing style of DED then keep it up!
Same here. My 5S has noticeable delays with almost every interaction. Hoping that 9.1 fixes it.
Are you saying that the Galaxy S6 beats the A9 in other?
According to this data the A9 in the 6S plus also beats the Galaxy S6 edge in multicore and the 6S is basically (4404 vs 4403) the same as the S6 in multicore. And the Galaxy is far outclassed in single core, which is the most important.
Meanwhile, in the real world:
The iPhone 6+ in that video is a dog and makes the 6S look much improved. I timed the 6S against my 6 and my 6 was somewhere between what is shown in the video and closer to the 6S.
How disingenuous of you.
From the same article:
Same here. My 5S has noticeable delays with almost every interaction. Hoping that 9.1 fixes it.
I had a similar issue with my iPhone6 after getting iOS 9.0.
I can now confirm that backing the phone up to my iMac, resetting the iPhone fully and then syncing apps and data with the restored phone did the trick. No more stuttering. All is back to normal Apple-like fluidity. Love it!
In the end what we should take away from this analysis is that Android devices can make much better use of multi-threading than initially expected. There's very solid evidence that not only are 4.4 big.LITTLE designs validated, but we also find practical benefits of using 8-core "little" designs over similar single-cluster 4-core SoCs. For the foreseeable future it seems that vendors who rely on ARM's CPU designs will be well served with a continued use of 4.4 b.L designs.
"multi-threading than initially expected"
That is a bit irrelevant, if you talk about real-world. Apart from power consumption consideration, there is also a performance consideration. And the problem with that is that it is FAR easier to write an app that will run on a single core, comparing to a multi-core setup. In fact, ANY task can be executed on a single core-CPU at 100% efficiency (CPU bound task, that is), but it is not always the case that you can execute the same task just as efficiently on 4- or 8- core setup. Some tasks aren't easily parallellizable and sometimes it is simply impossible (even theoretically) to make them parallel. That is why it is always good to have LESS but faster cores, and not more (but weaker) cores. The more cores a CPU has, the less possibly you will have that you get 100% efficiency out of it.
That is why a two-core A9 with a single core (2500) result is MUCH better then 8 core S6 edge that has a single-core result of 1300.
A single threaded app will use 56% of full A9 performance, and 100% - with two threads.
In comparison, Galaxy S6 Edge CPU running a single threaded app will reach only 30% of the theoretical maximum (1300), while two-threaded app will access 50-60% (2200-2600, depending on what kind if interaction happens between cores) of its CPU potential.
So, if you compare apps that at maximum can be paralleled only to 2 threads, then A9 will always be 2 times faster no matter what and one needs to have an app running tasks on 4 threads in order to be able to stay at the same performance as A9.
How disingenuous of you.
From the same article:
On the contrary, Android is running on the Exynos 7420 which is being used in the comparison.
Clearly each OS and SoC have different priorities.
Look at the green bars, where the phones usually perform, not the blue bars where they rarely run. Re-read the article where this is pointed out.
I actually find the iPad 3's iOS 9 performance to be rather... uh...
let's just say that every time I open safari I have to wait like 30 seconds after hitting the first soft-keyboard key for something to happen.
I don't think Samsung is cheating any more. The guy responsible got hired away to build Florida ballot machines or to go work for Volkswagon,,, I can;t remember for sure now.
I've got the same version of iPad and noticed iOS9 lagging it down... but but but the new font was all worth it. /s
[COLOR=blue]Now this begs the question, Why do people still think the ARM processor is sub-par for doing desktop work when the PowerMac G5 was no slouch? [/COLOR]
If you blow up that chart in this article you read the fine print where they are comparing the performance of the ARM processors to an old PowerMac G5 at 1.6 GHz. The chart then is saying the A9 is 2.5 times faster than the G5 when running one core, and 4.5 times faster when running both cores.
Now this begs the question, Why do people still think the ARM processor is sub-par for doing desktop work when the PowerMac G5 was no slouch?
For starters, Geekbench doesn't compare that well across different ISA's. It's also not often used as a reference for x86 processors.
It's not necessary the case that ARM is sub-par, but x86 is still ahead. We'll have to see what the future holds for both.
It's very hard to get people to understand why "mobile" CPU's are not supposed to be in "desktop" systems. The point of a mobile CPU is to save power at all costs. A desktop CPU is the reverse, where it's to maximum performance while not burning a hole in the motherboard. Desktop CPU's are between 65watts and 130 watts, and if Intel had it's way back with the Pentium 4 and RAMBUS nonsense, your desktop would consume a full 12A to do what it does currently. The Prescott CPU's had the same TDP as Haswell does, some reaching 115 watts which is data center server territory.
Your mobile phone, 5 watts tops. So if the A9 burned through 20x as much power, it might actually be 20x faster than it currently is. But you'd get less than an hour of life on the battery. Software is optimized for a mobile device (eg a phone or tablet) with the understanding that you probably won't be using the app for more than 5-10 minutes unless you're a bus/train commuter. The iPhone is designed around being an iPod with the capability of doing more. The iPad is designed around being a portable text-book/e-reader with the capability of doing more. Prior to these devices there were PDA's that did exactly the same thing the iPod/iPhone did, and Cameraphones that did that as well, but their common weakness is that they were incapable of being more than the sum of those parts. J2ME was a great example of how to do everything wrong. I played a GB emulator on the first iPAQ, it worked, but was terrible to use that way. I later had two more of those devices, and they were great for being a notepad, but they did absolutely everything else poorly. My Nokia Cell phone of the same vintage of the first iPhone I got more use out of in the last 8 years up until google quit developing apps for it and Microsoft bought Nokia, ending the ability to do anything with it except make phone calls and receive text messages. A 10$ Prepaid phone from 7-11 can do the same then and now.
So, again, a smartphone is not a desktop computer. There are a few practical applications where you can essentially use the smartphone instead of a desktop, but those are generally centered around content consumption with cloud-services (eg gmail, VPN, Web browsing, Netflix) and not around content production. Nobody in their right mind would replace a high end PC with a smartphone. At best you could suggest that the iPhone should completely kill the "netbook/chromebook/sub-1000$ laptop" market because the performance gap between the two is reflective of the price. But hey, some people only need a 10$ hand bag and not a multi-thousand dollar Hermes or Louis Vuitton.
Tech evangelists make the worst sales people and even worse business people. They want the greatest thing without regard for the cost or practicality.
Well, since iOS 9 has basically brought back the words 'lag' and 'delay' into my 6 experience, I might "need" to upgrade to a 6S to "fix" these issues.
In summary: iOS 9 on last year's 6 is not blazing fast. I have taught myself to take an extra split second with button presses; I am often waiting for the phone to catch up to me.
Suck to be you. This is not the case for my 6.