People who read that article are coming to the wrong conclusions. Any modern OS worth its salt is able to distribute multiple threads across multiple cores. I'm not sure why this is a surprise to anyone that Android would send threads to all 8 cores in an Exynos BIG/little processor. Of COURSE it would do that.
When people talk about not being able to take advantage of so many cores they're not talking about each core having threads to execute. It's whether each of those threads is actually performing an equal amount of work. So even if your App has multiple threads (which would be true for any good developer), you can bet that they vary widely in the amount of work they do.
People who read this article are confusing the ability of the OS to distribute threads across multiple cores with the ability of an App (and the developer) to code an App so that it's fully utilizing those cores.
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.
I can't like this enough and in fact even typing this on my iPad, but OSX is literally built to handle anything that comes at it where as iOS just isn't. I even have the iPad Air 2 128 GB but still put it away in favor of my Mac when I want to get things done.
What about the ability to maintain clock speed over a length of time under load? I remember to have seen charts (the brought actually showed by Apple drug a keynote) depicting android devices loosing significantly in speed as they have to quickly clockdown due to heat generated while the design of iOS devices was keeping up high clock speeds. I think that was over twenty minutes of time, or so. I don't recall to source. But is be curious to learn how this is today when taking the 6 or 6s and compare it to some android "high end" devices.
Same here. My 5S has noticeable delays with almost every interaction. Hoping that 9.1 fixes it.
Mine too, a little disappointed by that. I thought iOS 9 was more about efficiency of operation than features this time around...well that is what I was lead to believe anyway. And considering the 5S uses a 64 bit chip too, I expecting a slight increase in performance not a reduction.
Going forward until I replace (no rush) my 5S, I'm going to wait on upgrading iOS versions (I usually upgrade straight away) until I see how much they effect performance, as I usually don't make much use of new features unless they're genuinely useful for me.
But even then probably iOS 10 on the iPhone 7 next year will cause a slight reduction in overall performance on people's 6S that they purchase this year - ad infinitum...
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.
Performance wise the A9 is more than capable of running OS X, it runs circles around my 3 GHz core two duo iMac and that system is still without much lag (it will even be extremely fast when I install an ssd drive).
The point is that a certain level of performance is enough to run most tasks fluently and the A processors past that mark a while ago.
It will be extremely cheap to install A processors in the MacBook line because the Intel processors cost 10 times as much and burn 5 times as much energy (whoops, a week battery life...).
If Apple doesn't do that for some reason, a competitor will and eventually everyone will because the tablet and desktop form factor will be identical.
Wait, so silicon technologies leapfrog each other through time?
Isn't the bigger picture that this is a chip developed by Apple rather than Apple using third party parts? If Apple continue to improve their in-house expertise, which is clearly world beating, the future just gets better for AAPL. The side story is with the overwhelming dominance of Apple products in the profitable parts of the market it spells trouble for those other manufacturers used by the Apple copycat makers.
Competition is good. The Samsung Exynos 7420 leapfrogged the A8 and now the A9 has leapfrogged it.
There is more to the story though. Apple dominate the profitable market and use their own chips more and more (Intel?). If Apple can reduce use of parts and even the fabrication from the like's of, and especially, Samsung, it's going to be about profits as much as who wins leapfrog. The cost of leapfrogging ahead is probably brutal too so the game cannot go on for ever if Apple continue to suck the profits out of the atmosphere for the other chip makers.
Actually, iPhone 6s is pretty fast. When it comes to CPU, it's just a bit slower than MacBook but when it comes to GPU, iPhone wins which is shocking. Imagine what could happen with iPad Pro!?!
The single core CPU performance of the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus is roughly comparable to that of the 12" MacBook Retina. The multi-core CPU performance is 'knocking on the door.'
GPU SPEED MATCHES OR EXCEEDS 13" APPLE LAPTOPS
The iPhone 6s and 6s Plus blow away all the dual-core laptops in the Manhattan OpenGL 3D animation. And they beat all but the 13" MacBook Pro in the T-Rex 3D animation.
THE IPAD PRO'S PERFORMANCE MAY ROCK THE 'LIGHT LAPTOP' WORLD
If the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus impress you, just think what the iPad Pro with the A9X will be able to do in both CPU and GPU benchmarks!
There is more to the story though. Apple dominate the profitable market and use their own chips more and more (Intel?). If Apple can reduce use of parts and even the fabrication from the like's of, and especially, Samsung, it's going to be about profits as much as who wins leapfrog. The cost of leapfrogging ahead is probably brutal too so the game cannot go on for ever if Apple continue to suck the profits out of the atmosphere for the other chip makers.
Apple better not be too successful at destroying the competition, otherwise you will have what's known as a monopoly and they will get broken up, or more likely, will be ordered to FRAND iOS. (I'm mostly joking.)
Apple has not got where it is by physically making stuff. I really doubt they are going to go into the fab business and I can't see Apple dropping Samsung as a manufacturer. They are just too good at it. In another thread the costs of going into the car business were raised and of particular note from that was that making cars is dirt cheap in comparison with making high end silicon devices. A few hundred million was bandied about, which is in stark contrast to the 7.6 Billion Samsung have spent on just their fab in Austin Texas. So if Apple want to get into the fab business it's going to cost them more than that due to the additional costs of process license fees where others hold all the patents.
I noticed that at least one other Chinese Android handset is now using Exynos processors so Samsung is earning income from Apple, these others and their own smartphone division. Samsung is still making money. Personally I find this claims that Apple is taking 93 % of smartphone profits to not be believable. I don't see how the plethora of Android manufacturers other than Samsung could keep going year after year, with new ones like One + springing up almost monthly if not one of them is making a cent in profit. I think the analysts have miscalculated somewhere. You are absolutely right, the game can not go on forever if they are all losing money.
Just got my 6s Plus yesterday but like an idiot I forgot to order a case and screen protector so I won't dare activate it until my case I just ordered on Amazon prime arrives on Monday. It would be my luck to scratch or drop it just because I don't have a case yet. But I have played a little with it on Wifi and it seems blazing fast to me so far. I'm very impressed. Not planning to do much with it yet until I am ready to completely transfer my old backup and activate it. I went with the charcoal since my last iPhone was gold. To be honest most people don't even see the actual color of the back inside a case and I think I prefer the black around the display vs. the white which was my main rationale.
Aside from the CPU benchmarks which are very impressive I am also impressed with all the new LTE channels it can pick up which will especially help Sprint customers in Spark areas like me. I can't test mine yet since it isn't activated but this screenshot of a 6s is impressive. Thank God for unlimited data because I will be using a ton of it.
There is more to the story though. Apple dominate the profitable market and use their own chips more and more (Intel?). If Apple can reduce use of parts and even the fabrication from the like's of, and especially, Samsung, it's going to be about profits as much as who wins leapfrog. The cost of leapfrogging ahead is probably brutal too so the game cannot go on for ever if Apple continue to suck the profits out of the atmosphere for the other chip makers.
Also, I don't even agree that Samsung "leepfrogged" Apple, their chip is a power hungry throttling mess. Basically, crapping out the whole user experience to get a fast chip (just like they do by providing a 500 PPI screen).
Also, I don't even agree that Samsung "leepfrogged" Apple, their chip is a power hungry throttling mess. Basically, crapping out the whole user experience to get a fast chip (just like they do by providing a 500 PPI screen).
I's agree but if people want to believe it my point was that's not even the big picture.
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.
My iPhone 6 runs significantly faster on iOS 9 than iOS 8. In every operation. At least on how I use it.
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!
I didn't even notice DED wrote it until you mentioned it. Previously you know DED wrote the article just from the article itself. A more refined DED. I like 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.
Notice i said S6 - Not the edge.Why did AI pick out the edge? 4,7" iPhone should go v S6 normal, Then Plus v Note/S6 edge No point in AI picking stats to help the deadline. I love Apple just as much as you all, But S6 normal size one (5.1") beats the iPhone 6s in Multi score -
Comments
This.
I guess that guy didn't actually look at the graph or scores.
He just believed all the FUD from his Android friends.
Disingenous indeed.
People who read that article are coming to the wrong conclusions. Any modern OS worth its salt is able to distribute multiple threads across multiple cores. I'm not sure why this is a surprise to anyone that Android would send threads to all 8 cores in an Exynos BIG/little processor. Of COURSE it would do that.
When people talk about not being able to take advantage of so many cores they're not talking about each core having threads to execute. It's whether each of those threads is actually performing an equal amount of work. So even if your App has multiple threads (which would be true for any good developer), you can bet that they vary widely in the amount of work they do.
People who read this article are confusing the ability of the OS to distribute threads across multiple cores with the ability of an App (and the developer) to code an App so that it's fully utilizing those cores.
I can't like this enough and in fact even typing this on my iPad, but OSX is literally built to handle anything that comes at it where as iOS just isn't. I even have the iPad Air 2 128 GB but still put it away in favor of my Mac when I want to get things done.
Going forward until I replace (no rush) my 5S, I'm going to wait on upgrading iOS versions (I usually upgrade straight away) until I see how much they effect performance, as I usually don't make much use of new features unless they're genuinely useful for me.
But even then probably iOS 10 on the iPhone 7 next year will cause a slight reduction in overall performance on people's 6S that they purchase this year - ad infinitum...
Performance wise the A9 is more than capable of running OS X, it runs circles around my 3 GHz core two duo iMac and that system is still without much lag (it will even be extremely fast when I install an ssd drive).
The point is that a certain level of performance is enough to run most tasks fluently and the A processors past that mark a while ago.
It will be extremely cheap to install A processors in the MacBook line because the Intel processors cost 10 times as much and burn 5 times as much energy (whoops, a week battery life...).
If Apple doesn't do that for some reason, a competitor will and eventually everyone will because the tablet and desktop form factor will be identical.
Isn't the bigger picture that this is a chip developed by Apple rather than Apple using third party parts? If Apple continue to improve their in-house expertise, which is clearly world beating, the future just gets better for AAPL. The side story is with the overwhelming dominance of Apple products in the profitable parts of the market it spells trouble for those other manufacturers used by the Apple copycat makers.
Competition is good. The Samsung Exynos 7420 leapfrogged the A8 and now the A9 has leapfrogged it.
There is more to the story though. Apple dominate the profitable market and use their own chips more and more (Intel?). If Apple can reduce use of parts and even the fabrication from the like's of, and especially, Samsung, it's going to be about profits as much as who wins leapfrog. The cost of leapfrogging ahead is probably brutal too so the game cannot go on for ever if Apple continue to suck the profits out of the atmosphere for the other chip makers.
Actually, iPhone 6s is pretty fast. When it comes to CPU, it's just a bit slower than MacBook but when it comes to GPU, iPhone wins which is shocking. Imagine what could happen with iPad Pro!?!
From http://barefeats.com/ipadpro1.html
CPU SPEED IS KNOCKING ON THE DOOR
The single core CPU performance of the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus is roughly comparable to that of the 12" MacBook Retina. The multi-core CPU performance is 'knocking on the door.'
GPU SPEED MATCHES OR EXCEEDS 13" APPLE LAPTOPS
The iPhone 6s and 6s Plus blow away all the dual-core laptops in the Manhattan OpenGL 3D animation. And they beat all but the 13" MacBook Pro in the T-Rex 3D animation.
THE IPAD PRO'S PERFORMANCE MAY ROCK THE 'LIGHT LAPTOP' WORLD
If the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus impress you, just think what the iPad Pro with the A9X will be able to do in both CPU and GPU benchmarks!
There is more to the story though. Apple dominate the profitable market and use their own chips more and more (Intel?). If Apple can reduce use of parts and even the fabrication from the like's of, and especially, Samsung, it's going to be about profits as much as who wins leapfrog. The cost of leapfrogging ahead is probably brutal too so the game cannot go on for ever if Apple continue to suck the profits out of the atmosphere for the other chip makers.
Apple better not be too successful at destroying the competition, otherwise you will have what's known as a monopoly and they will get broken up, or more likely, will be ordered to FRAND iOS. (I'm mostly joking.)
Apple has not got where it is by physically making stuff. I really doubt they are going to go into the fab business and I can't see Apple dropping Samsung as a manufacturer. They are just too good at it. In another thread the costs of going into the car business were raised and of particular note from that was that making cars is dirt cheap in comparison with making high end silicon devices. A few hundred million was bandied about, which is in stark contrast to the 7.6 Billion Samsung have spent on just their fab in Austin Texas. So if Apple want to get into the fab business it's going to cost them more than that due to the additional costs of process license fees where others hold all the patents.
I noticed that at least one other Chinese Android handset is now using Exynos processors so Samsung is earning income from Apple, these others and their own smartphone division. Samsung is still making money. Personally I find this claims that Apple is taking 93 % of smartphone profits to not be believable. I don't see how the plethora of Android manufacturers other than Samsung could keep going year after year, with new ones like One + springing up almost monthly if not one of them is making a cent in profit. I think the analysts have miscalculated somewhere. You are absolutely right, the game can not go on forever if they are all losing money.
Just got my 6s Plus yesterday but like an idiot I forgot to order a case and screen protector so I won't dare activate it until my case I just ordered on Amazon prime arrives on Monday. It would be my luck to scratch or drop it just because I don't have a case yet. But I have played a little with it on Wifi and it seems blazing fast to me so far. I'm very impressed. Not planning to do much with it yet until I am ready to completely transfer my old backup and activate it. I went with the charcoal since my last iPhone was gold. To be honest most people don't even see the actual color of the back inside a case and I think I prefer the black around the display vs. the white which was my main rationale.
Aside from the CPU benchmarks which are very impressive I am also impressed with all the new LTE channels it can pick up which will especially help Sprint customers in Spark areas like me. I can't test mine yet since it isn't activated but this screenshot of a 6s is impressive. Thank God for unlimited data because I will be using a ton of it.
Hmmmm...... I wonder why the Note 5 wasn't included in the benchmark results.
There is more to the story though. Apple dominate the profitable market and use their own chips more and more (Intel?). If Apple can reduce use of parts and even the fabrication from the like's of, and especially, Samsung, it's going to be about profits as much as who wins leapfrog. The cost of leapfrogging ahead is probably brutal too so the game cannot go on for ever if Apple continue to suck the profits out of the atmosphere for the other chip makers.
Also, I don't even agree that Samsung "leepfrogged" Apple, their chip is a power hungry throttling mess. Basically, crapping out the whole user experience to get a fast chip (just like they do by providing a 500 PPI screen).
I's agree but if people want to believe it my point was that's not even the big picture.
My iPhone 6 runs significantly faster on iOS 9 than iOS 8. In every operation. At least on how I use it.
I didn't even notice DED wrote it until you mentioned it. Previously you know DED wrote the article just from the article itself. A more refined DED. I like 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.
Notice i said S6 - Not the edge.Why did AI pick out the edge? 4,7" iPhone should go v S6 normal, Then Plus v Note/S6 edge No point in AI picking stats to help the deadline. I love Apple just as much as you all, But S6 normal size one (5.1") beats the iPhone 6s in Multi score -
The proof is in the pudding.