Sucks for Samsung to have 4K resolution in a handheld device that no human eye can resolve; i.e., it's a bad design decision to drive that many pixels, but it was done for marketing to people who purchase based on a list of specs.
I actually wonder if higher dpi will make it a lot better when you use those cardbox VR things
Aren't the A11's scores better because the iPhones are running at a lower resolution, or am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing a lot of things. There are benchmarks which are NOT dependent on screen resolution. Even in ALL of those benchmarks, A11 is a champion. Guess which SoC is second in most of those benchmarks? No prices, if you guessed A10 from Apple.
Then why does the iPhone 8 have a better overall score than the 8s, which in turn scores better than the X? Obviously resolution is playing a factor here, so the test is not a good Apples to Apples comparison. The test should pick a baseline resolution and measure all devices based on it. For example, you could say a laptop with an Nvidia 1060 "obliterates" the laptop with Nvidi 1080 at 4K because the "performance" is so much better, but that wound be entirely inaccurate.
Because you are looking at a benchmark score, which IS dependent on resolution. And there is no 8s, I assume you meant 8+. Let me try to understand your original question - Aren't the A11's scores better because the iPhones are running at a lower resolution, or am I missing something? By this, you seem to be implying A11 is NOT as fast as SD 835/8895, but because it is powering lower resolution display, its benchmark scores are higher. For this, my response was - Don't look at the benchmarks which are dependent on resolution. Look at the benchmarks which are not dependent on resolution. First, you have to clarify what you implied in your original post. Then we can continue the discussion.
Kindly point me in the direction of the benchmark scores that aren't dependent on resolution. On both Appleinsider benchmarks and the Geekbench link, I only see aggregated scores and no specific benchmarks.
Don’t feed the troll (is it me or they are a lot more of them recently)?
Apple designed its chip to work with the optimum results, cutting all the fat layers. That’s why on paper iPhone appears behind Androids but in real world use, it is a lot quicker especially when doing the common things like opening large files, playing HD videos, playing graphics-intensive games, multitasking, etc. Apple is the master of efficiency: do more with less. And this concept seems to be alien for Androids community who think they must do more with even more - creating a circle of burden between power and performance which eventually resulting with even less performance. They mock Apple without understanding that Apple designed their hardware and software to work together perfectly.
Yes, the trolls, android warriors, googlers, etc, all come out after Apple events. They’re frightened and feel a compulsion to remind Apple fans why their knockoff brands do it better, did it first, etc... It’s childish. Poor creatures.
One might say that the A11 is needed for face recognition, but I fail to see the advantage of face recognition versus TouchID. I am pretty sure ApplyPay with face recognition will be more cumbersome ans slower to use than the current ApplePay. The fact that I have to turn the phone to my face is inherently slower than putting my finger on the home button.
Wrong. If you can see the screen to confirm you’re using Apple Pay (as you must), then Face ID can see you. stop spreading your misinformed FUD.
Sucks for Samsung to have 4K resolution in a handheld device that no human eye can resolve; i.e., it's a bad design decision to drive that many pixels, but it was done for marketing to people who purchase based on a list of specs.
Samsung's primary marketing angle has always been the screen. That's all they've got, really.
Intel has to be afraid by now: it would not be outlandish to think Apple is going to use its own silicon for its own server farms (iCloud, Siri), which would call into question Intels future.
Small error in the table: the iPhone SE has the same 2GB RAM the iPhone 6S has.
Intel has to be afraid by now: it would not be outlandish to think Apple is going to use its own silicon for its own server farms (iCloud, Siri), which would call into question Intels future.
Small error in the table: the iPhone SE has the same 2GB RAM the iPhone 6S has.
How would they manufacture enough for that? They can’t even keep up with iPhone demand.
Maybe Apple has been working on a MacBookAir with A12 ...
I really doubt an ARM based Mac will happen in any near future. The problem isn't the power - the problem is software. The Mac is used to *create* software for many platforms - not just iOS and Mac. I use it to create Java-based applications that run on all sorts of platforms. Others use Macs to write Python- C, C++ based applications. None of these languages/tools will be available (at least initially) on an ARM-based Mac. And then there are of course the commercial third-party applications - x86 based Macs already occupy a pretty small market compared to Windows-based machines. An ARM-based Mac would occupy an even smaller niche - how many 3rd-party vendors would bother writing/selling applications for it?
I guess if an ARM-based Mac could run iOS apps and help the open source community port development tools (e.g. JVM, Apache stuff, etc.), there's a chance - but it'll take a lot of time.
Aren't the A11's scores better because the iPhones are running at a lower resolution, or am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing a lot of things. There are benchmarks which are NOT dependent on screen resolution. Even in ALL of those benchmarks, A11 is a champion. Guess which SoC is second in most of those benchmarks? No prices, if you guessed A10 from Apple.
Then why does the iPhone 8 have a better overall score than the 8s, which in turn scores better than the X? Obviously resolution is playing a factor here, so the test is not a good Apples to Apples comparison. The test should pick a baseline resolution and measure all devices based on it. For example, you could say a laptop with an Nvidia 1060 "obliterates" the laptop with Nvidi 1080 at 4K because the "performance" is so much better, but that wound be entirely inaccurate.
Because you are looking at a benchmark score, which IS dependent on resolution. And there is no 8s, I assume you meant 8+. Let me try to understand your original question - Aren't the A11's scores better because the iPhones are running at a lower resolution, or am I missing something? By this, you seem to be implying A11 is NOT as fast as SD 835/8895, but because it is powering lower resolution display, its benchmark scores are higher. For this, my response was - Don't look at the benchmarks which are dependent on resolution. Look at the benchmarks which are not dependent on resolution. First, you have to clarify what you implied in your original post. Then we can continue the discussion.
Kindly point me in the direction of the benchmark scores that aren't dependent on resolution. On both Appleinsider benchmarks and the Geekbench link, I only see aggregated scores and no specific benchmarks.
Please? Geekbench is a CPU only benchmark. Resolution is irrelevant.
For all the popular GPU benchmarks they run in both an onscreen and offscreen mode. Obviously onscreen results depend on resolution, but offscreen results can be compared across devices since they are all run at 1920x1080.
People are just looking for excuses to minimize the results of the A11, because they can't stand that Apple designs processor that are far more advanced than anything Samsung or Qualcomm have.
Aren't the A11's scores better because the iPhones are running at a lower resolution, or am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing a lot of things. There are benchmarks which are NOT dependent on screen resolution. Even in ALL of those benchmarks, A11 is a champion. Guess which SoC is second in most of those benchmarks? No prices, if you guessed A10 from Apple.
Then why does the iPhone 8 have a better overall score than the 8s, which in turn scores better than the X? Obviously resolution is playing a factor here, so the test is not a good Apples to Apples comparison. The test should pick a baseline resolution and measure all devices based on it. For example, you could say a laptop with an Nvidia 1060 "obliterates" the laptop with Nvidi 1080 at 4K because the "performance" is so much better, but that wound be entirely inaccurate.
Because you are looking at a benchmark score, which IS dependent on resolution. And there is no 8s, I assume you meant 8+. Let me try to understand your original question - Aren't the A11's scores better because the iPhones are running at a lower resolution, or am I missing something? By this, you seem to be implying A11 is NOT as fast as SD 835/8895, but because it is powering lower resolution display, its benchmark scores are higher. For this, my response was - Don't look at the benchmarks which are dependent on resolution. Look at the benchmarks which are not dependent on resolution. First, you have to clarify what you implied in your original post. Then we can continue the discussion.
Kindly point me in the direction of the benchmark scores that aren't dependent on resolution. On both Appleinsider benchmarks and the Geekbench link, I only see aggregated scores and no specific benchmarks.
Go away.
Use Google to search if you want more info on this. You've heard of them right?
Sucks for Samsung to have 4K resolution in a handheld device that no human eye can resolve; i.e., it's a bad design decision to drive that many pixels, but it was done for marketing to people who purchase based on a list of specs.
I actually wonder if higher dpi will make it a lot better when you use those cardbox VR things
Trolls used to make fun of Macs because they lacked the GPU to properly do VR, which requires a LOT of GPU horsepower (though Apple has rectified this with their new iMac Pro).
Then they turn around and claim you need a 4K screen to do VR properly because you need the high resolution for an immersive experience.
Do any Samsung (or other "VR capable" phones) have a GPU with the equivalent power of something like a GTX 1080? Because that's the amount of power you need to drive a VR 4K display properly at a high enough frame rate for VR.
While Apple's SoCs are objectively better than SoCs used in Android flagships for last 2+ years (from A9 onwards), Pixels and other near-stock Android phones (from HTC/Sony/Motorola) do NOT exhibit the same performance issues observed in Samsung's phones. They run perfectly fine with the same high resolution QHD+.
This is incorrect. Pixel is one of the worst performing Android flagship phones.
Now, it may be accurate to say it had less junkware and bloat, but Android itself is not an optimized OS in the way Apple's iOS is. From buttery animations to an architecture that lets you rapidly launch, freeze and relaunch background apps, iOS is vastly superior to Android in everyday tasks as well as in performance apps and games.
Despite lots of love from tech media enthusiasts, Pixel is almost always the lowest rated flagship because it uses a middling SoC and limited RAM (compared to what Android needs to compete with iOS) in an attempt to reach an attractive price point.
if Samsung is second rate, Google's vanity projects are solidly third rate. Samsung at least makes money on its hardware sales. Pixel can't even claim to be a functional product launch. It's still a loss leader strategy of desperation after ~8 solid years of successive Nexus flops.
Its fine to own, cherish and proudly claim to prefer to own Google's latest vanity hardware, but don't mistake it for a real product that materially matters in the industry. It's a vanity cobranded HTC phone built by a company that is commercially failing on its own. It ships in smaller quantities than Apple Watch, without making any money or attracting any new customers.
Ah, here we go again with another article on Apple A-Series processors. The topic that trolls/haters can't stand.
They would rather talk about the intangibles of a device - things that are based solely on opinion. This way they can make whatever claims they want and there's really no way to conclusively prove them right or wrong.
The A11, however, is a physical component that can be tested, analyzed and quantified. Its performance and superiority over other processors from Samsung and Qualcomm is easy to prove and verify. There is no opinion as to whether a Geekbench score of 4,000 for the A11 is better than a score of 2,000 for a competitor. There's no debate that it requires more power to record 1080P at 240 FPS or 4K at 60 FPS (which nobody else can do at all). There's no debate when an iPhone can perform a task (like rendering video) several times faster than competitors.
So what do they resort to? Attacking the validity of benchmarks. Or my favorite? Claiming it's irrelevant because the experience is all that counts and all modern phones are plenty fast enough.
It's nice that the A11 outperforms the CPUs of other vendors, but the main question is: does it really matter? I am using my iPhone 6s for calling, web browsing, emailing, checking my calendar, taking notes, paying, chatting, taking photos, checking bank account, playing music, checking public transport timetable. And for none of these actions my iPhone 6s feels sluggish. How impressive the A11 may be, I am not at all convinced that I will be more productive with a faster CPU. One might say that the A11 is needed for face recognition, but I fail to see the advantage of face recognition versus TouchID. I am pretty sure ApplyPay with face recognition will be more cumbersome ans slower to use than the current ApplePay. The fact that I have to turn the phone to my face is inherently slower than putting my finger on the home button.
If smart device management, Siri, machine learning mean something to you, yes it matters. If 4K video, augmented reality, Metal 2 and 3D gaming means something, yes it matters again. Apple didn't create the A11 for execs and managers send animated poop to their subordinates, A11 means a forward jump for the whole iOS platform, just like the A7 in iPhone 5s was a forward jump to 64-bit.
I'm surprised no one is pulling out benchmarks from the NVidia Shield's Tegra X1 chip which is an ARM processor. I suppose it could be considered in the same group although it's not being used in any smartphone that I know of. I believe the NVidia Shield's Tegra X1 is supposed to be the reigning champ of Android streaming boxes so it might be interesting to see how the A11 Bionic stacks up to that. Of course, the Shield doesn't run on batteries so I suppose it can crank out as much power as possible when plugged into a power supply. I'm just thinking it might be an interesting matchup. NVidia has been bragging about the Tegra X1 for a couple of years now and everyone seems to acknowledge it as being some monster chip according to benchmarks in which it always leads the ARM pack. I'm rather surprised that the Tegra X1 isn't part of some Android AR platform (or is it) because it's such a powerful chip.
Looks like the 8 and 8 Plus are able to retain higher clocks longer, for slightly higher scores on the same chip?
That in addition to the X driving a higher resolution display. I guess this is the awkward transition period where the 8 at least would be faster at native resolution than the X (not sure about the Plus for its weird downscaling dance it has to do).
Comments
Wrong. If you can see the screen to confirm you’re using Apple Pay (as you must), then Face ID can see you. stop spreading your misinformed FUD.
I guess if an ARM-based Mac could run iOS apps and help the open source community port development tools (e.g. JVM, Apache stuff, etc.), there's a chance - but it'll take a lot of time.
Please? Geekbench is a CPU only benchmark. Resolution is irrelevant.
For all the popular GPU benchmarks they run in both an onscreen and offscreen mode. Obviously onscreen results depend on resolution, but offscreen results can be compared across devices since they are all run at 1920x1080.
People are just looking for excuses to minimize the results of the A11, because they can't stand that Apple designs processor that are far more advanced than anything Samsung or Qualcomm have.
Use Google to search if you want more info on this. You've heard of them right?
Trolls used to make fun of Macs because they lacked the GPU to properly do VR, which requires a LOT of GPU horsepower (though Apple has rectified this with their new iMac Pro).
Then they turn around and claim you need a 4K screen to do VR properly because you need the high resolution for an immersive experience.
Do any Samsung (or other "VR capable" phones) have a GPU with the equivalent power of something like a GTX 1080? Because that's the amount of power you need to drive a VR 4K display properly at a high enough frame rate for VR.
VR on phones is a non-starter.
Now, it may be accurate to say it had less junkware and bloat, but Android itself is not an optimized OS in the way Apple's iOS is. From buttery animations to an architecture that lets you rapidly launch, freeze and relaunch background apps, iOS is vastly superior to Android in everyday tasks as well as in performance apps and games.
Despite lots of love from tech media enthusiasts, Pixel is almost always the lowest rated flagship because it uses a middling SoC and limited RAM (compared to what Android needs to compete with iOS) in an attempt to reach an attractive price point.
if Samsung is second rate, Google's vanity projects are solidly third rate. Samsung at least makes money on its hardware sales. Pixel can't even claim to be a functional product launch. It's still a loss leader strategy of desperation after ~8 solid years of successive Nexus flops.
Its fine to own, cherish and proudly claim to prefer to own Google's latest vanity hardware, but don't mistake it for a real product that materially matters in the industry. It's a vanity cobranded HTC phone built by a company that is commercially failing on its own. It ships in smaller quantities than Apple Watch, without making any money or attracting any new customers.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/17/04/17/apple-a10-iphone-7-speeds-past-samsung-galaxy-s8-google-pixel-lg-g6-bbk-3t-with-2x-ram
They would rather talk about the intangibles of a device - things that are based solely on opinion. This way they can make whatever claims they want and there's really no way to conclusively prove them right or wrong.
The A11, however, is a physical component that can be tested, analyzed and quantified. Its performance and superiority over other processors from Samsung and Qualcomm is easy to prove and verify. There is no opinion as to whether a Geekbench score of 4,000 for the A11 is better than a score of 2,000 for a competitor. There's no debate that it requires more power to record 1080P at 240 FPS or 4K at 60 FPS (which nobody else can do at all). There's no debate when an iPhone can perform a task (like rendering video) several times faster than competitors.
So what do they resort to? Attacking the validity of benchmarks. Or my favorite? Claiming it's irrelevant because the experience is all that counts and all modern phones are plenty fast enough.
That in addition to the X driving a higher resolution display. I guess this is the awkward transition period where the 8 at least would be faster at native resolution than the X (not sure about the Plus for its weird downscaling dance it has to do).