Wait, so benchmarks and specs matter now? Or only matter because they’re ones where Apple comes out on top? How about doing a review of the phone using this chip and compare everyday usage to the XS. Is the OS fast and smooth? Do apps and websites launch quickly? How’s the camera? How does their version of portrait mode compare to Apple’s? Geekbench scores means nothing to most people.
Still trolling DED, I see... Knowingly, too -- since we explained this to you a year ago. Specs don't matter more when the hardware & UX is poor. When the hardware & UX is better (Apple) *and* its specs are better (A12), that's noteworthy and a triumph. Why does that bother you so much? Why does DED recognizing Apple's achievements compel you to whine? It's not like you're getting paid to counter his opinion column.
You can’t bring this up in public without a certain segment of Android fans losing their goddamn minds over it. “I thought specs don’t matter?” they say, and point to articles I (or whoever else brings this up) wrote in the past arguing that specs aren’t the only thing that matters. [...]
So iPhone users get the best in both regards: they get the iOS experience and Apple-designed hardware, and they get the vastly superior CPU and GPU. And Android users who want industry-leading performance are shit out of luck. This is unprecedented in computing history. Windows users who want the best CPUs have always had that option. Android users don’t, because the best chips, by far, are Apple’s, and they’re proprietary.
The specs aren’t what matters — the effects are what matters. But the specs are what we can measure, and the faster the chips are, the better the effects are in the user experience.
----------------
Why do you keep pretending you don't know this? It's like this personally butthurts you somehow.
These benchmarks give hints as to Apples strategy. Apple is using their revenue from phone sales to heavily invest in Chip design. This investment is paying off in an increasing gap in performance between Apples A series and competing ARM processors as well as a narrowing gap between Apples A series and conventional desktop CPUs. The question is why would Apple spend their time and money to push the envelope?
Current smart phones are all fast enough, when why do we need faster chips? We probably don't for today's smart phone feature set. However, Apple may have plans to implement features not currently available on smart phones. If Apple chips are far ahead of everyone else, these new features couldn't be quickly copied.
Another opportunity is outside the smart phone/tablet world. Apple would be able to differentiate their laptops, and desktops from everyone else's if they offer similar performance to Intel/AMD CPUs. They would have a CPU price advantage, be able to implement the features they want and set their own timetables. No longer a question of if, it is a question of when Apple uses their own Chips in their laptop and desktop lineup.
"fell behind Samsung's Galaxy Note 9 (powered by an 845)"
Not with that score, that must be an Exynos version with its custom Samsung Mongoose ARM core.
High benchmarks are nice but I believe most consumers are more concerned with what the total package brings them. Most people I know have no interest in benchmarks and certainly they don't choose their smartphones based on benchmarks. Most of their choices seem to be based on some sort of price/feature selection. Many are happy with products that are just 'good enough' for their needs.
No matter how fast the A12 Bionic is, very few consumers in India will never get their hands on one. Same goes for Brazil or Russia. The smartphone that's going to win in those countries is the one most consumers can afford to purchase.
Although the A12 Bionic is a monster SoC, when flagship smartphones are tested next to one another, they're usually within milliseconds of each other when performing routine app launch tests. Seriously, most consumers are not going to pay a couple of hundred dollars more for a gain or loss in milliseconds. Apple's OS animations are very fluid but many times some Android smartphone can launch an app slightly quicker. Apple just needs to keep making the whole iOS platform and ecosystem better and that will make the biggest difference in what smartphone consumers will purchase. I'll always prefer an overall balanced package but that's just me. As long as Apple doesn't keep pricing the iPhone much higher, Apple will do quite well selling a nicely balanced iPhone product.
Performance characteristics of the SOC, GPU and NPU all carry over into computational imaging, as an example, something that is most noticeable in the IQ, not in any latency that the user experiences. I would say that just in that one instance, the performance benefits of the hardware are quite beneficial.
Why would Apple not use this same processor at an entry level price point in the future, and would that be something that buyers in emerging economies would value?
Does anyone remember back in September where Huawei claimed their 980 would beat the A12?
I wonder what specific cherry-picked test they used to make that claim?
Definitely Kirin 980 cannot beat A12 in CPU (single core or multi core scores), GPU (they are way behind even Samsung, who is in turn way behind Qualcomm) or NPU, ISP features. Most likely, Modem (theoretical upload/download speeds) is the one they should have meant.
Wait, so benchmarks and specs matter now? Or only matter because they’re ones where Apple comes out on top? How about doing a review of the phone using this chip and compare everyday usage to the XS. Is the OS fast and smooth? Do apps and websites launch quickly? How’s the camera? How does their version of portrait mode compare to Apple’s? Geekbench scores means nothing to most people.
You always state this drivel each time such an article is posted.
And the answer is always the same. Of course "performance" matters - it always has.
As I have stated many times, what isn't as relevant are pure component "specs" (which is what the PC heads always liked to trumpet), as that is only a part of of performance, and it depends on implementation. - number of transistors - clock speed - amount of RAM
This is a great post! And this message needs to be repeated every time in performance comparisons.
rogifan conflated benchmarks with specs. They are not the same thing. Benchmarks are measures of performance of a system. “Specs” in computer vernacular is a description of the hardware. You can infer performance from specs if you understand the hardware, but companies and the media use specs as advertising or propaganda, and zero knowledge is imparted when discussing specs. Hence, specs don’t matter in the vast majority of communications about computers. Really, it’s now to the point that zero information is passed when someone says this computer has a Core i5 processor. It’s now the equivalent of saying a computer has a “CPU”.
What matters is performance, and performance relative to human perceived scales. I don’t think people really can tell the difference for something like 500 ms latencies or so. Ie, one app starts in 250 ms versus another app in 500 ms. But when app starts in 5 seconds versus 10 seconds, that is a big win. Or a video transcode that takes half as long, or views that scroll smoothly with low latency.
Benchmarks measure performance. They do not measure specs. It can be repeated enough, specs are merely descriptions of the hardware. Benchmarks measure how well it works.
And all those camera performance comparisons are a putrid mess. If I don’t see calibration posters taken under controlled conditions, (and better yet numerical analysis of pictures of those posters), I skip right past the camera section. These gadget reviewers don’t even bother with a control device like a DSLR. Then, they put an outsized value on the smallest little differences in image quality, below the threshold of what most humans would consider good image. They also put an outsized value on the camera in smartphones itself.
Does anyone remember back in September where Huawei claimed their 980 would beat the A12?
I wonder what specific cherry-picked test they used to make that claim?
Definitely Kirin 980 cannot beat A12 in CPU (single core or multi core scores), GPU (they are way behind even Samsung, who is in turn way behind Qualcomm) or NPU, ISP features. Most likely, Modem (theoretical upload/download speeds) is the one they should have meant.
High benchmarks are nice but I believe most consumers are more concerned with what the total package brings them. Most people I know have no interest in benchmarks and certainly they don't choose their smartphones based on benchmarks. Most of their choices seem to be based on some sort of price/feature selection. Many are happy with products that are just 'good enough' for their needs.
No matter how fast the A12 Bionic is, very few consumers in India will never get their hands on one. Same goes for Brazil or Russia. The smartphone that's going to win in those countries is the one most consumers can afford to purchase.
Although the A12 Bionic is a monster SoC, when flagship smartphones are tested next to one another, they're usually within milliseconds of each other when performing routine app launch tests. Seriously, most consumers are not going to pay a couple of hundred dollars more for a gain or loss in milliseconds. Apple's OS animations are very fluid but many times some Android smartphone can launch an app slightly quicker. Apple just needs to keep making the whole iOS platform and ecosystem better and that will make the biggest difference in what smartphone consumers will purchase. I'll always prefer an overall balanced package but that's just me. As long as Apple doesn't keep pricing the iPhone much higher, Apple will do quite well selling a nicely balanced iPhone product.
And that’s why thoseYou Tube videos are a waste of time. Launch test are garbage. What’s important is how l9ng apps that require processing power get the job done. That requires under the hood power. If you don’t do anything with you’re phone other than the usual media apps, then it doesn’t matter that much if you wait an extra second or two. But if you do photo edits, or play intensive games, then it does matter.
the ?UI can be made to run quickly, but that doesn’t tell us anything about real heavy app usage. So those of us who are interested in the technical portion of what possible will complete reviews. Those who are uncaring, or ignorant about what it means for running actual software, won’t care, and that’s ok too.
i do notice that a lot of reviews now ignore real world tests that show Apple’s products to be far ahead, such as browser speeds. And if you think that doesn’t matter, think again.
While DED got most of the facts right, there is one small correction required in this article. The Samsung Galaxy Note 9 single core score of 3600+ does NOT come from the Snapdragon version. It is for the Exynos 9810 version. The single core score for snapdragon version is around 2400 only, like all other Android phones using the same SoC. And Samsung's Exynos SoC could not sustain its peak performance for even shorter period as per deep-dive by AnandTech. In short, Qualcomm's Snapdragon 845 was the best SoC in Android phones before Kirin 980.
Kirin 980's single core score (~3300, much higher than Snapdragon 845's score of ~2400) is pretty good IF it is sustainable, which we will come to know once AnandTech does a deep-dive. I won't be surprised if Snapdragon 845 continues to be the best all-round SoC (CPU, GPU, ISP, sustained performance etc) in Android phones even better than Kirin 980 once AnandTech completes their deep-dive of Kirin 980. The title of the article is absolutely spot-on though. Huawei's latest and greatest SoC's (Kirin 980) performance is more than 1 year behind Apple's latest and greatest SoC (A12).
What we need to see is a thorough deep dive of the 20, and the 980 from Anandtech, using their custom software that doesn’t allow Huawei’s cheating to take effect. Otherwise, we can’t trust any numbers we see for the chip, and by extension, the phone.
Wait, so benchmarks and specs matter now? Or only matter because they’re ones where Apple comes out on top? How about doing a review of the phone using this chip and compare everyday usage to the XS. Is the OS fast and smooth? Do apps and websites launch quickly? How’s the camera? How does their version of portrait mode compare to Apple’s? Geekbench scores means nothing to most people.
Still trolling DED, I see... Knowingly, too -- since we explained this to you a year ago. Specs don't matter more when the hardware & UX is poor. When the hardware & UX is better (Apple) *and* its specs are better (A12), that's noteworthy and a triumph. Why does that bother you so much? Why does DED recognizing Apple's achievements compel you to whine? It's not like you're getting paid to counter his opinion column.
You can’t bring this up in public without a certain segment of Android fans losing their goddamn minds over it. “I thought specs don’t matter?” they say, and point to articles I (or whoever else brings this up) wrote in the past arguing that specs aren’t the only thing that matters. [...]
So iPhone users get the best in both regards: they get the iOS experience and Apple-designed hardware, and they get the vastly superior CPU and GPU. And Android users who want industry-leading performance are shit out of luck. This is unprecedented in computing history. Windows users who want the best CPUs have always had that option. Android users don’t, because the best chips, by far, are Apple’s, and they’re proprietary.
The specs aren’t what matters — the effects are what matters. But the specs are what we can measure, and the faster the chips are, the better the effects are in the user experience.
----------------
Why do you keep pretending you don't know this? It's like this personally butthurts you somehow.
I don’t remember who said it, but early this year, a writer said that Android products are rated on a curve. That’s generally true. Often we’ll see a review of a flagship model, and we’ll read that it’s the fastest smartphone, usually they do say that it’s the fastest Android smartphone. But that gets lost, as most readers just see the “fastest” portion, because they’re not thinking about the iPhone at all, or think that fastest Android smartphone means fastest smartphone.
but admittedly, most Android users don’t buy flagship phones, even with the buy one get one free that usually starts right after the new phone is introduced. So, for them, the specs don’t matter, because they’re not doing anything on those mid line phones that requires a high performance device.
Wait, so benchmarks and specs matter now? Or only matter because they’re ones where Apple comes out on top? How about doing a review of the phone using this chip and compare everyday usage to the XS. Is the OS fast and smooth? Do apps and websites launch quickly? How’s the camera? How does their version of portrait mode compare to Apple’s? Geekbench scores means nothing to most people.
You always state this drivel each time such an article is posted.
And the answer is always the same. Of course "performance" matters - it always has.
As I have stated many times, what isn't as relevant are pure component "specs" (which is what the PC heads always liked to trumpet), as that is only a part of of performance, and it depends on implementation. - number of transistors - clock speed - amount of RAM
This is a great post! And this message needs to be repeated every time in performance comparisons.
rogifan conflated benchmarks with specs. They are not the same thing. Benchmarks are measures of performance of a system. “Specs” in computer vernacular is a description of the hardware. You can infer performance from specs if you understand the hardware, but companies and the media use specs as advertising or propaganda, and zero knowledge is imparted when discussing specs. Hence, specs don’t matter in the vast majority of communications about computers. Really, it’s now to the point that zero information is passed when someone says this computer has a Core i5 processor. It’s now the equivalent of saying a computer has a “CPU”.
What matters is performance, and performance relative to human perceived scales. I don’t think people really can tell the difference for something like 500 ms latencies or so. Ie, one app starts in 250 ms versus another app in 500 ms. But when app starts in 5 seconds versus 10 seconds, that is a big win. Or a video transcode that takes half as long, or views that scroll smoothly with low latency.
Benchmarks measure performance. They do not measure specs. It can be repeated enough, specs are merely descriptions of the hardware. Benchmarks measure how well it works.
And all those camera performance comparisons are a putrid mess. If I don’t see calibration posters taken under controlled conditions, (and better yet numerical analysis of pictures of those posters), I skip right past the camera section. These gadget reviewers don’t even bother with a control device like a DSLR. Then, they put an outsized value on the smallest little differences in image quality, below the threshold of what most humans would consider good image. They also put an outsized value on the camera in smartphones itself.
Does the average phone buyer care about benchmarks? Does someone buy an iPhone because it’s benchmarks are better than the competition?
Wait, so benchmarks and specs matter now? Or only matter because they’re ones where Apple comes out on top? How about doing a review of the phone using this chip and compare everyday usage to the XS. Is the OS fast and smooth? Do apps and websites launch quickly? How’s the camera? How does their version of portrait mode compare to Apple’s? Geekbench scores means nothing to most people.
You always state this drivel each time such an article is posted.
And the answer is always the same. Of course "performance" matters - it always has.
As I have stated many times, what isn't as relevant are pure component "specs" (which is what the PC heads always liked to trumpet), as that is only a part of of performance, and it depends on implementation. - number of transistors - clock speed - amount of RAM
This is a great post! And this message needs to be repeated every time in performance comparisons.
rogifan conflated benchmarks with specs. They are not the same thing. Benchmarks are measures of performance of a system. “Specs” in computer vernacular is a description of the hardware. You can infer performance from specs if you understand the hardware, but companies and the media use specs as advertising or propaganda, and zero knowledge is imparted when discussing specs. Hence, specs don’t matter in the vast majority of communications about computers. Really, it’s now to the point that zero information is passed when someone says this computer has a Core i5 processor. It’s now the equivalent of saying a computer has a “CPU”.
What matters is performance, and performance relative to human perceived scales. I don’t think people really can tell the difference for something like 500 ms latencies or so. Ie, one app starts in 250 ms versus another app in 500 ms. But when app starts in 5 seconds versus 10 seconds, that is a big win. Or a video transcode that takes half as long, or views that scroll smoothly with low latency.
Benchmarks measure performance. They do not measure specs. It can be repeated enough, specs are merely descriptions of the hardware. Benchmarks measure how well it works.
And all those camera performance comparisons are a putrid mess. If I don’t see calibration posters taken under controlled conditions, (and better yet numerical analysis of pictures of those posters), I skip right past the camera section. These gadget reviewers don’t even bother with a control device like a DSLR. Then, they put an outsized value on the smallest little differences in image quality, below the threshold of what most humans would consider good image. They also put an outsized value on the camera in smartphones itself.
Does the average phone buyer care about benchmarks? Does someone buy an iPhone because it’s benchmarks are better than the competition?
Every day is like the first day on the internet for you, isn't it.
Here's a broad picture to help you on your journey of discovery.
The article was written to provoke discussion. Average phone buyers do not care about benchmarks, but as you apparently haven't figured out yet, average phone buyers also don't hang around on forums talking about phones. If this site was aimed at the average phone user, then it would have articles on Taylor Swift, This is Us, the poor state of public transport … those are the things that the average phone buyer cares about.
So guess what? The article isn't aimed at them.
Off the back of this article, folk are asking why Apple spends so much money on chip development instead of using something off the shelf. What else are they planning to use the chips for? Why have the Android crew have suddenly decided that benchmarks mean nothing? See? Discussion.
It's a forum. It's where people discuss stuff.
Now is there anything else you're having trouble with?
"Huawei's expensive new Mate 20 Pro flagship copies Apple's design and price, but sells in a market where Androids are cheap
Huawei is just now trying to sell devices priced like a Galaxy Note or Apple's iPhone lineup"
Huawei doesn't copy Apple's design or price. It had plus $1,000 smartphones long before the 1,000 dollar iPhone even existed and still has phones that almost double the price of iPhone X. I don't see the Mate 20 camera setup on any iPhone, nor the hidden speaker grill, nor the ribbed finish, nor the curved screen.
This is also incorrect:
"But despite using the same fab process, Huawei's Kirin 980-powered Mate 20 Pro flagship lags far behind Apple's iPhone XS A12, turning in performance scores well below last year's A11 iPhone X." Performance of what? A SoC is many things. The Kirin 980 includes modem and wi-fi, both of which are seemingly far ahead of Apple on 'performance'. It also includes the NPU where the Kirin 970 NPU not only performed better than the A11 Neural Engine, but was put to better use throughout the phone. I haven't seen NPU comparisons for K980/A12 yet.
What you are talking about is the cores and Huawei is using the very latest ARM CPU/GPU designs and has more than enough speed.
That said, in spite of being 'slower', the Mate 20 series (and P20 Pro/Mate 10 before it) has managed to 'outperform' Apple literally all over the rest of the phone.
40W wired ultra fast charging (1% in 30 seconds) 15W wireless charging Reverse charging Tri Camera 3x optical zoom 5x hybrid zoom 3D object modelling Cat 21 modem Ultra fast wi-fi Dual frequency GPS AIIS Night Mode Expandable storage True dual SIM In screen ultrasonic fingerprint sensor Wireless desktop mode Balong 5000 compatibility
The Mate 20 X also uses graphene and vapour chamber cooling. The Mate RS uses micro capsule cooling.
The new iPhone (A12 included) was basically overshadowed in terms of attention even in Apple circles by ... the Apple Watch.
Speed gives you .... speed. The A11 had plenty. I don't remember anyone saying they noticed a lack of it. The A12 brings even more.
Will most Apple users really notice a dramatic improvement? I very much doubt it. FaceID is faster but no one said it was slow to begin with. Will WhatsApp open faster?
Phones are more than speed. It's been that way for a few years now. Phones are about other areas. Areas where Apple is painfully lacking right now (see above), especially in terms of innovation.
As Counterpoint recently said, 'Apple has been leapfrogged'.
The Mate 20 Series launched on Tuesday. The new iPhones launched four weeks before. The iPhones will not change for another, and whopping eleven months!
Next up is Honor and the Magic 2 (October 31st) and before you can say 'S10' the P30 will be on us! The bar has been set high and will go far higher before the next iPhone refresh.
And the Mate series is the 'boring' series. LOL.
Apple uses the words 'best', 'fastest', 'most advanced' all over the place but limits comparisons to .... other iPhones!
While we wait for reviews to corroborate what was presented on Tuesday (essential step) it is clear that Huawei has given the Samsung and Apple cages a good rattling by just presenting what they revealed on Tuesday. I say corroboration is essential as Huawei took only about 5 minutes to claim the Mate 20 Pro opened the top 50 apps from the Play Store far faster than the iPhone Xs Max (A12 and all). That is a performance metric that does matter.
''Performance' (in the context of this article) is the least of Huawei's worries. The goal was to have a well balanced SoC. According to Anandtech, that goal looks to have been largely achieved.
Focusing on 'performance' and simply ignoring the rest, is 'not seeing the forest for the trees'.
Looking ahead, far from rumours of a Kirin 990, rumours swirled in June around a Kirin 1020. That in addition to persistent rumours of an in-house GPU.
Speed itself is simply not enough to be a differentiating factor nowadays, and anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to take a long hard look at what Huawei has put into this new series.
One analyst said Samsung is now in 'full on panic mode'. I think Apple is in a similar situation and needs to shift up a gear. We need a Schiller moment:
'Can't innovate, my ass!'
But please Phil, no cylinder iPhone!
Competition is the only way these technologies can be realised. We all win.
Apple has done an amazing job with the A12. The problem is elsewhere.
As for this piece, something is telling and is summed up here:
That was on a phone launched in March and little has changed since then on the Apple front. Ironic that the author attempts to paint a picture of Huawei being 'a year behind' when, by the time Apple can catch Huawei's Night Mode for example, it will be well over a year behind. And what about the rest?
The next step is to simply see how the Mate 20 holds up in real world use. The proof is always in the pudding and we will have wait. I always take PR and marketing at face value but going by the presentation and early full reviews using pre-production software, things don't look too shabby. We will see.
Does the average phone buyer care about benchmarks? Does someone buy an iPhone because it’s benchmarks are better than the competition?
As it pertains to making a purchase for an Apple iPhone, yes, purchasers absolutely care about benchmark results. They may not track them specifically, they may not understand them well, but they use them implicitly to help them decide their purchase. The results become reinforcement they made the right decision in buying a very expensive phone.
Apple sells phones with the highest ASP in the market. To do that, iPhones must be industry leading in several aspects of the device. If Apple didn’t have class competitive or class leading performance, they will not be able to sell iPhones at the prices they do. If all else equal except iPhones were slower than the competition, they will not sell as many iPhones. If this type of position continues where iPhones are slower, their sales will continue to erode, and they will have to lower prices or try to live with lower sales.
iPhones have class leading or class competitive devices in terms of performance, design, build quality, platform and service or support - virtually all aspects of the buying and ownership experience. That’s how they can sell devices for the prices they sell at. If any of these start to erode, so will their prices and sales.
If the average purchaser is buying a mid-range or low end phone, perhaps they don’t care for how well a device performs, but even at this end, there’s always a drive to get the most for the fewest dollars. Performance is one of the factors for that. That’s how the Xiaomi and One Plus type companies try to survive. If they decided to put Cortex A53/55 type SoCs in their devices for $400 to $500, they wouldn’t survive.
Wait, so benchmarks and specs matter now? Or only matter because they’re ones where Apple comes out on top? How about doing a review of the phone using this chip and compare everyday usage to the XS. Is the OS fast and smooth? Do apps and websites launch quickly? How’s the camera? How does their version of portrait mode compare to Apple’s? Geekbench scores means nothing to most people.
You always state this drivel each time such an article is posted.
And the answer is always the same. Of course "performance" matters - it always has.
As I have stated many times, what isn't as relevant are pure component "specs" (which is what the PC heads always liked to trumpet), as that is only a part of of performance, and it depends on implementation. - number of transistors - clock speed - amount of RAM
This is a great post! And this message needs to be repeated every time in performance comparisons.
rogifan conflated benchmarks with specs. They are not the same thing. Benchmarks are measures of performance of a system. “Specs” in computer vernacular is a description of the hardware. You can infer performance from specs if you understand the hardware, but companies and the media use specs as advertising or propaganda, and zero knowledge is imparted when discussing specs. Hence, specs don’t matter in the vast majority of communications about computers. Really, it’s now to the point that zero information is passed when someone says this computer has a Core i5 processor. It’s now the equivalent of saying a computer has a “CPU”.
What matters is performance, and performance relative to human perceived scales. I don’t think people really can tell the difference for something like 500 ms latencies or so. Ie, one app starts in 250 ms versus another app in 500 ms. But when app starts in 5 seconds versus 10 seconds, that is a big win. Or a video transcode that takes half as long, or views that scroll smoothly with low latency.
Benchmarks measure performance. They do not measure specs. It can be repeated enough, specs are merely descriptions of the hardware. Benchmarks measure how well it works.
And all those camera performance comparisons are a putrid mess. If I don’t see calibration posters taken under controlled conditions, (and better yet numerical analysis of pictures of those posters), I skip right past the camera section. These gadget reviewers don’t even bother with a control device like a DSLR. Then, they put an outsized value on the smallest little differences in image quality, below the threshold of what most humans would consider good image. They also put an outsized value on the camera in smartphones itself.
Since commercial photography was most of my career, I’m bothered by a lot of camera “testing” that I see these days on sites, done by someone who knows nothing about photography, or the equipment.
you really have to understand photography, the way sensors work, and the way exposure systems work. You also should understand the concepts of exposure, contrast and saturation. They have nothing more than a rumentary understanding of any of that.
"Huawei's expensive new Mate 20 Pro flagship copies Apple's design and price, but sells in a market where Androids are cheap
Huawei is just now trying to sell devices priced like a Galaxy Note or Apple's iPhone lineup"
Huawei doesn't copy Apple's design or price. It had plus $1,000 smartphones long before the 1,000 dollar iPhone even existed and still has phones that almost double the price of iPhone X. I don't see the Mate 20 camera setup on any iPhone, nor the hidden speaker grill, nor the ribbed finish, nor the curved screen.
This is also incorrect:
"But despite using the same fab process, Huawei's Kirin 980-powered Mate 20 Pro flagship lags far behind Apple's iPhone XS A12, turning in performance scores well below last year's A11 iPhone X."
Performance of what? A SoC is many things. The Kirin 980 includes modem and wi-fi, both of which are seemingly far ahead of Apple on 'performance'. It also includes the NPU where the Kirin 970 NPU not only performed better than the A11 Neural Engine, but was put to better use throughout the phone. I haven't seen NPU comparisons for K980/A12 yet.
What you are talking about is the cores and Huawei is using the very latest ARM CPU/GPU designs and has more than enough speed.
That said, in spite of being 'slower', the Mate 20 series (and P20 Pro/Mate 10 before it) has managed to 'outperform' Apple literally all over the rest of the phone.
40W wired ultra fast charging (1% in 30 seconds) 15W wireless charging Reverse charging Tri Camera 3x optical zoom 5x hybrid zoom 3D object modelling Cat 21 modem Ultra fast wi-fi Dual frequency GPS AIIS Night Mode Expandable storage True dual SIM In screen ultrasonic fingerprint sensor Wireless desktop mode Balong 5000 compatibility
The Mate 20 X also uses graphene and vapour chamber cooling. The Mate RS uses micro capsule cooling.
The new iPhone (A12 included) was basically overshadowed in terms of attention even in Apple circles by ... the Apple Watch.
Speed gives you .... speed. The A11 had plenty. I don't remember anyone saying they noticed a lack of it. The A12 brings even more.
Will most Apple users really notice a dramatic improvement? I very much doubt it. FaceID is faster but no one said it was slow to begin with. Will WhatsApp open faster?
Phones are more than speed. It's been that way for a few years now. Phones are about other areas. Areas where Apple is painfully lacking right now (see above), especially in terms of innovation.
As Counterpoint recently said, 'Apple has been leapfrogged'.
The Mate 20 Series launched on Tuesday. The new iPhones launched four weeks before. The iPhones will not change for another, and whopping eleven months!
Next up is Honor and the Magic 2 (October 31st) and before you can say 'S10' the P30 will be on us! The bar has been set high and will go far higher before the next iPhone refresh.
And the Mate series is the 'boring' series. LOL.
Apple uses the words 'best', 'fastest', 'most advanced' all over the place but limits comparisons to .... other iPhones!
While we wait for reviews to corroborate what was presented on Tuesday (essential step) it is clear that Huawei has given the Samsung and Apple cages a good rattling by just presenting what they revealed on Tuesday. I say corroboration is essential as Huawei took only about 5 minutes to claim the Mate 20 Pro opened the top 50 apps from the Play Store far faster than the iPhone Xs Max (A12 and all). That is a performance metric that does matter.
''Performance' (in the context of this article) is the least of Huawei's worries. The goal was to have a well balanced SoC. According to Anandtech, that goal looks to have been largely achieved.
Focusing on 'performance' and simply ignoring the rest, is 'not seeing the forest for the trees'.
Looking ahead, far from rumours of a Kirin 990, rumours swirled in June around a Kirin 1020. That in addition to persistent rumours of an in-house GPU.
Speed itself is simply not enough to be a differentiating factor nowadays, and anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to take a long hard look at what Huawei has put into this new series.
One analyst said Samsung is now in 'full on panic mode'. I think Apple is in a similar situation and needs to shift up a gear. We need a Schiller moment:
'Can't innovate, my ass!'
But please Phil, no cylinder iPhone!
Competition is the only way these technologies can be realised. We all win.
Apple has done an amazing job with the A12. The problem is elsewhere.
As for this piece, something is telling and is summed up here:
That was on a phone launched in March and little has changed since then on the Apple front. Ironic that the author attempts to paint a picture of Huawei being 'a year behind' when, by the time Apple can catch Huawei's Night Mode for example, it will be well over a year behind. And what about the rest?
The next step is to simply see how the Mate 20 holds up in real world use. The proof is always in the pudding and we will have wait. I always take PR and marketing at face value but going by the presentation and early full reviews using pre-production software, things don't look too shabby. We will see.
Blah blah blah. Nobody gives a flying eff about your Huawei shilling, lies or spin.
As if benchmarks proof a good platform or even SOC. Huawei not unlike Apple optimize both their hard- and software to make to most out of their handsets. I've never had such a smooth handset as the P20 Pro even though it is loosing on the majority of benchmarks. I had several Samsung and Sony handsets before and even if they had (in benchmarks at least) the far better CPUs I experienced a lot of stutterings and slow apps startups etc. It is never about the benchmarks but the whole handset and there my friends Apple is loosing more and more ground. May it be the camera, may it be the screen, may it be even the look, may it be [...]. Chinese companies will soon take over the whole market (bypassing south coreans by far) by not just copying but also implement countless of extra features in their handsets (like reverse wireless charging, bigger batteries, better cameras etc. etc.). And believe it or not making money is not only selling premium phones...
As if benchmarks proof a good platform or even SOC. Huawei not unlike Apple optimize both their hard- and software to make to most out of their handsets. I've never had such a smooth handset as the P20 Pro even though it is loosing on the majority of benchmarks. I had several Samsung and Sony handsets before and even if they had (in benchmarks at least) the far better CPUs I experienced a lot of stutterings and slow apps startups etc. It is never about the benchmarks but the whole handset and there my friends Apple is loosing more and more ground. May it be the camera, may it be the screen, may it be even the look, may it be [...]. Chinese companies will soon take over the whole market (bypassing south coreans by far) by not just copying but also implement countless of extra features in their handsets (like reverse wireless charging, bigger batteries, better cameras etc. etc.). And believe it or not making money is not only selling premium phones...
Comments
----------------
https://daringfireball.net/2017/09/iphone_x_event_thoughts_and_observations
You can’t bring this up in public without a certain segment of Android fans losing their goddamn minds over it. “I thought specs don’t matter?” they say, and point to articles I (or whoever else brings this up) wrote in the past arguing that specs aren’t the only thing that matters. [...]
So iPhone users get the best in both regards: they get the iOS experience and Apple-designed hardware, and they get the vastly superior CPU and GPU. And Android users who want industry-leading performance are shit out of luck. This is unprecedented in computing history. Windows users who want the best CPUs have always had that option. Android users don’t, because the best chips, by far, are Apple’s, and they’re proprietary.
The specs aren’t what matters — the effects are what matters. But the specs are what we can measure, and the faster the chips are, the better the effects are in the user experience.
----------------Why do you keep pretending you don't know this? It's like this personally butthurts you somehow.
Huawei is pretty notorious for cheating on the benchmarks so not a a true apples to apples comparison.
Why would Apple not use this same processor at an entry level price point in the future, and would that be something that buyers in emerging economies would value?
I wonder what specific cherry-picked test they used to make that claim?
This is a great post! And this message needs to be repeated every time in performance comparisons.
rogifan conflated benchmarks with specs. They are not the same thing. Benchmarks are measures of performance of a system. “Specs” in computer vernacular is a description of the hardware. You can infer performance from specs if you understand the hardware, but companies and the media use specs as advertising or propaganda, and zero knowledge is imparted when discussing specs. Hence, specs don’t matter in the vast majority of communications about computers. Really, it’s now to the point that zero information is passed when someone says this computer has a Core i5 processor. It’s now the equivalent of saying a computer has a “CPU”.
What matters is performance, and performance relative to human perceived scales. I don’t think people really can tell the difference for something like 500 ms latencies or so. Ie, one app starts in 250 ms versus another app in 500 ms. But when app starts in 5 seconds versus 10 seconds, that is a big win. Or a video transcode that takes half as long, or views that scroll smoothly with low latency.
Benchmarks measure performance. They do not measure specs. It can be repeated enough, specs are merely descriptions of the hardware. Benchmarks measure how well it works.
And all those camera performance comparisons are a putrid mess. If I don’t see calibration posters taken under controlled conditions, (and better yet numerical analysis of pictures of those posters), I skip right past the camera section. These gadget reviewers don’t even bother with a control device like a DSLR. Then, they put an outsized value on the smallest little differences in image quality, below the threshold of what most humans would consider good image. They also put an outsized value on the camera in smartphones itself.
the ?UI can be made to run quickly, but that doesn’t tell us anything about real heavy app usage. So those of us who are interested in the technical portion of what possible will complete reviews. Those who are uncaring, or ignorant about what it means for running actual software, won’t care, and that’s ok too.
i do notice that a lot of reviews now ignore real world tests that show Apple’s products to be far ahead, such as browser speeds. And if you think that doesn’t matter, think again.
What we need to see is a thorough deep dive of the 20, and the 980 from Anandtech, using their custom software that doesn’t allow Huawei’s cheating to take effect. Otherwise, we can’t trust any numbers we see for the chip, and by extension, the phone.
but admittedly, most Android users don’t buy flagship phones, even with the buy one get one free that usually starts right after the new phone is introduced. So, for them, the specs don’t matter, because they’re not doing anything on those mid line phones that requires a high performance device.
Every day is like the first day on the internet for you, isn't it.
Here's a broad picture to help you on your journey of discovery.
The article was written to provoke discussion. Average phone buyers do not care about benchmarks, but as you apparently haven't figured out yet, average phone buyers also don't hang around on forums talking about phones. If this site was aimed at the average phone user, then it would have articles on Taylor Swift, This is Us, the poor state of public transport … those are the things that the average phone buyer cares about.
So guess what? The article isn't aimed at them.
Off the back of this article, folk are asking why Apple spends so much money on chip development instead of using something off the shelf. What else are they planning to use the chips for? Why have the Android crew have suddenly decided that benchmarks mean nothing? See? Discussion.
It's a forum. It's where people discuss stuff.
Now is there anything else you're having trouble with?
"Huawei's expensive new Mate 20 Pro flagship copies Apple's design and price, but sells in a market where Androids are cheap
Huawei is just now trying to sell devices priced like a Galaxy Note or Apple's iPhone lineup"
Huawei doesn't copy Apple's design or price. It had plus $1,000 smartphones long before the 1,000 dollar iPhone even existed and still has phones that almost double the price of iPhone X. I don't see the Mate 20 camera setup on any iPhone, nor the hidden speaker grill, nor the ribbed finish, nor the curved screen.
This is also incorrect:
"But despite using the same fab process, Huawei's Kirin 980-powered Mate 20 Pro flagship lags far behind Apple's iPhone XS A12, turning in performance scores well below last year's A11 iPhone X."
Performance of what? A SoC is many things. The Kirin 980 includes modem and wi-fi, both of which are seemingly far ahead of Apple on 'performance'. It also includes the NPU where the Kirin 970 NPU not only performed better than the A11 Neural Engine, but was put to better use throughout the phone. I haven't seen NPU comparisons for K980/A12 yet.
What you are talking about is the cores and Huawei is using the very latest ARM CPU/GPU designs and has more than enough speed.
That said, in spite of being 'slower', the Mate 20 series (and P20 Pro/Mate 10 before it) has managed to 'outperform' Apple literally all over the rest of the phone.
40W wired ultra fast charging (1% in 30 seconds)
15W wireless charging
Reverse charging
Tri Camera
3x optical zoom
5x hybrid zoom
3D object modelling
Cat 21 modem
Ultra fast wi-fi
Dual frequency GPS
AIIS
Night Mode
Expandable storage
True dual SIM
In screen ultrasonic fingerprint sensor
Wireless desktop mode
Balong 5000 compatibility
The Mate 20 X also uses graphene and vapour chamber cooling. The Mate RS uses micro capsule cooling.
The new iPhone (A12 included) was basically overshadowed in terms of attention even in Apple circles by ... the Apple Watch.
Speed gives you .... speed. The A11 had plenty. I don't remember anyone saying they noticed a lack of it. The A12 brings even more.
Will most Apple users really notice a dramatic improvement? I very much doubt it. FaceID is faster but no one said it was slow to begin with. Will WhatsApp open faster?
Phones are more than speed. It's been that way for a few years now. Phones are about other areas. Areas where Apple is painfully lacking right now (see above), especially in terms of innovation.
As Counterpoint recently said, 'Apple has been leapfrogged'.
The Mate 20 Series launched on Tuesday. The new iPhones launched four weeks before. The iPhones will not change for another, and whopping eleven months!
Next up is Honor and the Magic 2 (October 31st) and before you can say 'S10' the P30 will be on us! The bar has been set high and will go far higher before the next iPhone refresh.
And the Mate series is the 'boring' series. LOL.
Apple uses the words 'best', 'fastest', 'most advanced' all over the place but limits comparisons to .... other iPhones!
While we wait for reviews to corroborate what was presented on Tuesday (essential step) it is clear that Huawei has given the Samsung and Apple cages a good rattling by just presenting what they revealed on Tuesday. I say corroboration is essential as Huawei took only about 5 minutes to claim the Mate 20 Pro opened the top 50 apps from the Play Store far faster than the iPhone Xs Max (A12 and all). That is a performance metric that does matter.
''Performance' (in the context of this article) is the least of Huawei's worries. The goal was to have a well balanced SoC. According to Anandtech, that goal looks to have been largely achieved.
Focusing on 'performance' and simply ignoring the rest, is 'not seeing the forest for the trees'.
Looking ahead, far from rumours of a Kirin 990, rumours swirled in June around a Kirin 1020. That in addition to persistent rumours of an in-house GPU.
Speed itself is simply not enough to be a differentiating factor nowadays, and anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to take a long hard look at what Huawei has put into this new series.
One analyst said Samsung is now in 'full on panic mode'. I think Apple is in a similar situation and needs to shift up a gear. We need a Schiller moment:
'Can't innovate, my ass!'
But please Phil, no cylinder iPhone!
Competition is the only way these technologies can be realised. We all win.
Apple has done an amazing job with the A12. The problem is elsewhere.
As for this piece, something is telling and is summed up here:
https://www.newsweek.com/rise-huawei-how-smartphone-maker-conquering-tech-world-without-us-1176300
Which is basically tied to this in some ways
https://www.newsweek.com/iphone-killer-ditching-apple-new-huawei-p20-pro-887208
That was on a phone launched in March and little has changed since then on the Apple front. Ironic that the author attempts to paint a picture of Huawei being 'a year behind' when, by the time Apple can catch Huawei's Night Mode for example, it will be well over a year behind. And what about the rest?
The next step is to simply see how the Mate 20 holds up in real world use. The proof is always in the pudding and we will have wait. I always take PR and marketing at face value but going by the presentation and early full reviews using pre-production software, things don't look too shabby. We will see.
As it pertains to making a purchase for an Apple iPhone, yes, purchasers absolutely care about benchmark results. They may not track them specifically, they may not understand them well, but they use them implicitly to help them decide their purchase. The results become reinforcement they made the right decision in buying a very expensive phone.
Apple sells phones with the highest ASP in the market. To do that, iPhones must be industry leading in several aspects of the device. If Apple didn’t have class competitive or class leading performance, they will not be able to sell iPhones at the prices they do. If all else equal except iPhones were slower than the competition, they will not sell as many iPhones. If this type of position continues where iPhones are slower, their sales will continue to erode, and they will have to lower prices or try to live with lower sales.
iPhones have class leading or class competitive devices in terms of performance, design, build quality, platform and service or support - virtually all aspects of the buying and ownership experience. That’s how they can sell devices for the prices they sell at. If any of these start to erode, so will their prices and sales.
If the average purchaser is buying a mid-range or low end phone, perhaps they don’t care for how well a device performs, but even at this end, there’s always a drive to get the most for the fewest dollars. Performance is one of the factors for that. That’s how the Xiaomi and One Plus type companies try to survive. If they decided to put Cortex A53/55 type SoCs in their devices for $400 to $500, they wouldn’t survive.
Since commercial photography was most of my career, I’m bothered by a lot of camera “testing” that I see these days on sites, done by someone who knows nothing about photography, or the equipment.
you really have to understand photography, the way sensors work, and the way exposure systems work. You also should understand the concepts of exposure, contrast and saturation. They have nothing more than a rumentary understanding of any of that.
Blah blah blah. Nobody gives a flying eff about your Huawei shilling, lies or spin.