ericthehalfbee

nunzy said:

So Apple made 30% of 45 million, or somewhere around $15 million. On one title. And without any significant marginal cost.

Brilliant!

Or you could say:

Nintendo made over $30 million by choosing to launch their App on the most profitable App Store gaining access to millions of iOS users who actually pay for stuff.

Sounds like both Apple and Nintendo won.

KITA said:

melgross said:

KITA said:

melgross said:

KITA said:

melgross said:

If true, not an impressive boost from last year, particularly since they say it’s got six cores. I hope this is off.

The A11 was known to throttle considerably under sustained load.

Geekbench 4 has pauses built in to avoid thermal throttling.

These numbers might actually be quite impressive if they're closer to the actual sustained performance of the A12.

No, it did not. All chips, particularly mobile chips, throttle under load, but the A11 throttles significantly less than any competing chip.

For the iPhone X using Metal API:

3DMark Sling Shot 3.1 Extreme Unlimited - Physics (CPU bound):

Peak: 2523
Sustained: 1895

3DMark Sling Shot 3.1 Extreme Unlimited - Graphics (GPU bound):

Peak: 4428
Sustained: 2884

The Snapdragon 835 throttled much less than the A11.

You should look at the reviews of phones on aRstechnica and anandtech, instead of choosing one spec, which is the one in which Apple doesn’t seem to care much about, which is physics. You need an overal test for this.

That is from Anandtech.

This is also from Anandtech:

The A11 is severely thermally constrained and is only able to achieve these scores when the devices are cold. Indeed as seen from the smaller score of the iPhone 8, the SoC isn’t able to sustain maximum performance for even one benchmark run before having to throttle.

- Andrei F.

Always hilarious when people intentionally leave something out. This is literally the next sentence after your quote:

”Unfortunately this also applies to current and last generation Exynos and Kirin SoCs as both shed great amount of performance after only a few minutes.”

Curious why you’d leave that bit out. Never mind, I already know. For the same reason you quoted a Physics score and left out the numerous other benchmarks. Gotta cherry pick the right quotes to suit your narrative.

The A9X came out right after the A9. The A10X came out about 9 months after the A10. We didn’t get the A11X in an iPad Pro yet so it’s quite possible Apple jumps right to an A12X and announces it this fall.

Also consider Apple now makes their own custom GPU. Since they now control their entire SoC I imagine it’d be easier to develop and release both processors at the same time.

I expect an A12X iPad Pro either in September (with the iPhone) or a month or two later.

nunzy said:

Bye bye, Qualcomm. Maybe suing Apple was a bad idea, eh?

I would say "maybe using anti-competitive practices in the market wasn't such a good idea."

This is not global sales. It’s from the APAC and NAM regions. Curious why they never included numbers for the entire world. Probably because the S9 didn’t actually finish in top spot.

And this is how it always is. You will never see these analysts report:

- Launch quarter sales for the latest iPhone against launch quarter sales for the latest Galaxy S.
- Yearly sales for the iPhone vs the Galaxy S.

They would rather report first month launch sales (not even a full quarter) for the Galaxy S from cherry-picked regions against the iPhone 6 months after launch. Because that’s the only way you can “adjust” things so give Samsung a “win”.