KITA

gbdoc said:

Touch bar's like pyjamas on a horse: cute, arguably even cool, but totally unnecessary, let alone useful. Drop it, Apple, save the money for improving the innards.

Agreed!

I mean, just look at this:

radarthekat said:

KITA said:

corrections said:

Google priced its phones very low and couldn't sell them. It then tried to sell phones like Apple, and couldn't sell them. It's not easy. 

Google isn't the only manufacturer of Android smartphones. They've also have never had anything close to the scale and distribution levels that Apple has had.

It's clear though that Google isn't done with Pixel phones. More so, it looks like they're just getting started.

So in other words the phrase ‘it’s not easy’ applied to the whole enterprise of manufacturing and selling high-end smartphones.  You can’t just cast off Apple’s entire supply/manufacturing chain as though Apple was handed that.  It’s not easy means.., it’s not easy to build that out.  

But I agree about the pixel phone.  It sure does look like Google is just getting started.  For years and years they’ve been just getting started.  Yeah, they renamed nexus to something else and now pixel, so I guess we can say they are a smartphone upstart, right?  If only considering the pixel brand and nothing else.  Oh, how you have forsaken me, Motorola!  

I wouldn't cast that aside, but judging the performance in a developed market is very different. You wouldn't expect the Pixel to suddenly sell like an iPhone, they're not the only Android device. If Google tried to "sell phones like Apple" (and not just make a premium device), they would have made a much larger push in distribution. Right now though, it's clear they're taking it slow.

Nexus was nothing like Pixel. The Nexus program had vanilla Android on devices designed by other OEMs with some flagship specs. Pixel is now designed in-house for the premium segment. In terms of hardware, no one, not even Apple, had anything close to the Pixel Visual Core. That was the first time Google brought their own silicon mobile. They also made a huge push on developing the camera hardware and software with some excellent results. If you can't see the difference between the two, then you're simply not being objective.

corrections said:

Google priced its phones very low and couldn't sell them. It then tried to sell phones like Apple, and couldn't sell them. It's not easy. 

Google isn't the only manufacturer of Android smartphones. They've also have never had anything close to the scale and distribution levels that Apple has had.

It's clear though that Google isn't done with Pixel phones. More so, it looks like they're just getting started.

melgross said:

KITA said:

tmay said:

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.

You took that out of context:

"When we’re looking at competitor devices we see only the the iPhone X able to compete with the last generation Snapdragon 835 devices – however with a catch. 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. 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. I’ve addressed this issue and made a great rant about it in our review of the Kirin 970. For this reason going forward AnandTech is going to distinguish between Peak and Sustained scores across all 3D benchmarks. This however needs to be tested on commercial devices as the QRD platform isn’t a thermally representative phone for the SoC, so until that happens, we’ll have to just estimate based on power consumption where the Snapdragon 845 ends up.

This article was a preview on the Snapdragon 845, not a device test.

Show me a device with a Snapdragon 845, in production, that does better than the A11 and doesn't throttle, and I'll give you a "like".

 

I was never talking about the 845.

The Snapdragon 835 does better and doesn't throttle nearly as much.

For the Pixel 2 using OpenGL ES 3.1 API:

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

Peak: 2907
Sustained: 2864

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

Peak: 4390
Sustained: 3591

The phones with the 835 don’t even come close to even the years older iPhone, much less the one that’s current with it. You can pull a spec out if it suits your story, but it’s overall performance that matters. And in that, the iPhone kills the competition. You won’t find anything else in comparison testing.

The 835 matched or beat the A11 in every sustained performance that Anandtech tested. The 835 is from H1 2017, the A11 is from H2 2017.

melgross said:

Read the ARs review and comparison. It’s the same everywhere, Apple is on top for almost everything that they measure between these phones. It’s really what matters. We do know that physics is one area that Apple doesn’t care much about, likely because of Metal, which renders these physics scores as irrelevant.


I seem to have an iOS 12 beta bug here. All I get when I tap the cursor is select/select all, instead of the paste command. But I think it’s been working on some other sites.

Well, go to Ars and look up the iPhone 8/8+ review. The results are the opposite of what you want them to be. If I can figure a way around this, I’ll post the direct link.

Ars isn't using sustained performance testing, which is what we've been talking about from the start.

The 3DMark test is broken down into a physics and a graphics test, both use Metal on iOS. I don't know why you would think physics doesn't matter because "Metal".

melgross said:

Koll3man said:

melgross said:

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

You wish. Actually the A11 throttles faster and more than the Snapdragon 835 or 845.
Anandtech made it very clear. Also the performance core on the A11 consume almost 3X more power in full load than S845's performance core.

That nonsense. I’ve read all the reviews, and that not true.

Which part?

Re Anandtech; the A11 does throttle more from its peak in the sustained performance testing than the 835 or 845. 

The A11's big core uses 3 to 3.5 W, while the Snapdragon's big cores use 1 to 1.1 W.

tallest skil said:

macxpress said:

Like David said...all they make is ugly computers that aren't special or unique. Thanks for proving his point. And don't tell me thats plastic on the top portion of the palm rest. 

Both are going to be plastic. There’s no way that’s metal. The diagonal ribbing on the black makes me think it might be carbon fiber, though. So that’s great; plastic and carbon fiber.

It's carbon fiber and aluminum.