arthurba

foggyhill said:

arthurba said:

Better battery life on cellular - then AW4 may be my first.  I've had every iPhone since the first -  I'm really disappointed with the latest trend to offer iPhones in "Enormous", "Gigantic" and "OMG it's huge!".   I currently use an SE - but I'm dissapointed that it's spec'd and targeted as a budget device. Smaller is better people.  Maybe the AW is just the smallest phone Apple make - I could pair it with their cheapest phone and after setup just leave the phone in the drawer.  But for this to work the AW needs better cellular battery life. 

The SE was barely slower than the 6s when it came out in a smaller package, so not sure why you'd be disapointed.
It's faster than most current Android flagship at half the price too.
It will probably get an upgrade soon.

Was. Yep the performance WAS top when it came out - but it lacks altitude sensor (barometer) and force touch etc etc - you know: because it's a budget device.  It's not like force touch or a barometer wouldn't fit.  Plus when it was released it had cripplingly small storage (which is what I have).  So when the update (finally) comes it'll again miss out on the 'high end' features which will be reserved for the 8 'gigantic' and 8 plus 'OMG it's huge' phones.  No i think the advice from Apple is clear: if I want a small phone use the AW.

Mike Wuerthele said:

arthurba said:

What ambient temperature were these tests done at?  It's about 90F in my office for 3 months over summer.  What would 80% humidity and 90F do to these test results?  I reckon you'd get much shorter times at max performance and a significantly reduced real-world speed.  

Back in the PowerPC processor days Apple were diligently focussed on real world performance. Not so much now, at least for desktops.  Thankfully on the iPad they still are focussed on real world performance - yet another reason why I'm moving as much of my work away from the desktop as I can. 

I'll wait for the new Mac Pro for a real power desktop (if I still need such a thing by then)

Video guys report 70F on the dot with low humidity.

I think your interpretation on "real-world performance" isn't complete enough in the forum for me to properly assess the situation. What are you talking about, specifically?

I was conflating a few different issues in a single post - but in my scatterbrained state made sense.  YMMV. 

I was was trying to point out that back in PowerPC days the Apple CPU's were clocked much slower than what Intel were claiming but Apple put effort into explaining that GHz alone wasn't a good indicator of performance.  Well now we have the opposite (sort of). Apple and HP (and Dell and Acer) all use the same processors- so you can compare one against the other (sort of) and if Apple are throttling and HP are not then Apple's real world performance is shot.

Yes I know motherboard design and Ssd selection all make a difference too.  But HP pro workstation are well engineered too.

jkichline said:

You bought a machine rated at 3.2 GHz and you’re consistently getting more than that under full load. Boost is just that. Momentary. I’m not seeing why you would expect it to function differently.

Rubbish.  The turbo boost speed is for when you are running single threaded tasks and should be able to do so sustainably for long periods.  If you are running heavy multi-threaded tasks the turbo boost does not kick in.

iPhone X SE.  Premium is always smaller. They could price it at $2K and I'd buy it.  It'll be faster and longer battery life than any other phone in Apple's line up - because that huge screen takes all the power and cycles.  Apple need to divorce 'cheap' from 'small'.   I think they should have a super plus size phone for $300 - so much more room for all the components - and much worse battery/performance. But the 'small' form factor should be for their most premium device. 

I don't think this is about the iPad, but the iPhone SE.  

It's a much more logical device to start with dropping Qualcomm from.  Apple sees the SE as an 'entry' phone, so if its performance is poorer than an iPhone 8 baseband - it's not the end of the world.  i.e.: they wouldn't have dared this with the iPhone X coming up - but now that's done - the iPhone SE is next and is a good test bed for dropping this vendor.  This may therefore mean that Apple has no intention of updating the iPad until much later in the year - which given that there was just a rather large update, makes sense to me.  I'm sure face-id will come to iPad - but Apple have always put the iPad last on its AuthenTec upgrades.

But as others have pointed out here - as a Verizon customer, Qualcomm chips are best.   Hopefully Apple have a vendor with a 'secret baseband chip' lined up.  

As for Qualcomm being crazy - no they're not - this is about the IP (as stated in the article).  They claim that it doesn't matter which vendor you get your silicon from - to use those chips you have to pay Qualcomm royalties - and the'll give you the best price on those royalties if you buy only their silicon.  It's a sensible position for them to take.  But the problem is that for a vendor as large and as risk-averse as Apple, they need multiple suppliers for most parts - including the baseband chips.  Which puts these two companies on a collision course.