Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPhone 4 is Faster than 3GS and Slower than iPad in Early Benchmarks

So 31% faster... 600MHz * 1.31 = 786MHz.

Therefore I would imagine the iPhone 4 is running the CPU at 800MHz.

Next requirement is an OpenGL ES 2 (and 1.1) benchmarking tool so we can test the graphical abilities!
 
twilson said:
The A4 chip is not just a CPU, it's a whole "SYSTEM" on a chip. At the very simple level it's CPU+GPU+RAM [I know there is a lot more on it]. Because the components are on the same piece of silicon the CPU-RAM and GPU-RAM and CPU-GPU chat is rather fast, faster than if it had been an external GPU (as per traditional desktop/laptop model).

Because of where the RAM is, it is pretty much the same as having dedicated Video RAM, although the RAM in A4 is still "closer" to the GPU itself, so it doesn't even directly compare to the reduced performance of an "integrated gfx card" of old.

There is definitely no use lazily applying the desktop scenarios/pitfalls to the mobile and SoC models, because it just doesn't translate that well.
Click to expand...

I think my post was kindof misunderstood. What I was trying to say was simply that much of the performance of the A4 soc in the iPhone 4 is consumed from it's extremly high resolution display. And therefore not available to make even more compelling games and demanding augmented reality apps.
 
pmz said:
Lolololo, WTF do you think you're talking about? Ha!

Unreal, the garbage that makes it onto these boards. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about is the concern that the A4 soc's fast performance may be diminished by pushing four times as many pixels into the display as it had to in the past. Next time please keep your rude, choleric way of writing to yourself!
 
-=XX=-Nephilim said:
Why on earth Apple just doesn't come clean in regards to specs...


We have this much ram -> ?

We have this cpu running at -> ?

etc... etc... etc...


It's almost like they have something to hide which is silly since specs will be discovered sooner or later anyway...
Click to expand...

Is there a reason anyone needs to know the speeds and feeds? If it performs quickly and well, how does knowing the speeds/feeds benefit the user? Or a better question is why should the user care?
 
The test isn't exactly accurate. the iPhone 4 is charging.

if it is charging VIA computer some of the data channels are being split up to associate with syncing the device.

also, the iphone 3gs has bluetooth on, the iphone 4 never had bluetooth turned on.


so basically, put both phones in the exact same situation results should change a bit- more accurate.


funny side note- both phones are in ATT dead zones lol
 
Anyone notice that the wifi signal on the new phone is not as good as that of the older phone? I assume the phones were in close proximity to one another...
 
mad102190 said:
Could anyone run this (geekbench) test on their 2G or 3G iphone? I had a 3G but it broke, and I just want to know how much faster this is than the 3G since I've never used a 3GS before, therefore making the comparison in the original post mean nothing to me. lol

Screenshot of the score would be great!

Thanks!
Click to expand...

My 3G score is a whopping 142

IMG_0010.png
 
pianojoe said:
Do we have it on good authority that the 3GS does NOT enter some low power mode when on battery, or when the battery is almost drained? My PB G4 used to.
Click to expand...

So far just educated speculation. However, I've asked the same question.
 
To be fair, the Samsung Galaxy S is supposed to have a nice GPU also, and Motorola only last week were talking about a 2Ghz Android phone not that far away.

Things are going to be very interesting over the next 12 to 24 months.

I'm just hoping we may be nicely surprised by a kick ass 2 Ghz iPad2 with faster GPU before NEXT Christmas.

Best portable games machine ever!

:D
 
kdarling said:
The primary reason for using a bezel antenna is to save internal space.

In this case, apparently to allow a larger battery.
Click to expand...
If they wanted more battery the shouldn't have made unnecessarilly thin. Style instead of performance. Typical Jobs.
 
Being in the basement, I hardly ever have signal. I can't believe how common it is to have 1-2 bars, shame on AT&T.

I must say, going from the 3G to the 4 is going to be like going from a Pentium 2 to Core 2 Duo.
 
Apple is DEFINITELY hiding the ball on the processor speed - it's the ONLY thing we don't know about the phone yet.

I'm guessing it's not even underclocked to 800mhz... maybe even lower - might be 600 still, like the 3GS.

Look on the bright side, the iPhone 4S will be SUPER snappy... :rolleyes:
 
doctoree said:
I'm talking about is the concern that the A4 soc's fast performance may be diminished by pushing four times as many pixels into the display as it had to in the past. Next time please keep your rude, choleric way of writing to yourself!
Click to expand...

The a4 is pushing less pixels than the ipad. Your concern seems invalid.

So you want a lower res screen?
 
I don't believe this is a fair comparison. As a QA professional, I believe this test is flawed. I'd like to see the following changes to make the tests more "fair":

  • have both iPhones plugged into AC - laptops tend to throttle CPU when on battery, and iPhone might do the same
  • turn off bluetooth on 3GS - bluetooth service taking some CPU cycles away from active benchmark
 
WHAT?!?!?!?!?! Now somebody ran a benchmark that renders my iPhone 4 useless compared to the iPad?!?!?! shame on Apple for crippling the iPhone 4 to make the iPad still competitive! :eek:
 
Zunjine said:
I'm not picking on you, so please don't take this personally. You just happened to make this statement which I think illustrates our utterly irrational thinking when it comes to spec.

Have we learned nothing? You're planning to buy the Samsung Galaxy S on the strength of the faster processor? By all accounts the iPhone 4 is an utterly fantastic device, responds instantly to any action, feels great in the hand and provides real value to the user. This is forgotten or disregarded because of an abstract number attached to a chip.

I can understand if this was an issue of balance. Maybe this was just that last item that tipped you towards Samsung but I see this sort of thinking all the time. It was the same with the iPad RAM issue. Suddenly the stuff you get, the way it works and the real value to the user is lost to view behind a list of numbers and letters. No wonder Apple doesn't talk about specifications.
Click to expand...

This, this, a thousand times this.

Seriously folks, I know it's in our collective geek DNA to reach for raw numbers as a measure of the worth of a device but it's time to start getting away from that. Performance in desktops (and laptops actually) has been largely irrelevant for some time now, mobile devices are starting to go the same way and that goes doubly so for comparing different operating systems.

The ONLY thing that matters is how fast the device feels to actually use. That's it, end of story. If HP, for instance, manage to come up with a version of webOS that runs lightning quick on a 600Mhz processor then the fact that it IS a 600Mhz processor is utterly irrelevant to the end user experience. In fact, in a lot of ways, the slower the better as slower usually draws less power (assuming all other aspects of design are equal). Raw benchmark figures are, more or less, irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

It's the same with those getting up in arms about the iPad 'only' having 256MB while the iPhone 4 has 512MB. It doesn't affect the iPad in the slightest, it's still a lightning quick device with more than enough grunt to multitask once iOS4 drops in the autumn so what's the problem? The spec is irrelevant, the only thing that matters in the current wave of... let's say.... 'post PC devices' is the end user experience. If that's not right, if it lags or glitches and better hardware would have solved the problem, THEN you have a good cause for complaint.
 
tempusfugit said:
or a scientific fact. either way, rabble rabble rabble!
Click to expand...

Antenna effectiveness depends almost entirely on wavelength, frequency, and amplitude as well as the antenna shape - not necessarily size. Ie, a smaller antenna, such as 1/4th that of the actually wavelength, would work much better than that of one that was larger and 3/4 that of the actual wavelength.

Have you noticed that on luxury cars the antenna length changes based on the frequency you are tuned into?

Not to get into an argument that Im hardly qualified for, but bigger isn't necessarily better the way I understand it from college

All that to say - Im hardly educated on what Im talking about (it's obvious isn't it) but I think at least one of the points of putting it on the outside was to make it external vs internal, thus less interference... THAT and to call it a "feature" ...hah!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_(radio)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back