A11 Bionic Chip in iPhone 8 and iPhone X on Par With 13-Inch MacBook Pro, Outperforms iPad Pro

[Paapaa]

Could someone explain this:

"The 2.3GHz machine has scores of 4321/9183 and the 3.1GHz machine has scores of 4227/8955. "

Why is the 2.3GHz faster than the more expensive model? Why did they put a better chip to low end machine? (And why nobody cares about this?)

 

[tjy]

What is 10FF?

"Apple could have pushed performance and efficiency further, if not for 10FF being really bad. "

 

[a.gomez]

I do. I have 2 MacBooks but when I want to edit on my phone its nice to have a fast processor.
Its also good for the other things I mentioned. Controlling speakers and mixers, using the phone as
synth etc..sorry you don't know what you're talking about.
[doublepost=1505356567][/doublepost]
Dude you love samsung you hate apple, we get it.
Just be happy with your stuff and move on.

Nonsense - it is like someone trying to tell me Samsung Note is a productivity tool because it has a Wacom stylus and they can use to sketch comps and take packaging production notes. But it isn't, it does not matter it can do that - in the end it is tied to craptastic Android OS... Mobile OS are garbage. That is just a workflow solution to justify a gadget made in China... any talent deserves better.

"Dude you love Apple, I get it.
Just be happy with your stuff and move on"

There I fixed it for you.

 

[Karma*Police]

The A-series chip team at Apple gets an A++ from me.

But these are just benchmarks, its still hindered by being same old vanilla iOS...

When will there be A-series MBP's, with exceptional battery and fanless?

Interesting... the "same old vanilla iOS" is what I think makes iPhone/iPad so special... much more so than the A series chips, though we're starting to see OS and hardware merge like never before.

 

[Appleaker]

Uh, it's "beating" some real PCs and Macs too so...

..... so what? I know, did you not read by post. The A9X also beat some PC and Macs, so did the A10 and A10X, and of course the A11 does to. I am just baffled at what you are trying to say.... I have no idea what point your making.

 

[Eorlas]

Just curious: did Apple upload these Geekbench results? The iPhone X isn't released yet.

They're benching the A11 which is the same SoC for 8/8+/X.

res is different for X and RAM is different b/t 8 and the +/X. RL benches will be interesting to see for the X. My guess is some places will get a hold of the X shortly before it launches and we might see more then.
[doublepost=1505407607][/doublepost]

Rather than expecting an Intel killer, I expect a dual A12 phone. I wonder how long till Apple deprecates the laptop and sticks with an iPhone as a headless mode device airplay to a 4K TV, wireless headphone and keyboard. We are right there now.

Never. The laptop would be reinvented before anyone deprecates it. The iPhone will continue to get amazingly powerful, but it's not replacing laptops, especially in the performance tier that many desire.

In the low-end tier, once the phone gets powerful enough they could consider using some special cable to connect it to a portable screen/keyboard in a very thin laptop form factor and use the phone to drive the brain behind it all. Have your phone and ridiculously thin keyboard/screen to carry around, then whenever you need a bigger workstation: bam.

But that's not going to be for people doing high-tier photo editing/video editing on the go. Top-end laptops are still going to be necessary for that on the go and we are not yet at the point where high performance chips are small/cheap enough to stick in a phone.

No one's fitting an i7 into a phone any time soon, no one has the battery life to make that make sense, and the iphone would probably cost 2k with such a processor in it.

 

[udayan81]

And yet all we get is some cheap 15$ headphones with the Iphone X. For 1K$, I don't understand this kind of cheap tactics from Apple.

 

[mmcc]

But that’s the issue.. iOS and even most third party apps aren’t maximising the chip’s ability. What needs attention is, software..the hardware has already been quite advanced for a while now.

That's because Apple has devalued software to nearly zero. Why waste time developing a killer app that sells for 99 cents (or is free)? The App Store is nothing but a freebie site for the vast majority of Apple customers. Some other application distribution mechanism is really needed if you want software to become valued again.

Notice how Apple has stopped talking about download counts and instead only revenue paid? Do the division and you'll find the payout per download is quite small.

Honestly, hundreds of thousand of apps and we get a top 100 to browse? Garbage.

 

[thadoggfather]

Interesting... the "same old vanilla iOS" is what I think makes iPhone/iPad so special... much more so than the A series chips, though we're starting to see OS and hardware merge like never before.

iOS is definitely a plus. It's why I go apple over android no doubt

But touting benchmarks exceeding MacBook Pro is a false equivalency.

Just how fast do you need to open your messages app, exactly? Or check fb? Or fire up Spotify/music app?

It doesn't directly translate to exponential increased productivity, was my point.

But of course I'm super down A11 is a beast. Who can argue with chips getting faster (and hopefully more power efficient)

 

[fourthtunz]

Nonsense - it is like someone trying to tell me Samsung Note is a productivity tool because it has a Wacom stylus and they can use to sketch comps and take packaging production notes. But it isn't, it does not matter it can do that - in the end it is tied to craptastic Android OS... Mobile OS are garbage. That is just a workflow solution to justify a gadget made in China... any talent deserves better.

"Dude you love Apple, I get it.
Just be happy with your stuff and move on"

There I fixed it for you.

I understand what you're saying. I have protools, logic, live, keyboards etc, a whole hardware studio.
IOS apps are not the same thing but can be just as useful and just as creative.
The qsc touch mix app on my phone, the Jbl connect app just to name a few do things on a small device
and the software does not exist on the mac.
The music apps Ikaossilator, Imaschine, etc offer creative options that I do not have anywhere else
and these apps are cheap and yes can be very productive.
I love all tech but am not going to do the things I do on android because the software on iOS is better
gets updated more frequently and IOS also gets more frequent updates..doesn't mean someone with
a samsung cannot be productive.
So Its not an either or world, both the Mac and IOS can be used for productivity just in different ways.
With IOS 11 and The new A11 bionic chip things are going to be interesting!
Peace
[doublepost=1505409653][/doublepost]

But you cannot deny...no matter how fast the processor is...it doesn't stop this...smh

View attachment 717569

Heh, I wouldn't stop that! I love the Beatles!
I understand some won't like the notch or the ears whatever you want to call it but they could have
put a black bar across the top and bottom like on the Samsung..I like the functionality of the ears.
Who knows they may offer an option for a black bar instead?
Enjoy your Samsung.
Looking forward to the X!

 

[Michael Goff]

Does anyone else see a problem here? The iPhone continues to have the most powerful processor and still barely beats out the Snapdragon sometimes.

All that power and for what?

 

[mi7chy]

Benchmarks are quite different from real world performance!

Most tech illiterates don't realize that synthetic benchmarks don't equate to real world performance. A10X wasn't even fast enough to software decode 1080p HEVC while a five year old PC could software decode 4K HEVC fine. Doubt A11 will be fast enough either.

 

[Michael Goff]

No way. Totally different workloads, different instruction sets. No more emulation of windows. Recompiling of apps. So many problems.

Windows will be able to run on ARM soon and Microsoft is able to run 32bit apps on the Snapdragon 835. Problems solved by an actual software company using a supposedly inferior chip.

 

[a.gomez]

I understand what you're saying. I have protools, logic, live, keyboards etc, a whole hardware studio.
IOS apps are not the same thing but can be just as useful and just as creative.
The qsc touch mix app on my phone, the Jbl connect app just to name a few do things on a small device
and the software does not exist on the mac.
The music apps Ikaossilator, Imaschine, etc offer creative options that I do not have anywhere else
and these apps are cheap and yes can be very productive.
I love all tech but am not going to do the things I do on android because the software on iOS is better
gets updated more frequently and IOS also gets more frequent updates..doesn't mean someone with
a samsung cannot be productive.
So Its not an either or world, both the Mac and IOS can be used for productivity just in different ways.
With IOS 11 and The new A11 bionic chip things are going to be interesting!
Peace
[doublepost=1505409653][/doublepost]
Heh, I wouldn't stop that! I love the Beatles!
I understand some won't like the notch or the ears whatever you want to call it but they could have
put a black bar across the top and bottom like on the Samsung..I like the functionality of the ears.
Who knows they may offer an option for a black bar instead?
Enjoy your Samsung.
Looking forward to the X!

I hear you, seems like you have a system going (I do not like mixing OS on work flows). In the end it is whatever works for each person. And true... it is very interesting times. Cheers Mate.

 

[Internaut]

Hardware wise, maybe, but software is the hard part. macOS can't just switch to using ARM architecture because all of the apps would need to be rewritten and / or recompiled, which would take many years. Microsoft tried to do it. Just look at how few popular Windows apps are able to run on ARM Windows tablets after all these years.

Microsoft tried and failed, and will try again. Apple has tried and succeeded twice already, first moving from 68XXX to Power PC and again from Power PC to Intel. If Apple can pull it off, they will, because it will be good for their bottom line given the economies of scale they get from making these chips for phones and tablets already. Of course, it would mean consequences for the rest of us.

 

[Crzylikefox]

The iPhone 8, 8 Plus, and X are equipped with a six-core A11 chip, which Apple says brings some major improvements over the A10 chip in the iPhone 7. The chip features two performance cores and four efficiency cores.

Early Geekbench scores for iPhone X and iPhone 8 devices suggest that not only does the new A11 significantly outperform the A10, it beats the A10X Fusion in the iPad Pro and it is on par with the chips in Apple's latest 13-inch MacBook Pro models.

In 12 Geekbench scans, the A11 chip saw an average single-core score of 4169, and an average multi-core score of 9836. Some individual scores were much higher, though, with single-core scores topping out at 4274 and multi-core scores at 10438.

A single A11 Geekbench score​

Comparatively, the 10.5-inch iPad Pro with A10 Fusion chip has an average Geekbench single-core score of 3887 and a multi-core score of 9210. Apple's highest-end dual-core 3.5GHz 13-inch 2017 MacBook Pro has a single-core score of 4592 and a multi-core score of 9602, suggesting the A11 outperforms it on multi-core tasks and comes close on single-core tasks.

Geekbench average for 10.5-inch iPad Pro with A10X Fusion​

Performance is even better stacked up against the lower-end 2017 MacBook Pro models. The 2.3GHz machine has scores of 4321/9183 and the 3.1GHz machine has scores of 4227/8955.

Average Geekbench score for high-end 3.5GHz 13-inch MacBook Pro​

On paper, the iPhone X and iPhone 8 Plus will offer significantly better performance than the iPhone 7. The iPhone 7 has an average single-core Geekbench score of 3327 and a multi-core score of 5542.

Average Geekbench score for iPhone 7 with A10 Fusion chip​

According to Apple, the performance cores in the A11 chip are 25 percent faster than the A10 chip, while the efficiency cores are 70 percent faster than the A10 chip. The A11 chip is better at multi-threaded tasks because a second-generation performance controller is able to harness all six of the cores simultaneously.

MacRumors spoke to Geekbench's John Poole, who said he believes the A11 benchmarks are real. Poole believes the two high performance cores in the A11 are running at 2.5GHz, up from 2.34GHz in the A10. The 24MHz reading is an anomaly.

Though the iPhone X and the iPhone 8 offer impressive Geekbench scores, how that translates to real world performance remains to be seen. According to analyst Dan Matte, IPC (instructions per cycle) improvements are "relatively modest" and Geekbench scores should be ignored.The iPhone 8, 8 Plus, and iPhone X all adopt the A11 chip, so with the iPhone 8 models set to launch next week, the improvements introduced in the A11 will become more clear.

Article Link: A11 Bionic Chip in iPhone 8 and iPhone X on Par With 13-Inch MacBook Pro, Outperforms iPad Pro

[doublepost=1505412794][/doublepost]Can anyone post or send me the rose wallpaper they use in the photo for the phone? I like it!

 

[MrX8503]

Huh? What does a super fast iphone 8 have to do with how long my daughter can use her iphone 5? I'm not following.

At the time the iPhone 5 was super fast, which adds to the longevity of the device. The same will hold true for the 8.
[doublepost=1505414027][/doublepost]

Does anyone else see a problem here? The iPhone continues to have the most powerful processor and still barely beats out the Snapdragon sometimes.

All that power and for what?

The A9, a 2 year old chip, beats out Qualcomm's latest 835

 

[Wowereit]

Funny how the entire industry is circle jerking each other for "their" impressive new 10 nm CPU which in reality is just a fork of ARM's standard A73 design, which perfectly explains why the top of the line Snapdragon (Qualcomm), Exynos (Samsung) and Kirin (Huawei) are performing nearly identical.

While they are busy praising themselves, Apple just causally drops a monster with more than double the performance per core.

Not that last year's A10 with about 65% more performance per core than current year's competition wasn't already far ahead...
It might not be important for daily tasks anymore, but it's still impressing how Apple is pulling ahead even further year after year.

 

[Michael Goff]

At the time the iPhone 5 was super fast, which adds to the longevity of the device. The same will hold true for the 8.
[doublepost=1505414027][/doublepost]

The A9, a 2 year old chip, beats out Qualcomm's latest 835

Yes. But a device using the A9 doesn't beat out a device running the Snapdragon 835.

 

[MrX8503]

Yes. But a device using the A9 doesn't beat out a device running the Snapdragon 835.

 

[Michael Goff]

I meant in normal use, not a pointless synthetic benchmark.

 

[firewood]

Could someone explain this:

"The 2.3GHz machine has scores of 4321/9183 and the 3.1GHz machine has scores of 4227/8955. "

Why is the 2.3GHz faster than the more expensive model? Why did they put a better chip to low end machine? (And why nobody cares about this?)

The difference is usually cache size, memory bandwidth, and package cooling. DRAM is typically a lot slower than the CPU. If the caches are smaller, the CPU needs to wait for slow memory more often. A fast clock rate means nothing if the CPU can't get enough data from memory fast enough. These days, processors and SOCs are designed to turn down or even stop the clock of parts of the chip if the silicon overheats due to lack of cooling (heat sink + airflow, etc.)

That's why specified processor clock speed is often unrelated to application performance. It's only a marketing number (perhaps useful in nearly identical system configurations, including cooling and memory bus width/speed, etc.)

 

[Paapaa]

The difference is usually cache size, memory bandwidth, and package cooling. DRAM is typically a lot slower than the CPU. If the caches are smaller, the CPU needs to wait for slow memory more often. A fast clock rate means nothing if the CPU can't get enough data from memory fast enough. These days, processors and SOCs are designed to turn down or even stop the clock of parts of the chip if the silicon overheats due to lack of cooling (heat sink + airflow, etc.)

That's why specified processor clock speed is often unrelated to application performance. It's only a marketing number (perhaps useful in nearly identical system configurations, including cooling and memory bus width/speed, etc.)

That is very true, but I was actually wondering why did they put a faster CPU to the cheapest option? If you upgrade the CPU of the cheapest model, you might actually LOSE performance. That is insane. The cheapest CPU gives faster maximum performance and also the longest battery life (smaller TDP, smaller minimum clock speed).

 

[firewood]

That is very true, but I was actually wondering why did they put a faster CPU to the cheapest option? If you upgrade the CPU of the cheapest model, you might actually LOSE performance. That is insane. The cheapest CPU gives faster maximum performance and also the longest battery life (smaller TDP, smaller minimum clock speed).

Absolutely true. If you put a high-clock rate CPU inside a system with too little cooling, it might actually have to be down-throttled to a lower speed than a CPU designed (or binned out) to run with less cooling (at a lower TDP).

However, many customers don't know this, and marketing sets the prices based on typical customer delusions (e.g. selling slow cars with lots of plastic race-car-looking bolt-ons that make it even slower... but at a higher price.)

 

[fourthtunz]

Awesome!