There's a lot of benchmarks on A7 performance versus other mobile cpus. But I can't find anything comparing the A7 against desktop CPUs, and where it falls. It'll be interesting to see what desktop CPUs have the same performance as the A7. Has anyone seen this?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
A7 performance - equivalent desktop cpu?
- Thread starter heifetz7
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Clock rates and transistors draw power.
Consider the battery size of a phone compared to a MacBook Air, etc.
It would not be a problem to make the ARM A7 as fast as a desktop CPU.
It's all about power consumption, transistors, etc.
The A7 is a CPU for a specific purpose designed to work in constraint environments. The comparison would be pointless.
Consider the battery size of a phone compared to a MacBook Air, etc.
It would not be a problem to make the ARM A7 as fast as a desktop CPU.
It's all about power consumption, transistors, etc.
The A7 is a CPU for a specific purpose designed to work in constraint environments. The comparison would be pointless.
Where the 5S scores in the thousands on geek bench score a modern computer scores in the tens of thousands and a computer is pushing around infinitely more pixels.
But like mentioned this isn't a fair comparison. Size and cooling play major rolls in this stuff.
Basically the iPhone isn't a desktop computer so it's apples to oranges.
But like mentioned this isn't a fair comparison. Size and cooling play major rolls in this stuff.
Basically the iPhone isn't a desktop computer so it's apples to oranges.
There's been quite a bit of talk about this, however I have not seen a head-to-head stackup of performance scores versus Intel's Core and Xeon processors. If the A7 is able to get into that field with the Haswell Cores and Ivy Bridge Xeons, then the cat will be amongst the pigeons..
Define equivalent desktop CPU...
Intel Atom? AMD A4-5000?
Such as used in this Laptop?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6974/amd-kabini-review/2
See Anandtech's 5S review
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/6
iPhone 5s vs. Bay Trail
I couldn't help but run Intel's current favorite mobile benchmark on the iPhone 5s. WebXPRT by Principled Technologies is a collection of browser based benchmarks that use HTML5 and js to simulate a number of workloads (photo editing, face detection, stocks dashboard and offline notes).
iPhone 5s vs. Bay Trail - WebXPRT (Chrome/Mobile Safari)
I have heard the a7 64 bit chip is just a gimmick. Reason: you need at least 4 GB of RAM to actually and truly effectively utilize 64 bits.
I've heard that but only on forums. I'd like to see a detailed link on the subject from a reputable source.
It's of limited usefulness, though certain mathematical calculations are faster on a 64-bit processor. That said, A7 is a big deal because it moved to a much more efficient ARM processor architecture. Think of the difference between the Core 2 Duo and the original Core i3/i5/i7. A "slower" Nehalem Core i5 runs circles around a Core 2 Duo with a higher clock speed.
http://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2013-09-27-arm64-and-you.html
There you go. It requires a fair bit of reading, but if you're not willing to put in that much time then you probably shouldn't be telling people about processor architecture on message boards.
(The conclusion, for those of you not wanting to read it all: The "64-bit" A7 is not just a marketing gimmic, but neither is it an amazing breakthrough that enables a new class of applications. The truth, as happens often, lies in between.)
Bottom line?
Is the A7 about the same as a desktop/laptop processor circa 2006?
Let's keep it that simple?
Laptop processors didn't really catch up to desktop processors until probably 5-6 years ago either.
I don't think mobile phone processors will ever be the same as desktop/laptop processors but maybe they can be 2-3 years behind?
Is the A7 about the same as a desktop/laptop processor circa 2006?
Let's keep it that simple?
Laptop processors didn't really catch up to desktop processors until probably 5-6 years ago either.
I don't think mobile phone processors will ever be the same as desktop/laptop processors but maybe they can be 2-3 years behind?
I completely agree with this statement. There's no way that an iPhone processor or a mobile processor for that matter can compete with present day computer desktop or laptop processors. But maybe if you compare the a7 chip to the core two duo or something earlier than that then comparison can be kind of close
Mobile phone processor can be as fast as desktop processor, even today. The big problem is the power source powered them. You can run A7 at full speed throttle, but it will only last like 1-2 hours usage. Battery tech is stagnant atm, it's still lithium ion afterall. We need nuclear battery now.
Wrong order of logic. Backwards.
You need 64bit to effectively address and utilize 4GB of RAM or more.
That is only one of many 64bit benefits.
"Desktop Class" cpu in feature-set, not performance.
You could maybe compare performance/watt.
----------
Nuclear batteries have incredibly low power output.
A quick google revealed a Lockheed prototype from a few years back providing 25 nanoWatts of power. 25nW!
iPhone currently has a 3.8V, 5.73 WHr battery that provides 10 hours of usage. I think measning 573mW of power draw for 10 hours would get you roughly 5.73 WHr.
Compare 573,000 nW of needed usage to a 25 nW battery supply.
Last edited:
It's actually the other way around: you need 64-bits to "actually and truly" use more than 4GB. Even so, you can still take advantage of 64-bit features without a huge amount of RAM
The truth is though, there isn't a huge advantage to using a 64-bit chip right now, but there will be in the future. It's a chicken-or-egg situation: to take advantage of a 64-bit processor, you need 64-bit apps. But you can't have 64-bit apps without a 64-bit processor. So Apple has to take the first step: start selling phones with 64-bit processors, so that app makers can start developing for it.
But then I'd be quoting the reasons why it doesn't matter and ignoring the reasons why they went ahead and did it. (Which do exist, as you'll see from the part I did quote: " The truth, as happens often, lies in between.")
Doing that would be a disservice to the MacRumors community. If anyone actually cares, they'll read the link and get the whole story. Me trying to slant the opinion of those who don't read it serves no purpose.
Just for laughs that's the desktop comparisons that I'd be interested in, i.e. "the A7 has about the same computational performance as Intel's top of the range desktop CPU, the <CPU Model>, that was released in <Year>".
I'd be quite interested to know what CPU model and release year would be the most appropriate ones to fill in those blanks.
The Apple A7 SoC would have to back 10 years or more and get close to the performance of a desktop Intel or AMD CPU! I am talking the low end of the desktop to like the Celeron class! LOL!
Intel Atom CPU is in netbooks! It similar to that of an tablet CPU; not a desktop or even notebook!
Last edited: