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.
Additional Benchmarks Reveal A15 Bionic Performance Improvements in iPhone 13 and iPhone 13 Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Boosted GPU performance is obvious. People should not be surprised since the display can go up to 120Hz. This requires significant more GPU power than running the exact same game with same level of detail on a 60 Hz (every other iPhone).
GPU boost is here to just exploit properly 120Hz in GPU intensive tasks in the long run (2-3 years minimum). You will not notice a difference of graphics details with a regular 13, it's about high framerate optimization
GPU boost is here to just exploit properly 120Hz in GPU intensive tasks in the long run (2-3 years minimum). You will not notice a difference of graphics details with a regular 13, it's about high framerate optimization
Not sure if anyone beat me to it but if you run the numbers the A15's single core performance improvement is scaling almost linearly with clock speed vs the A14 (2998Mhz A14 vs 3233Mhz on the A15), lending credence to the idea that the A15 is probably more like an A14+ (which is totally fine.) I'd imagine the increase in the multicore score is down to higher all core frequencies. (Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16226/apple-silicon-m1-a14-deep-dive/2)
Speaking of Anandtech can't wait for their annual deep dive!
GPU performance on the 5 core A15 variant is impressive, I'm surprised they didn't compare it to A14 directly... (although I guess that wouldn't meant admitting the 4 core A15 isn't all THAT much of an improvement)
Speaking of Anandtech can't wait for their annual deep dive!
GPU performance on the 5 core A15 variant is impressive, I'm surprised they didn't compare it to A14 directly... (although I guess that wouldn't meant admitting the 4 core A15 isn't all THAT much of an improvement)
Not sure what you mean. Both iPhone 13 and 13 Pro have the same A15 Bionic chip. They are not different.
iPhone
Designed for Apple Intelligence. Discover the iPhone 16e along with iPhone 16 Pro, iPhone 16, and iPhone 15.www.apple.com
The A15 is faster than the M1.
Single core benchmarks exceed the top M1 scores.
Multi core follows, albeit with less physical cores.
There is no way this is the next gen Macbook Pro CPU. It says the internal GPU is 5.2 tflops. The current top end GPU for 16" MBP is 5.3 tflops. Apple will never ever release something that's slower than the previous gen, especially after waiting 2 years.if anyone is interested there are benchmarks posted for the Apple M1X.
Apple M1X - Benchmark, Test and Specs
Apple M1X - Benchmark, Geekbench 5, Cinebench R20, Cinebench R23, Cinebench R15 and FP32 iGPU (GFLOPS) benchmark resultswww.cpu-monkey.com
I expect something close to 7-8 Gflops in the next 16" MBP.
Or this might be the base config which can be extended further.
It’s damn near identical in single core. Multi core is significantly less and metal score is also much lower. Not sure where you’re getting your info from.
same here ! wont even upgrade to ios 15
It should be noted that the multi-core improvement (around 18%) is higher than the single-core improvement (around 10%).
This means that other system level improvement contribute to the multi-core performance improvements, like an improved performance of the memory subsystem; this improvements will positively affect the performance of all the other subsystems, image processors, vector processor and so on. Benchmarks tell only a part of the story.
This means that other system level improvement contribute to the multi-core performance improvements, like an improved performance of the memory subsystem; this improvements will positively affect the performance of all the other subsystems, image processors, vector processor and so on. Benchmarks tell only a part of the story.
It’s just a shame the os has stagnated while the hardware is going crazy amazing , chip wise that is
10-20% performance improvements for a year-to-year update is pretty much impressive in my book. Especially since they didn't advertise any CPU improvements.
How has the price of storage changed over the years compared to the hundreds of dollars markup Apple continues to charge?
It will probably average over time. But testing environment and individual differences between chips can easily account for this kind of discrepancy. Besides, the GPU in that higher binned part is likely to be more efficient (so that the 5-core takes the same power to run as 4-core in lower binned chips), so it might be able to sustain slightly higher clock.
Price didn't really change, but the amounts went up. Regarding markup, I don't thing we really know how much Apple is paying for these parts. It is tempting to compare them to Samsung SSDs of similar performance, but I doubt that it's that simple. For example, Apple SSDs appear to have much higher write endurance compared to an average high-performance SSD, so there is something going on behind the scenes.
Do these scores really matter? Do we really care? If there was just one thing that would be really, really useful......a battery that lasts more than 24hrs? How important is a phone that is largely the same as the one that came out last year.........except that we don't actually need it......in fact that iPhone 12, 11, 10 SE2 will do everything you need it to for a least 5 years more without damaging our resource depleted World with largely superfluous facts and figures. 1000$ gadget upgrade in your pocket to phone people every year? Are we mad? We just don't need another new phone yet. So, just like our hearing and eyesight that fail us as we get older, we probably won't "see" or notice any difference!
If it’s worth it then yes. If I’ll trade in my 12 Pro Max then I’ll spend 600€ for new one. Not that bad.
We care because it's a good predictor for what to expect from future Macs. And it's looking good!
A bit dramatic, but not untrue
I am keeping my iPhone 11 for now I think.A bit disappointed that speed bump in A15 comes from increasing frequency only (maybe faster ram). Score is almost identical to M1 at 3.2GHz, A15 has also 3.2GHz so improvement comes from better TSMC 5+ process. So with M1X we can expect 3.4Ghz? maybe. So somewhere in 1850 - 1950 range for single core. Still good, if thermals and consumption are low. C'mon Apple, hurry up.
more like they binned it, as does every manufacturer of a silicon chip
Meanwhile, Google's state of the art Pixel 6 Pro numbers from Arstechnica:
If pixel has such performance it will be disappointing. But that's not an official test so we can only do a comparison when both devices are out. I am still sure A15 will be superior but I expect the pixel 6 pro to be higher.
