so many words, and all I understand is "mimimimimimimimimi"
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.
Alleged iPhone 7 Plus Geekbench Results Reveal 2.37 GHz Dual-Core A10 Chip, 3GB of RAM [Updated: Fake]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
so many words, and all I understand is "mimimimimimimimimi"
Intel releases plenty of chips.
There are a dozen companies making computers with Intel's latest chips. They started 8 months ago.
But Apple hasn't.
So are you sure the delay is Intel?
There's a good reason why the Plus model will have 1GB more RAM. I read a "rumour" today that Apple will be upgrading the Plus screen resolution to 2K (1440p). That'll need the extra RAM. It'll help for the dual-camera too.
If only Apple gave us a desktop OS on the phone/tablet. That is what I am waiting for. Tim statement and commercial that the iPad can replace a computer is not real until the OS gets there. The hardware is close enough I think.
I don't doubt that at all.
Almost every single low-budget Windows laptop, with Celerons/Atoms & AMD mobile CPUs, have lower CPU benchmark scores than a 10-year-old Core 2 Duo. Intel/AMD shouldn't be shipping 2015/2016 chips with that kind of crappy performance, but similarly OEMs shouldn't be selling laptops with that sort of crappy performance. They can only sell them on the basis that they have 8GB RAM or a 1TB HDD and rely on the consumer's ignorance.
Apple could deliver the fastest processor ever in a smartphone.
And people would complain that it looks the same as their previous phones.
I dunno... I'd rather have the chip engineers get a good workout instead of the designers.
There's that old saying: "It's what's on the INSIDE that counts"
Can I ask , what tasks on the 6S are slow currently ?
Since the iPhone 5, I have not noticed a performance boast each upgrade, sure they benchmarks improved , but daily usage, almost identical .
I'd take a new look phone over Almost identical performance. Instead of almost identical design and identical performance
In daily use most likely barely noticeable other than in processor heavy games and such.
Being able to complete the task quickly then go back to low power mode means that you will feel the performance improvements in battery life.
Not really. 1/3 of the interger benchmark is encryption that has special hardware acceleration on Apple CPU's that the intel cpu's don't have. Also all benchmark have so small loops and dataset that they run almost all in L1 cache.
http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=136526&curpostid=136666
By: Linus Torvalds
> Single threaded integer score:
Wilco, geekbench has apparently replaced dhrystone as your favourite useless benchmark.
Geekbench is SH*T.
It actually seems to have gotten worse with version 3, which you should be aware of. On ARM64, that SHA1 performance is hardware-assisted. I don't know if SHA2 is too, but Aarch64 does apparently do SHA256 in the crypto unit, so it might be fully or partially so.
And on both ARM and x86, the AES numbers are similarly just about the crypto unit.
So basically a quarter to a third of the "integer" workloads are just utter BS. They are not comparable across architectures due to the crypto units, and even within one architecture the numbers just don't mean much of anything.
And quite frankly, it's not even just the crypto ones. Looking at the other GB3 "benchmarks", they are mainly small kernels: not really much different from dhrystone. I suspect most of them have a code footprint that basically fits in a L1I cache.
That's because the majority of Windows laptops are cheap low end ones with crappy processors.
Intel/AMD has to release chips with a low tray price... so OEMs can sell a laptop with a low retail price.
The only way the OEMs can sell a $200 laptop is to build it with a $50 processor.
Oh I'm not saying it's right... but that's what's happening.
The OEMs have been in a race to the bottom for years... and require cheaper components.
I'd love it if every Windows laptop had at least a Core i5 processor in it... but realize that the cheapest Skylake Core i5 has a tray price of $182
I can't wait to send messages and receive calls on this beast!!!
3GB of RAM has been sorely needed for making calls, as well as half writing emails before giving up and switching to my laptop. Shame that on the work machine front I'm having to switch to a PC, but its good to know Apple continues to pour resources into making super fast telephones - and watch straps. Hopefully they will be releasing a super powerful watch soon too, so i can awkwardly flick my wrist to check the time at Geekbench record breaking speeds.
3GB of RAM has been sorely needed for making calls, as well as half writing emails before giving up and switching to my laptop. Shame that on the work machine front I'm having to switch to a PC, but its good to know Apple continues to pour resources into making super fast telephones - and watch straps. Hopefully they will be releasing a super powerful watch soon too, so i can awkwardly flick my wrist to check the time at Geekbench record breaking speeds.
Apple has a release schedule. Intel regularly misses it now. They are bumping up against the end of Moore's law.
Apple makes many more chips for phones than Intel makes for PC's. That scale allows them to have both lower cost and the latest bleeding edge manufacturing technologies. The only thing they have opted out of is X86 compatibility because it is about as byzantine as TV contracts.
I would like to see Apple make a chip that emulates PowerPC (classic itself emulating 80386) and x86 so legacy apps run on all future Macs. That option ought to cost under $200 I suspect.
Just to be repetitive, I want an iPhone with a double battery capacity INTERNALLY. Heck, maybe all those Pokemon Go users will demand it now too!
Last edited:
Nothing is "slow"
I have no complaints with my iPhone 6S Plus.
But more powerful chips can process photos faster. Or consume less energy. Or like the previous poster said... get the work done faster so it can go back to low-power mode.
There are plenty of reason to make newer, faster, lower-power-consuming chips.
We could do just that with a little developer app support, the iPhone supports external monitors as secondary displays (though almost never used by apps) so the face of the phone could become the trackpad, and we have support for wired ethernet, and keyboards
In this case I think "fragmentation" is a bit over-used. There aren't likely to be any apps that only run on 3 GB of RAM models of iOS device. I do hope the smaller iPhone also gets the RAM just to bring the entire platform forward, but if not, there isn't going to be some immense chasm of compatibility. It'll just be able to hold more apps in RAM without purging.
Intel released 2 chips Broadwell and Skylake... it's Apple who did not made new Macs, not intel not making new chips.
All other manufacturer did not have stagnation issue.... wonder why!!
Understand these are rumors and not supported by any other leaked information!!!!!
If the numbers are real I'm thinking they did in fact manage a process shrink. That would mean 10nm chips. The numbers are rather impressive and put this chip, in a cell phone mind you, in a very good light relative to Intels hardware. Some of these numbers are close to a 50% increase in performance.
Taking that into account the dual core numbers are very impressive leading me to think a lot of architectural enhancements have taken place including large caches and enhanced paths to memory Frankly this is a pretty awesome update if the numbers are legit. Lets hope this performance doesn't come at the expense of battery life.
I dunno man... Skylake laptops started coming out in November 2015.
That was 9 months ago. Surely Apple could have updated their "release schedule" in the last 9 months.
And guess what... ALL OEMs have a release schedule. Lenovo, Dell, HP, etc all know what's coming down Intel's pipeline. They would all be affected by Intel's delays.
And yet... who has been shipping Skylake laptops? Not Apple.
Also... Apple sells about 5 million Macs a quarter. So that's about 5 million processors Apple orders from Intel.
However... all of the other PC manufacturers combined order about 60 million processors from Intel every quarter.
I'm not sure Intel really cares about Apple's "release schedule"
Apple isn't a high-priority for Intel.
I wouldn't say that. There are some very interesting apps available for iPads that really do work better with better platform performance. As for the iPad Pro the enhanced performance of the hardware leads the software but this ins't unusual. It takes a while for software engineers to learn how to take advantage of the new faster hardware. We see this all the time with GPU's so I'm not sure why this is even an issue, software eventually grows to use all the power of the hardware.
Not disagreeing. Apple should have released updated macs. But they tend to try to include relatively major technology updates (not just faster procs) and the full chipset solutions (TB3, USB 3.1, 14nm processes, better iGPUs) just aren't there yet. If Apple had control of these in house, they could stick to their own internal release schedule and not depend on others. It's still a ways off I think, but they're getting there.
WOW if that's true, it should be a beast. With that performance in an ARM chip, I would be so surprised if they didn't put that into a laptop and ported OSX for it. Sorry I mean Mac OS
Sure you can. Geekbench is a synthetic benchmark but it is perfectly reasonable to compare different hardware and its capability to run a specific benchmark. How well this translates into real world app performance is another issue. But that is a problem with GeekBench anyways and has little to do with hardware.