I had a 6 plus and recently upgrade to the 4.7 iPhone 6S. The 6S is blazing compared to the 6 Plus,
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
Nobody wanted it because it wouldn't run Windows software. They didn't even include an emulator to run the x86 instruction set on ARM.
That's why nobody wanted it. It was Windows that wouldn't run Windows software; only Windows Store apps. That's worse than useless. People would rather an Android or iOS device.
No, iOS pauses the apps in the background, so that's not called multitasking then. Try to download some Spotify playlists (for offline use) and then put the Spotify app in the background to see what will happen.
The playlist download in Spotify will stop up. You have to sit in the Spotify app until the playlist is downloaded. Fun isn't it?
And no, the RAM management issue was not only something Samsung had issues with. But now we don't have that issue anylonger.
Not silly. Not nonsense. This guy opens all kinds of different apps, granted, first of all they are neck and neck but when he goes to re-open them, well, see for yourself.
You want to know how many losers there are in the anti-Apple crowd is?
There are literally hundreds of fake iPhone 6S results uploaded to Geekbench with ridiculously low scores (like 300 single/1200 multi). On the flip side, there are 0 fake high scores for the iPhone 6S while for Galaxy S7 (and others) there are several with very high scores (using an Intel core i5-7 processor).
That someone would test a device and modify the device identifier just do they could get a fake bad result (or fake good result) uploaded is truly pathetic.
There are literally hundreds of fake iPhone 6S results uploaded to Geekbench with ridiculously low scores (like 300 single/1200 multi). On the flip side, there are 0 fake high scores for the iPhone 6S while for Galaxy S7 (and others) there are several with very high scores (using an Intel core i5-7 processor).
That someone would test a device and modify the device identifier just do they could get a fake bad result (or fake good result) uploaded is truly pathetic.
Additional cost of the new chip. If extra cost = same performance, why bother? Just means less profit margins.
Plus you could read the MacRumors comments now if an 'updated' MacBook Pro brought identical or worse Geekbench results.
Apple isn't going to put a lower performance chip in a MBP when compared to the current .
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.
So you contradict yourself here. Either Intel had the chips or they didn't. In this case Intel didn't.
I know. I meant the multitasking vs "true multitasking" nonsense. There is no such thing as "true multitasking".
Bull. I routinely run 4 Apps on an iPad Air (1GB A7) and they are run together, in real time (meaning none of them are paused).
There are COUNTLESS YouTube videos demonstrating this. Meanwhile I can't even run 2 on my Galaxy S7 without stutters or delays. Even my 5S runs circles around my S7 in this regard.
If you look away from the Apple apps itself that Apple specifically have made to work in multitasking mode, then you wont see other apps do the same.
Prove me wrong here
I'm not sure, but switching between apps is not what multitasking is. Multitasking is when several apps at the same time are running actively in the background or when you can run several apps at the same time, like you can with multiwindow on Samsung's phones.
So that's why it's not multitasking? Seriously? Really? For real?
If you look away from the Apple apps itself that Apple specifically have made to work in multitasking mode, then you wont see other apps do the same.
Prove me wrong here
I'm confused. Is it multitasking or is not?
Didn't you know? The definition of multitasking keeps changing just so people can claim Apple doesn't have it.
iOS has always been a multitasking OS, but Apple limited it to their own Apps initially. Then people said it wasn't "true multitasking" because of this. Then Apple opened it up to specific tasks (like messaging or voip) and people said it wasn't "true multitasking" because you couldn't run any third party App in the background. When Apple allowed this they then claimed "true multitasking" meant running two windows side-by-side.
I wonder where the definition will shift to next when Apple brings this to the iPhone (from the iPad)?
Multitasking is when you run several apps actively at the same time.
Just as an example. If you drive a car and do a phone call at the same time, it's called multitasking. However, if you drive a car and get a phone call and then stops the car before you take the call, it's no longer multitasking even if you are in the car.
There are tens of processes that run in the background. Also on iPad you can run apps side by side just fine. That's why Apple has a superior OS and superior user experience. Because iOS is not a whore house. If app needs some permissions it needs to be well justified. Even google realizes that now.
Yeah, but that's only on iPads. And just because you runs several processes in the background, it's not what determines if it's multitasking or not. It's what the users can do that determines what multitasking is.
If you look away from the Apple apps itself that Apple specifically have made to work in multitasking mode, then you wont see other apps do the same.
Prove me wrong here
Bull. YouTube search any demo on Audiobus. Musicians routinely run multiple Apps at once. In fact, music production would be impossible if this wasn't true. How else can you explain me having MIDI data from BeatMaker going to Animoog and then having the audio output from Animoig going through an effects App like Filtatron and then finally to my headphones?
Not only do they run concurrently, but they run without latency. Another requirement for doing audio. Something Android and even powerful devices like the S7 are useless at.
More bull. The accepted industry standard definition of multitasking is when a processor can run more than one task concurrently. It's been this way for 50 years, and you claiming something else doesn't change that.
Says the guy who can't even prove i'm wrong.
Or maybe you should tell me what multitasking in an operation system in the users perspective is then?
[doublepost=1470750937][/doublepost]
Read again, when we are talking about multitasking, it's from what the users can do and not what the OS HAS to do to work in the first place.
[doublepost=1470751010][/doublepost]
Yeah, you have some extremely few apps that you can use in multitasking mode. Question is, why are so many app for iOS not using that feature?
To the extent "3" is an odd number, yes 3GB is odd. Indeed, "3" is also a prime number, so 3GB is a prime amount of RAM.
Kidding aside, I get what you're saying. I think it stems from the dual-channel RAM configurations we have all been taught to stick to in the PC x86 world. You must use two sticks, and they must be matching. So you get 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. sizes. In reality, there is nothing odd about having 3GB of RAM.