Alleged iPhone 7 Plus Geekbench Results Reveal 2.37 GHz Dual-Core A10 Chip, 3GB of RAM [Updated: Fake]

[duffman9000]

Multitasking on phones sucks in general. It's not exclusive to iOS. You are either wasting your battery or your are pretending to multitask which you really aren't doing anyway by any stretch of the imagination. It still just amounts to running stuff in the background and my iPhone has 2gig of ram but either way I want the apps to be in the background not wasting large amounts of battery. My phone lasts like a day and a half or more as a result under normal usage including safari browsing, facebook, twitter, messaging and email and music.

Oh I agree. It certainly does suck lol. At least Apple wisely gave us a choice. If the iPhone 7 plus has 3GB of RAM I'd probably buy that and be very very wary of updating to another major iOS revision. The constant app reloading is the only thing that really bothers me about my 6 plus.

 

[44267547]

Those are impressive scores! Now I really hope Apple do something about iOS!

iOS is the only limiting factor right now. With performance like this, running multiple apps like this should not be problems. Yet Applemonly restricted to 2 at time.

It is time for Applw to put full desktop OS into iPad now.

Wishful thinking on OSX on an iOS driven iPad. If Apple wants the iPad to replace the your laptop, then they will eventually need to make this change. iOS is way to limited and restricted.
[doublepost=1470764614][/doublepost]

Omg do I see positive comments?

The negative comments will start now that the article has been determined false.

 

[gorskiegangsta]

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.

You may still want to use your handset like it's the early 2000s - doesn't mean everyone else does as well. 16GB storage + 2GB RAM is nothing to brag about nowadays, especially for a modern flagship sitting firmly in a $650+ price bracket. It isn't just about "specs on paper" either. Increased RAM is important for maintaining multitasking workflow, for those not especially fussed with aggressively reloading apps (e.g. Safari tabs) that routinely break said workflow. And, while single core performance is important in advancing mobile app complexity, multicore improvements help with power general power consumption, which is arguably way more important to majority of people than increasing advanced rendering/decoding/encoding capabilities.

 

[Johnadams1239]

Wrong. That phone is clearly floating in the air, and Apple makes billions because the new iCar can float in the air as well.
[doublepost=1470739750][/doublepost]
Well, you obviously can. It's time that we can connect a monitor and keyboard and use the phone as the worlds tiniest desktop computer.


There was a claim not very long ago that the latest iDevice had a processor more powerful than the processors in 90% of Windows laptops.

Yes, but you cannot compare a mobile chip to a desktop chip with raw numbers. Theyre two different types of processors used for different things. It's apples and oranges. One cannot efficiently fulfill the role of the other. Laptops? Maybe. But not servers or desktop computers running desktop operating systems. They are two different architectures. Since a benchmark says one thing that doesn't mean the a10 fits the desktop architecture's role better. In fact, CPUs found in laptops or desktops do not have the same thermal and power constraints as a mobile device. Also ARM is RISC processor and Intel and AMD are CISC ones which means ARM one is more software oriented and Intel and AMD ones are hardware oriented.

 

[IGI2]

Update: Primate Labs founder John Poole has said the Geekbench results are fake.

It better be fake. Samsung Galaxy S7 has better scores even though it was released over a half a year ago.

 

[Zaft]

It better be fake. Samsung Galaxy S7 has better scores even though it was released over a half a year ago.

Prepare to be disappointed, it most likely will be less.

 

[Ries]

Here we go again. I'll repeat this as it doesn't seem to sink in:

Anyone who uses the 4GB RAM argument when talking about 64bit processors should be put on ignore, because it's painfully obvious they know nothing about 64bit processing. This is a myth that has been debunked countless times. The fact you still believe this explains your ignorance in the other topics of this thread.

Tell what 64-bit brings other than +4GB RAM and i'll tell you that you can add that to a 32-bit CPU too. There is only two things that aren't, more RAM and manipulation of 64-bit integers. The amount of times you to need to manipulate a number as 64-bits integer is quite low.

 

[LovingTeddy]

Tell what 64-bit brings other than +4GB RAM and i'll tell you that you can add that to a 32-bit CPU too. There is only two things that aren't, more RAM and manipulation of 64-bit integers. The amount of times you to need to manipulate a number as 64-bits integer is quite low.

Isn't 64 bit processor can address 64-bit wide memory address. Hence support bigger RAM! If it wasn't for more RAM, what was the point for 64 bit processor?

 

[MH01]

I have a 6. My partner has a 6s. I notice the speed difference straight away when I use her phone. Will it change my life no. Do I want it, yes.

However, if you think the performance is identical then you're right for your needs there is no need to upgrade based on performance. I use iMovie quite a bit and that works a fair bit quicker on the 6s too. As always it's down to personal use cases.

Then there's the efficiency that they eek out too between generations. It's funny (not directed at you) but on this board one section moans it's all style over substance. Then another group like yourself want looks over performance. As they old saying goes you can't please everyone all of the time.

If you use CPU/GPU dependent apps, yes you will notice the difference, as something like video conversion.

Apps, which majority are, non CPU/GPU dependent, they will load just as fast, and perform Almost identically . Fast storage is key.

I do all my "pro" processing on a computer , I use the phone for daily communication and consumption purposes, CPU / GPU bumps are minor for my needs , battery improvements is the only benefit .

Though, yeah some people will Notice a significant difference , most will not in my opinion.

 

[Michael Scrip]

So you contradict yourself here. Either Intel had the chips or they didn't. In this case Intel didn't.

Did Intel promise to have a certain chip available for Apple to use in the MacBook Pro... but then it wasn't ready in time? Is that the "delay" everyone keeps talking about?

That's the part I don't understand.

I keep hearing Intel is missing deadlines which causes Apple to miss deadlines.

So what is Apple asking for in this case?

 

[Gatteau]

What if it was Apple who contacted them asking to say it's a fake?

 

[akfgpuppet]

Anyone else think 3gb is an odd amount of RAM?

It's not an even amount, that's for sure.

 

[44267547]

What if it was Apple who contacted them asking to say it's a fake?

Then that would expose Apple, meaning they would have 'Insiders' following Rumored websites based off leaked documents, which you do know how secretive Apple is? Unlikely.

 

[hiddenmarkov]

Tell what 64-bit brings other than +4GB RAM and i'll tell you that you can add that to a 32-bit CPU too. There is only two things that aren't, more RAM and manipulation of 64-bit integers. The amount of times you to need to manipulate a number as 64-bits integer is quite low.

Bit rash to discount the possibilities that 64 bit brings to flexibility, accuracy, etc of storage and manipulation of data types. end users will not see this, correct. Devs do. .

this was the big draw to 64 bit at release. this was the playground of Sun sparc and other vendor specific unix distro's (HP unix systems) way back in the day as an example. They were 64 bit long before 64 bit was even a household name.

You didn't have the 64 bit for 128gb machines of uber ram...cost prohibitive back in say late 90's. it was 64 bit machines with ram levels equal to 32 bit of the day. Its just you had more freedom working the data aspects.

Plus the usual stance of your developer has to code an application well to get the most from it. Some don't do this. bad or inefficient code...better specs only increase performance so much. You can only muscle (crap) code so much. It is quite possible to make one's code run much better by going back and reworking code. Some don't do this.

Code works (mostly), people want this new whiz bang UI feature....make that happen. Why I hate agile programming so much. We must have new new new to meet demand. How about fixing you older broke ass code. Nah...its easier to slap on new stuff, make most people happy. I mean everyone likes spaghetti, right? Well like spaghetti code too.

This is where some of you are seeing your memory need.

1. Inefficient code not retouched so leaks and other inefficiencies not addressed well (if at all).
2. Throw in new shiny make the people happy UI feature (needs more ram)

1+2= your ram use going to crap.

Rewrite the code to fix 1....and better resource usage makes putting in the new UI not as bad not changing ram amounts. If only they did that. Some do. And I thank them. Wished more would.

 

[guse21]

I wouldn't go that far as to say Google doesn't care. You should see how many security bugs their Project Zero team finds in iOS. Google doesn't design its own hardware yet and it can't control their OEMs, but that's an entirely different conversation.

http://venturebeat.com/2015/12/31/s...lnerabilities-in-2015-mac-os-x-ios-and-flash/
[doublepost=1470813301][/doublepost]

Proven fact? Give us a reference. Otherwise it's just wishful thinking.

Oh, and have you heard? New QuadRooter vulnerabilities that affect 900 million Android devices.
If the device uses the Qualcomm chipset, it's at risk:

http://blog.checkpoint.com/2016/08/07/quadrooter/

Google just doesn't care. 97% of Google's revenue comes from ads.
They are an advertising company. They exist to service their advertisers.

http://venturebeat.com/2015/12/31/s...lnerabilities-in-2015-mac-os-x-ios-and-flash/

 

[crazy dave]

Tell what 64-bit brings other than +4GB RAM and i'll tell you that you can add that to a 32-bit CPU too. There is only two things that aren't, more RAM and manipulation of 64-bit integers. The amount of times you to need to manipulate a number as 64-bits integer is quite low.

32-bit CPUs can also do more RAM than 4GB (e.g. Physical Address Extension https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension). It's just more natural with 64-bit CPUs.
[doublepost=1470817693][/doublepost]

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.

Well there is also support for new technologies such as Thunderbolt 3, USB, etc ... Also Skylake does have marginally better performance and performance/watt than Broadwell, but you aren't trying to get people to upgrade to Skylake from Broadwell, or even Haswell. People don't upgrade their computers that often (especially not Macs), but they do like to upgrade to the latest tech (especially those on a forum like this) and Apple is further behind most of the OEMs when updating their lineup. Even Apple basically admitted it (one of the recent Macrumors articles where Eddy agrees "you're only as good as your latest release" https://www.macrumors.com/2016/08/08/tim-cook-eddy-cue-interview-fastco/)

To be fair, Apple tends to like to do full system updates (CPUs, GPUs, etc ...) - except when they don't - and most of their lineup doesn't have an obvious upgrade path in discrete GPUs especially. Right now new GPU lineups are being released from both AMD and NVIDIA, but on a new, very bottlenecked process node and none of the mobile GPUs of the new generation are out.

 

[Keane16]

If you use CPU/GPU dependent apps, yes you will notice the difference, as something like video conversion.

Apps, which majority are, non CPU/GPU dependent, they will load just as fast, and perform Almost identically . Fast storage is key.

I do all my "pro" processing on a computer , I use the phone for daily communication and consumption purposes, CPU / GPU bumps are minor for my needs , battery improvements is the only benefit .

Though, yeah some people will Notice a significant difference , most will not in my opinion.

You've been a bit more articulate in this post. Your original line of "Since the iPhone 5, I have not noticed a performance boast each upgrade, sure they benchmarks improved , but daily usage, almost identical ." is what I disagreed with.

The great thing is Apple doesn't expect you to buy each and every iPhone. 6s users probably won't notice huge changes to the 7. I imagine 6 and prior you would.

General UI navigation is noticeable for me between my 6 and my partners 6s. Even popular things like adding filters to photos is quicker. The ability to do more 'live' processing on the cameras will also be improved. There's plenty to enjoy from increased performance - even if you don't see it generation to generation or in every task you do on your phone. If you're on a, IMO, sensible upgrade cycle of 2 to 3 years you'll notice plenty of speed benefits.

It's the techies on tech forums that expect big jumps every year that are left disappointed.

 

[MH01]

You've been a bit more articulate in this post. Your original line of "Since the iPhone 5, I have not noticed a performance boast each upgrade, sure they benchmarks improved , but daily usage, almost identical ." is what I disagreed with.

The great thing is Apple doesn't expect you to buy each and every iPhone. 6s users probably won't notice huge changes to the 7. I imagine 6 and prior you would.

General UI navigation is noticeable for me between my 6 and my partners 6s. Even popular things like adding filters to photos is quicker. The ability to do more 'live' processing on the cameras will also be improved. There's plenty to enjoy from increased performance - even if you don't see it generation to generation or in every task you do on your phone. If you're on a, IMO, sensible upgrade cycle of 2 to 3 years you'll notice plenty of speed benefits.

It's the techies on tech forums that expect big jumps every year that are left disappointed.

I agree that upgrading every 2-3 years you will see a nice performance jump. With myself I've upgraded every generation, and found since the 5, the devices are no longer CPU/GPU capped for daily usage.

The move from 6 plus to 6s plus, for me was interesting, as it was not the CPU that made the difference but the RAM, the 6 plus was the worst iPhone I have ever owned with constant memory problems.

 

[IGI2]

Yes, but you cannot compare a mobile chip to a desktop chip with raw numbers. Theyre two different types of processors used for different things. It's apples and oranges. One cannot efficiently fulfill the role of the other. Laptops? Maybe. But not servers or desktop computers running desktop operating systems. They are two different architectures. Since a benchmark says one thing that doesn't mean the a10 fits the desktop architecture's role better. In fact, CPUs found in laptops or desktops do not have the same thermal and power constraints as a mobile device. Also ARM is RISC processor and Intel and AMD are CISC ones which means ARM one is more software oriented and Intel and AMD ones are hardware oriented.

Actually you can, there is synthetic test which have real words scores, like: Pi3,14, generating 1M of number after the point.

Those are real world computations that have comparable scores:

If one processor can count:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446

in 1 second and the other in 3 seconds, then the second one is slower, no matter what platform.

 

[DCIFRTHS]

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?...

I thought the native Apple apps did true background processing. Music and the App Store for example.

 

[IGI2]

I thought the native Apple apps did true background processing. Music and the App Store for example.

That’s the problem. This multitasking thing isn’t wide-spread, wide-available, coming from OS.

It’s limited to some particular uses, flags (like VoIP apps), and limited in the amount of DATA that can be downloaded in the background, etc.

Android has far more loose rules. But here, Apple knows better, that in the background the download speed must be decreased, because you’re about to do something else right? You can’t give full bandwidth to the app in the background.

It’s very frustrating sometimes, just like this guy mentioned.

Another example is inFuse app, when you try to upload a file via wifi, you need to have the app opened, you can’t switch it to the background.

 

[Iconoclysm]

I recall that downloading in the background wasn't always possible. I recall they introduced this feature in iOS 7. Also, I believe apps have to be updated to use this feature.
[doublepost=1470761768][/doublepost]

I think Apple should concentrate on how people use their phones. Samsung has hammered this point home to good effect. Which reminds me how much better their selfie camera is...

I believe Apple HAS concentrated on how people use their phones - Apple Pay, TouchID, HomeKit, etc are definitely in that category and all three improved on what all smartphones offer (Apple Pay is not just NFC, TouchID is not just biometric login, HomeKit is not just smarthome functions). Apple is looking outward into their ecosystem and the user's own ecosystem where Samsung is trying to function on the device itself. Either way, you're right, but I think you may not have the same point of view that I do.
[doublepost=1470936358][/doublepost]

That’s the problem. This multitasking thing isn’t wide-spread, wide-available, coming from OS.

It’s limited to some particular uses, flags (like VoIP apps), and limited in the amount of DATA that can be downloaded in the background, etc.

Android has far more loose rules. But here, Apple knows better, that in the background the download speed must be decreased, because you’re about to do something else right? You can’t give full bandwidth to the app in the background.

It’s very frustrating sometimes, just like this guy mentioned.

Another example is inFuse app, when you try to upload a file via wifi, you need to have the app opened, you can’t switch it to the background.

You know, Windows doesn't function much differently when it comes to backgrounding apps either. They are given a lower priority to resources.

 

[duffman9000]

I believe Apple HAS concentrated on how people use their phones - Apple Pay, TouchID, HomeKit, etc are definitely in that category and all three improved on what all smartphones offer (Apple Pay is not just NFC, TouchID is not just biometric login, HomeKit is not just smarthome functions). Apple is looking outward into their ecosystem and the user's own ecosystem where Samsung is trying to function on the device itself. Either way, you're right, but I think you may not have the same point of view that I do.
[doublepost=1470936358][/doublepost]

You know, Windows doesn't function much differently when it comes to backgrounding apps either. They are given a lower priority to resources.

I was referring to how Samsung advertises their phone features. I agree with your statements about how Apple designs features based how we use our phones. But sometimes they miss the mark and miss it for way too long.

One of the worst features on the iPhone was the front facing camera which was updated on the 6S, but still doesn't have a wide FOV. In this area Apple totally blew it based on either cost (that extra $0.10 was probably too much) or totally underestimated the popularity. Samsung saw this and continuing blasted Apple to great results. I remember there was a famous picture taken at the Oscars IIRC, and that type of picture is difficult to take on an iPhone. I didn't check but that was probably taken on a Galaxy phone. The selfie camera is popular.

Another feature that Samsung likes to advertise is the Galaxy's water resistance. Another area where Samsung understands that this is a very good feature that is inline with how customers use their phones. And this is another area where Apple either didn't care about this feature or decided that the cost to implement was too great.

There are other features that Apple was late to catch up on.