Benchmark tests show iPhone 6s is as powerful as the Retina MacBook

[EthanNixon]

Can't convenience be benchmarked? Portability is convenience, and portability is weight. Weight can be measured. An iPhone is lighter than a Macbook.

You can't do "everything" on a desktop operating system. There are things you can do on the iPhone 6, for instance, record high res video with the camera, that you can't with the MacBook. There are apps that are exclusive to mobile.

Yep, Modern Combat 5 is amazing and one of my favourite mobile FPSses. I gave it as an example, because your own example of "Crossy Roads" was ridiculous as there are far more advanced games than that for the iPhone.

Dude... You CANNOT measure convenience. Convenience is subjective, not objective. You can't test convenience, and it is not universal for everyone. For instance, your "weight" is more convenient to you. However, a full desktop operating system is more "convenient" than weight to me.

Like I've said a million times, they are two completely different devices, there is NO reason to compare a laptop to a phone. No reason.

Enjoy your iPhone, as I am. Let people enjoy their MacBooks without belittling them.

I don't care what Modern Combat 5 is compared to Crossy Road, it's not comparable to any modern FPS on a desktop. Again, comparing a mobile game to a desktop game. No point.

The MacBook is underpowered when it comes to 3D gaming, compared with the iPhone.

It also seems to be underpowered for PDF documents, incredibly, it struggles with the most basic plain text documents! I've tried all sorts of PDF readers including QuickView and Skim, and my iPod Touch can scroll through PDFs smoother than my Macbook with any of them!

Your MacBook is defective. My MacBook Pro 2008 Core2Duo with 2GB of RAM can scroll through PDFs without lag. I would go ahead and get Apple to replace your MacBook, unless you're trolling.

 

[pastrychef]

Your computer at idle is still running thousands of processes per second that a mobile OS is NOT doing.

What does it matter if those processes are not even using 1% of the CPU?

 

[EthanNixon]

What does it matter if those processes are not even using 1% of the CPU?

That is pretty much exactly the point. A desktop CPU (x86/64) can run millions of processes in the background while still being efficient. ARM is not anywhere near that yet, and it's basically why no one has taken the time to develop their desktop OS for ARM. Not only would it take an REALLY long time and a lot of effort, it just isn't worth it. Extremely simple benchmarks might show that some ARM chips are comparable to some x86/64 CPUs, however they are just that...simple benchmarks.

Throw in a compiling benchmark, a REAL 3D benchmark (3D Mark does not count for mobile, no DirectX), and you will have a very different result.

 

[lite426]

Dude... You CANNOT measure convenience. Convenience is subjective, not objective. You can't test convenience, and it is not universal for everyone. For instance, your "weight" is more convenient to you. However, a full desktop operating system is more "convenient" than weight to me.

Like I've said a million times, they are two completely different devices, there is NO reason to compare a laptop to a phone. No reason.

Enjoy your iPhone, as I am. Let people enjoy their MacBooks without belittling them.

I don't care what Modern Combat 5 is compared to Crossy Road, it's not comparable to any modern FPS on a desktop. Again, comparing a mobile game to a desktop game. No point.

Wrong, there is EVERY reason to compare a laptop to a phone, if they're used for the same tasks. Same goes for a tablet and a laptop. I personally AM interested in a comparison between two different devices, that I will use to do the same thing. You may well not be.

Portability is generally accepted as part of what consumers tend to view as "convenience". Hence why laptops are often reviewed based on weight, dimensions etc and the MacBook is largely applauded for its low weight and footprint, against other laptops and tablets like the iPad.

No one is belittling anyone, if you take that perspective just because of a criticism of a few bits of silicon and metal I would question your sanity. I criticise the MacBook itself, not the person who uses it. Yes, Modern Combat 5 is comparable to a desktop FPS. I don't care about the technicalities of why you think it shouldn't be compared, it's a 3D shooter with comparable graphics and runs at the iPhone's native resolution at 60FPS which is better than the MacBook can do.

Your MacBook is defective. My MacBook Pro 2008 Core2Duo with 2GB of RAM can scroll through PDFs without lag. I would go ahead and get Apple to replace your MacBook, unless you're trolling.

Not defective, not trolling. Just take a look at the other thread right below this one, I am not the only one with this problem.

 

[EthanNixon]

Wrong, there is EVERY reason to compare a laptop to a phone, if they're used for the same tasks. Same goes for a tablet and a laptop. I personally AM interested in a comparison between two different devices, that I will use to do the same thing. You may well not be.

Portability is generally accepted as part of what consumers tend to view as "convenience". Hence why laptops are often reviewed based on weight, dimensions etc and the MacBook is largely applauded for its low weight and footprint, against other laptops and tablets like the iPad.

No one is belittling anyone, if you take that perspective just because of a criticism of a few bits of silicon and metal I would question your sanity. I criticise the MacBook itself, not the person who uses it. Yes, Modern Combat 5 is comparable to a desktop FPS. I don't care about the technicalities of why you think it shouldn't be compared, it's a 3D shooter with comparable graphics and runs at the iPhone's native resolution at 60FPS which is better than the MacBook can do.



Not defective, not trolling. Just take a look at the other thread right below this one, I am not the only one with this problem.

I am glad you can get things done on an iPod Touch just as well as a laptop. While that is quite remarkable, and you might be the only one in the world to be able to do that, but you certainly are doing something right.

Portability is obviously sought after, for what they are using it for. If someone has a laptop, and an iPhone next to each other, which do you think they will choose to pick to surf the web and comment on the forums. I would be willing to bet a lot of money they would pick a laptop 4/5 times. I would also bet that most people can be more productive and efficient on a laptop than a mobile phone for most activities. That is sort of a no-brainer, but not to you.

The iPhone couldn't run CS:GO at all, let alone 60FPS at its native resolution either, so what's the point for saying the MacBook can't. The point is, the MacBook can run CS:GO at 720P at 60FPS. I can bet a metric **** ton of money, the iPhone couldn't produce the same results at all, if CS:GO was to be ported to iOS.

You should bring your MacBook to Apple and ask them why yours can't scroll through plain text PDF files without lagging. I am sure they will replace it for you as many times until you get one that works for you.

I'm not posting in this thread anymore, comparing laptops and phones is redundant and pretty dumb.

Enjoy your iPod Touch and MacBook.

 

[pastrychef]

That is pretty much exactly the point. A desktop CPU (x86/64) can run millions of processes in the background while still being efficient. ARM is not anywhere near that yet, and it's basically why no one has taken the time to develop their desktop OS for ARM. Not only would it take an REALLY long time and a lot of effort, it just isn't worth it. Extremely simple benchmarks might show that some ARM chips are comparable to some x86/64 CPUs, however they are just that...simple benchmarks.

Throw in a compiling benchmark, a REAL 3D benchmark (3D Mark does not count for mobile, no DirectX), and you will have a very different result.

Let's not exaggerate now... With just Safari running, I have 228 processes running on my Mac. I can't imagine an iPhone to be far behind. Keep in mind that they have to manage things like phone calls, messages, and notifications.

With all this in mind, how would a benchmark testing Javascript heavily favor either?

 

[EthanNixon]

Let's not exaggerate now... With just Safari running, I have 228 processes running on my Mac. I can't imagine an iPhone to be far behind. Keep in mind that they have to manage things like phone calls, messages, and notifications.

With all this in mind, how would a benchmark testing Javascript heavily favor either?

The "thousands" was referring to Windows OS's. ;-) I would say an iPhone has around 10ish active processes running at idle. They are really just background push notifications. You have PIM services that are mandatory like emergency calling, SIM, etc. Outside of those very few processes, the way the iOS works I am sure there are no more than 20 active processes on idle.

Javascript is a good universal benchmark, but that is extremely basic. ARM and x86 support two entirely different instruction sets that can't be benchmarked together for that very reason.

 

[boltjames]

The MacBook is underpowered when it comes to 3D gaming, compared with the iPhone.

It also seems to be underpowered for PDF documents, incredibly, it struggles with the most basic plain text documents! I've tried all sorts of PDF readers including QuickView and Skim, and my iPod Touch can scroll through PDFs smoother than my Macbook with any of them!

Run Windows 10 like I do. No issues with any files. PDF's, please.

Perhaps the RMB is a problem when it's incorrectly used as a Mac.

BJ

 

[pastrychef]

That's the reason why I posted links to Javascript benchmarks. To compare the differences between two modern devices. It should have a direct correlation to daily usage by pretty much everyone.

 

[EthanNixon]

That's the reason why I posted links to Javascript benchmarks. To compare the differences between two modern devices. It should have a direct correlation to daily usage by pretty much everyone.

It's not though, but you and many other people can think it is!
You can't have a general benchmark for one type of programming language. You can't compare ARM and x86/64, it doesn't work that way. You can however compare two ARM and two X86/64 with Geekbench, that's a good comparison. Unless there is a benchmark that is specifically tailored to instructions supported by X86/64 and ARM, there is no point. Since such a benchmark can never be made, benchmarking two different architectures is kind of pointless.

 

[lite426]

Run Windows 10 like I do. No issues with any files. PDF's, please.

Perhaps the RMB is a problem when it's incorrectly used as a Mac.

BJ

I have Windows 10 on Parallels 11, scrolling websites is awful. I intend to install it later with Bootcamp, but my experience of running Windows on previous Macs is that battery life takes a fairly big hit, and scrolling sucks compared to OS X.

 

[boltjames]

Dude... You CANNOT measure convenience. Convenience is subjective, not objective. You can't test convenience, and it is not universal for everyone. For instance, your "weight" is more convenient to you. However, a full desktop operating system is more "convenient" than weight to me.

Like I've said a million times, they are two completely different devices, there is NO reason to compare a laptop to a phone. No reason.

Enjoy your iPhone, as I am. Let people enjoy their MacBooks without belittling them.

I don't care what Modern Combat 5 is compared to Crossy Road, it's not comparable to any modern FPS on a desktop. Again, comparing a mobile game to a desktop game. No point.

Your MacBook is defective. My MacBook Pro 2008 Core2Duo with 2GB of RAM can scroll through PDFs without lag. I would go ahead and get Apple to replace your MacBook, unless you're trolling.

Ethan, you said it correctly- you're being trolled.

Comparing a phone to a notebook is ridiculous. Hey, a bicycle is more portable than a car because it's smaller! Oh, and it's more powerful because it isn't asked to do too much! How lame the new BMW 4 Series is. Should have bought a bicycle.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

That's the reason why I posted links to Javascript benchmarks. To compare the differences between two modern devices. It should have a direct correlation to daily usage by pretty much everyone.

Really? Another night of this? Enjoy your bicycle but don't tell us our BMW's aren't superior.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

I have Windows 10 on Parallels 11, scrolling websites is awful. I intend to install it later with Bootcamp, but my experience of running Windows on previous Macs is that battery life takes a fairly big hit, and scrolling sucks compared to OS X.

I've run nothing but Windows 8 and Windows 10 on my RMB and it's been fantastic.

Battery life is tremendous, scrolling? Please.

BJ

 

[pastrychef]

It's not though, but you and many other people can think it is!
You can't have a general benchmark for one type of programming language. You can't compare ARM and x86/64, it doesn't work that way. You can however compare two ARM and two X86/64 with Geekbench, that's a good comparison. Unless there is a benchmark that is specifically tailored to instructions supported by X86/64 and ARM, there is no point. Since such a benchmark can never be made, benchmarking two different architectures is kind of pointless.

But the comparison I seek is how many seconds does this device take to render this webpage vs how many seconds it takes that device to render same website. So I can derive what the differences are.

It's like when people tests for FPS on games between OS X and Windows. That's how we know for gaming, Windows is the better choice.

 

[lite426]

It's not though, but you and many other people can think it is!
You can't have a general benchmark for one type of programming language. You can't compare ARM and x86/64, it doesn't work that way. You can however compare two ARM and two X86/64 with Geekbench, that's a good comparison. Unless there is a benchmark that is specifically tailored to instructions supported by X86/64 and ARM, there is no point. Since such a benchmark can never be made, benchmarking two different architectures is kind of pointless.

Let's put aside for a moment all the X86 and ARM jargon, and look at whether the benchmarks reflect real world use. I think that in this case they do; my MacBook often stutters with image heavy sites, an iPhone (with the site on desktop view) scrolls anything perfectly.

 

[pastrychef]

Really? Another night of this? Enjoy your bicycle but don't tell us our BMW's aren't superior.

BJ

Look. I understand you have a lot of insecurities. But don't blame me if you have buyer's remorse.

 

[boltjames]

But the comparison I seek is how many seconds does this device take to render this webpage vs how many seconds it takes that device to render same website. So I can derive what the differences are.

If there is a difference between rendering a webpage it's fractions of a second and no one cares. No one.

And it is more likely due to the browsers being used or the network configuration than what you're calling "power".

Give it up already. Ride your bicycle. Let the adults enjoy their automobiles.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

Look. I understand you have a lot of insecurities. But don't blame me if you have buyer's remorse.

I have no buyers remorse. In fact, I may buy a second RMB, this time for the wife so she stops borrowing mine.

How's your bicycle? Enjoying the portability and the 'power'?

BJ

 

[pastrychef]

If there is a difference between rendering a webpage it's fractions of a second and no one cares. No one.

And it is more likely due to the browsers being used or the network configuration than what you're calling "power".

Give it up already. Ride your bicycle. Let the adults enjoy their automobiles.

BJ

Again, you take in to assumption that everyone thinks like you which obviously is not true.

I feel sorry for your wasted money, but it couldn't have happened to a better person.

 

[boltjames]

Let's put aside for a moment all the X86 and ARM jargon, and look at whether the benchmarks reflect real world use. I think that in this case they do; my MacBook often stutters with image heavy sites, an iPhone (with the site on desktop view) scrolls anything perfectly.

Benchmarking a bicycle to a BMW produces results that mean nothing in the real world. They are used for two different purposes by two different people.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

Again, you take in to assumption that everyone thinks like you which obviously is not true.

I feel sorry for your wasted money, but it couldn't have happened to a better person.

Ah, so now we get to the root cause of your participation in this thread: Money.

Fear not Mr. Cupcake; in 5 years you'll be able to find a nice MacBook on Craigslist for $500.

BJ

 

[lite426]

If there is a difference between rendering a webpage it's fractions of a second and no one cares. No one.

Bolt James, please don't speak for everyone. Fractions of a second do count for me, yes I do care. I don't spend this much on a device and not care.

 

[EthanNixon]

But the comparison I seek is how many seconds does this device take to render this webpage vs how many seconds it takes that device to render same website. So I can derive what the differences are.

It's like when people tests for FPS on games between OS X and Windows. That's how we know for gaming, Windows is the better choice.

Windows is ONLY superior because of DirectX support. If Mac OS X supported DirectX it would be a different story. Again, it comes down to programming languages.

Also, there is a lot more going on behind the scenes to make a webpage render faster on a mobile OS than a desktop OS. If you do not know about this, then there is no sense in arguing, and I would suggest you to educate yourself on how things are rendered on mobile operating systems versus desktop ones.

 

[pastrychef]

Windows is ONLY superior because of DirectX support. If Mac OS X supported DirectX it would be a different story. Again, it comes down to programming languages.

Also, there is a lot more going on behind the scenes to make a webpage render faster on a mobile OS than a desktop OS. If you do not know about this, then there is no sense in arguing, and I would suggest you to educate yourself on how things are rendered on mobile operating systems versus desktop ones.

Yes, I realize DirectX is the reason for the better performance. However, at the end of the day, why a game performs better on Windows matters very little to me. What matters is that it does.

Of course there is a lot going on. But, again, I don't care about that. What I care about is how they compare when rendering the page. That's what matters me because that's what will affect me and that's what will help me make the correct choice when purchasing a device for that purpose.