Here is why the iPhone 6/6 Plus didn't get more RAM.

[MagicBoy]

But as I have proved on the video before, it happens on 2GB of ram devices too, with barely 5 tabs open and zero apps active!!

It's android. It's not a controlled test under equal conditions. You're comparing Apple to Oranges. (Pun sort of intended).

Older phones are swiftly rendered obsolete by Apple themselves through software updates, so I hardly think that limiting the RAM of new models is done as a favour to owners of older iPhones ;-)

Not quite sure what you define as swiftly? Take my just replaced iPhone 4. It was supported for four major releases of iOS over four years. I wouldn't call that swift. Most non-Apple devices are lucky to get manufacturer supported software updates once the 12 month warranty is expired. Now 6 months on the other hand... that's swift-ish.

 

[BvizioN]

It's android. It's not a controlled test under equal conditions. You're comparing Apple to Oranges. (Pun sort of intended).

Maybe so, but forum members around here were finding it unbelievable.

 

[vgamedude]

Where do I say that they don't already exist? Dude, I'm old enough that I had to write the memory overlay files and swap them in and out myself...That is not the point. I'm merely asking what the experience is that is expected...You know this old fashioned thing where the user comes up with the requirement opposed to the solution

----------



So the net result and user experience will be the same, it will reload the tab...Just like the experience is today, sometimes it shows you the page, sometimes it reloads the page....How would you want to be able to tell the difference?

Again what the hell are you talking about? The desired experience is the same one you get with every device that runs fine and doesn't reload tabs.

 

[kasakka]

No idea but would like to know.
I have even downloaded an app called Clean Master and its shows that the memory seem to get used pretty quick with only few tasks.

Unused RAM is useless RAM. Basically it's good that RAM is in use all the time as it's significantly faster than reading from disk. If a new program requires more memory, it is released from other apps (or stored data left in memory by those apps). If you look at for example Windows or OSX memory use you'll notice that they tend to use a lot of RAM no matter how much you throw at them. This is for caching so that you get as few delays as possible when changing programs and doing various tasks.

Also worth noting is that even quad core phones use just two cores much of the time, only occasionally engaging all cores. For games and other intensive apps all cores come to play.

The OP is also full of misinformation. With Android it's actually the chip manufacturers that make the device drivers that make their chips work well with Android rather than the other way around - similar to how for example Nvidia makes device drivers for Windows and OSX.

1 GB RAM is pretty sad for the iPhone 6. Penny pinching and possibly keeping app requirements the same (so developers don't start creating "iPhone 6 only" apps) are most likely the real reasons for sticking with low memory. Let's see what iPad Air 2 will have, I really hope they up the memory at least on that one.

 

[sunking101]

It's android. It's not a controlled test under equal conditions. You're comparing Apple to Oranges. (Pun sort of intended).



Not quite sure what you define as swiftly? Take my just replaced iPhone 4. It was supported for four major releases of iOS over four years. I wouldn't call that swift. Most non-Apple devices are lucky to get manufacturer supported software updates once the 12 month warranty is expired. Now 6 months on the other hand... that's swift-ish.

The penultimate update slowed it badly, and the last one killed it...

 

[FuzzMunky]

People using the "safari tabs reloading" symptom as diagnosis of too little RAM are not thinking clearly or logically. First of all, since when does a webpage have 512mb of content on it, for there to be a RAM limitation after opening 2 tabs? Look at your data usage, you know this isn't true. There is not nearly enough data in a webpage to fill the RAM like you keep saying it is. Secondly, my Macbook Pro Retina has 16gb and the Safari tabs are always reloading. This means it is a RAM optimisation that is being too strict. It has nothing to do with running out of RAM and so more RAM will not affect this. I wish people would try at least to thinking logically.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Again what the hell are you talking about? The desired experience is the same one you get with every device that runs fine and doesn't reload tabs.

Whatever you say...you are always right aren't you

 

[NewdestinyX]

People using the "safari tabs reloading" symptom as diagnosis of too little RAM are not thinking clearly or logically. First of all, since when does a webpage have 512mb of content on it, for there to be a RAM limitation after opening 2 tabs? Look at your data usage, you know this isn't true. There is not nearly enough data in a webpage to fill the RAM like you keep saying it is. Secondly, my Macbook Pro Retina has 16gb and the Safari tabs are always reloading. This means it is a RAM optimisation that is being too strict. It has nothing to do with running out of RAM and so more RAM will not affect this. I wish people would try at least to thinking logically.

This is what I was trying to get across earlier. But you stated the case even more clearly!! Logic isn't always in great supply on these tech forums! But drama?!? Boy we get a lot of that!!!

 

[MagicBoy]

The penultimate update slowed it badly, and the last one killed it...

That's your opinion. I don't agree.

7.0 was a bit frustrating, 7.1 was fine.

 

[sunking101]

That's your opinion. I don't agree.

7.0 was a bit frustrating, 7.1 was fine.

I meant iOS6 and then iOS7...

 

[NewdestinyX]

Here is why the iPhone 6/6 Plus didn't get more RAM.

That's your opinion. I don't agree.



7.0 was a bit frustrating, 7.1 was fine.

7.1 still had a massive RAM leak. That's a provable fact.. Not opinion. 7.0.6's was worse. In 8 -- all fixed!!! Thank goodness!!!

 

[MagicBoy]

I meant iOS6 and then iOS7...

I'm aware of that. I'm not even dignifying the iOS6 related comment with a response.

 

[sunking101]

I'm aware of that. I'm not even dignifying the iOS6 related comment with a response.

It was a noticeably slower experience on the i4 than iOS5 was. Liveable with but slower.
iOS7 turned it into a paperweight.

 

[MagicBoy]

It was a noticeably slower experience on the i4 than iOS5 was. Liveable with but slower.
iOS7 turned it into a paperweight.

iOS 6 performance was fine. I'm still using it on my 3GS work phone. It's fine on that as well.

iOS 7 didn't turn it into a paperweight. You are spouting rubbish. I used it as a smartphone for a year with iOS 7 on it. Yeah, it's slower than iOS 6, but not unusable. The additional features were worth the slower responses for my usage.

 

[dmccloud]

Well they're plain wrong and are just going off Apple's quoted specs (which are unachievable).
By most user reports, the i6 and i6+ batteries are a monumental letdown.

So hands-on reviews are wrong? These are people who got review units before the launch, not someone reciting Apple's tag lines from the keynote. I'll take the word of someone who's used the phone for an extended period of time over you...

 

[nickchallis92]

I've got a note 3 in front of me and when 6 tabs are open in chrome or stock browser, I can switch between them with no reloads.

 

[sunking101]

So hands-on reviews are wrong? These are people who got review units before the launch, not someone reciting Apple's tag lines from the keynote. I'll take the word of someone who's used the phone for an extended period of time over you...

So would I. However, initial user reports are stating that battery life of the 4.7" is similar to the 5S. It certainly isn't night and day better.

----------

iOS 6 performance was fine. I'm still using it on my 3GS work phone. It's fine on that as well.

iOS 7 didn't turn it into a paperweight. You are spouting rubbish. I used it as a smartphone for a year with iOS 7 on it. Yeah, it's slower than iOS 6, but not unusable. The additional features were worth the slower responses for my usage.

Well this is subjective but I found the i4 running iOS7 to be hellishly slow. Awful.

 

[NewdestinyX]

So would I. However, initial user reports are stating that battery life of the 4.7" is similar to the 5S. It certainly isn't night and day better.

----------





Well this is subjective but I found the i4 running iOS7 to be hellishly slow. Awful.

Agreed. Unusable for me too. Just had it as a beta tester.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Sounds like the crap Jobs would spew out!
No need to make excuses....lack of ram is a real issue for heavy users.
Plus it's not like apps are getting smaller....

There is an easy solution. Close some apps.

 

[macduke]

That is because a page's assets are not the only resources that consume memory. In Safari, each tab is its own separate process (similar to Chrome).

Seriously thanks for the explanation. I figured the actual things running on the page probably made a difference, but didn't realize it was to that extent. Interesting that you chose The Verge as an example. I've been having a lot of problems with that site in particular on my 6 Plus. I've received the error message at the top under the address bar that says "A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded." several times over the past couple of days (not only on The Verge but mostly). The worst one was earlier today, where it kept loading The Verge and tried to reload unsuccessfully 3-4 times in a row. I was completely dumbfounded. Eventually it stopped and a message appeared in the middle of the screen that said "A problem repeatedly occurred on "http://www.theverge.com/".

Either Safari is horrible at memory management, iOS is horrible at memory management, or iOS devices need more RAM. All I know for sure is that something isn't right.

As for caching, even if the page is 60MB wouldn't that be able to be resumed from Flash storage fairly quickly? Do you know what the read/write speed is for the latest iOS devices? Surely it's over 60MB/s. 10 year old HDDs are faster than that. I'd rather wait a second (probably less) for my tab to pop back open than wait for the whole site to be reloaded, erasing all input fields.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Seriously thanks for the explanation. I figured the actual things running on the page probably made a difference, but didn't realize it was to that extent. Interesting that you chose The Verge as an example. I've been having a lot of problems with that site in particular on my 6 Plus. I've received the error message at the top under the address bar that says "A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded." several times over the past couple of days (not only on The Verge but mostly). The worst one was earlier today, where it kept loading The Verge and tried to reload unsuccessfully 3-4 times in a row. I was completely dumbfounded. Eventually it stopped and a message appeared in the middle of the screen that said "A problem repeatedly occurred on "http://www.theverge.com/".

Either Safari is horrible at memory management, iOS is horrible at memory management, or iOS devices need more RAM. All I know for sure is that something isn't right.

As for caching, even if the page is 60MB wouldn't that be able to be resumed from Flash storage fairly quickly? Do you know what the read/write speed is for the latest iOS devices? Surely it's over 60MB/s. 10 year old HDDs are faster than that. I'd rather wait a second (probably less) for my tab to pop back open than wait for the whole site to be reloaded, erasing all input fields.

The verge is terrible on desktop machines with much more ram than an iPhone. The fault lies with them and how they optimize their site for mobile devices. Its not Apples fault the verge has a team of developers who build ****** websites.

----------

I'd argue that the extra radio and cpu use when refreshing tabs uses more power than extra ram would. Apple would most likely use a more dense IC rather than adding second "module", so I'd bet power usage would barely be more

Maybe this is a question left to apple. Apple probably has very goid reason for keeping the ram at 1g.

 

[horsebattery]

Seriously thanks for the explanation. I figured the actual things running on the page probably made a difference, but didn't realize it was to that extent. Interesting that you chose The Verge as an example. I've been having a lot of problems with that site in particular on my 6 Plus. I've received the error message at the top under the address bar that says "A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded." several times over the past couple of days (not only on The Verge but mostly). The worst one was earlier today, where it kept loading The Verge and tried to reload unsuccessfully 3-4 times in a row. I was completely dumbfounded. Eventually it stopped and a message appeared in the middle of the screen that said "A problem repeatedly occurred on "http://www.theverge.com/".

Either Safari is horrible at memory management, iOS is horrible at memory management, or iOS devices need more RAM. All I know for sure is that something isn't right.

As for caching, even if the page is 60MB wouldn't that be able to be resumed from Flash storage fairly quickly? Do you know what the read/write speed is for the latest iOS devices? Surely it's over 60MB/s. 10 year old HDDs are faster than that. I'd rather wait a second (probably less) for my tab to pop back open than wait for the whole site to be reloaded, erasing all input fields.

I haven't noticed any issues while browsing on TheVerge. Their site has seemed more responsive to me since their redesign recently as well, especially with the comments section. Before the redesign, the worst issue that I had on their site was the comments section not loading - though they could really tone down the suggested articles sections as well, IMO.

As far as NAND speed goes - I am getting around 60MB/s write and 330MB/s read according to the PerformanceTest Mobile app by PassMark Software. Keep in mind that according to their test description, the test result is based on a single file, sequential read/write - which is the ideal, upper bound speeds you can get from disk I/O. The significance in this is that there are many more objects that are cached in many situations, and are not necessarily stored sequentially - this causes speeds to have a large amount of variance. For reference, I have attached a timeline of I/O to my iPhone 6 while transferring a copy of Xcode to it (the operation went on for about a minute before I stopped it).

 

[TechGod]

Ram can tend to be an very ignorant discussion here on Macrumors. Lets clear it up a bit.

Compared to iPhone's competitors (android, google), Apple differentiates themselves by having full control over our own Chip -- The A8. Apple meticulously creates this chip to provide fine tuned synergy with iOS. THAT's why we don't need the massive specs, or the extra ram. All functionality of your iPhone is satisfied with the current hardware due to Apple being able to tailor the chip to OS's needs.

Take for instance android phones. Most of them use Qualcomm chips. Qualcomm is a chip manufacturer. Android Phone companies basically have to buy this chip, and then create their mobile OS around it (Which is the opposite way of how Apple does it). This can create bottlenecks in their Android OS, and doesn't let them get the most out of their hardware. They have to put MORE hardware specs in just to match the polished experience that iOS provides.

Let's do a little test. Lets look at the A7 -- the last iteration chip(iPhone 5/5s). Lets compare it to the Nexus 4 which had the snapdragon s4 pro.

So the iPhone 5's A7 chip ( Dual core, 1300 MHz, with 1gb ram) vs Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro ( Quad core, 1500 MHz, with 2gb ram) -BIGGER SPECS AND MORE RAM

Here are the benchmark comparisons. The A7 was better in benchmarks.
Image

Also, you can google this yourself. But compare the A7 to the chip in the Galaxy S5 and the benchmarks are pretty much on par with each other. Which is pretty awesome for the iPhone. Anyway, I hope this clears up why we don't need the extra ram.

So the next time an androider says "WE HAVE 2GB RAM!! HER DER" you just say, "yea you guys need it more than we do. " --then moonwalk away from them while maintaining strict eye contact.

TL;DR We tailor our own chip - we don't need the extra ram.

The S4 pro is two years old, the A7 1 year. Compare the A6 to the S4 Pro for a REAL COMPARISON.

Also furthermore how is CPU performance related to RAM AT ALL???? The only one that seems to show ignorance is you.

----------

OP is ignorant. LOL.

More RAM = More power used. Unlike flash memory, RAM requires a constant supply of power to maintain the contents. Apple fit enough RAM for 99% of the users and everyone benefits with better battery life.

Simples.

I wish it was that easy. But it isn't and RAM battery consumption is ridiculously low.

 

[vgamedude]

The S4 pro is two years old, the A7 1 year. Compare the A6 to the S4 Pro for a REAL COMPARISON.

Also furthermore how is CPU performance related to RAM AT ALL???? The only one that seems to show ignorance is you.

----------



I wish it was that easy. But it isn't and RAM battery consumption is ridiculously low.

"I wish it was that easy. But it isn't and RAM battery consumption is ridiculously low"

This is so true and no matter how much you say it or back it up apple apologist will never accept it.

 

[macduke]

Thanks, this is very interesting! So even if the write is on average slower, it could potentially do that in the background as it dumps the memory, and then read it back in quickly later? Seems like it should be doable considering laptops can do this and the iPhone is getting pretty close to the lower-end of that performance, but I don't know how robust the NAND is and how much overhead that would cost. My guess is that it would require a significant re-write of the way iOS handles everything. That and it would probably consume more power.

I haven't noticed any issues while browsing on TheVerge. Their site has seemed more responsive to me since their redesign recently as well, especially with the comments section. Before the redesign, the worst issue that I had on their site was the comments section not loading - though they could really tone down the suggested articles sections as well, IMO.

As far as NAND speed goes - I am getting around 60MB/s write and 330MB/s read according to the PerformanceTest Mobile app by PassMark Software. Keep in mind that according to their test description, the test result is based on a single file, sequential read/write - which is the ideal, upper bound speeds you can get from disk I/O. The significance in this is that there are many more objects that are cached in many situations, and are not necessarily stored sequentially - this causes speeds to have a large amount of variance. For reference, I have attached a timeline of I/O to my iPhone 6 while transferring a copy of Xcode to it (the operation went on for about a minute before I stopped it).