20% gain while consuming less is disappointing?? 😳
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.
iPhone 15 Pro Geekbench Scores Confirm Apple's Faster A17 Pro Chip Performance Claims, 8GB of RAM
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was sort of expecting better battery life with all the talk of the 3nm being more power efficient
IT IS more power efficient. But as usual, Apple has wasted that gain in other things.
Last edited:
Nice to see a bump to 8GB. Of all the iPhone Pros, this might be the first year where it has the features that make it ‘Pro’ whatever that means.
It means you gotta produce more cash for Apple.
N3E > N3B in perf./efficiency and in the same time cheaper.
That's why I'm saying that N3B is stop-gap chip and from the tests, it seems like this at least in CPU perf.
It looks like the A17 Pro will only be used in the iPhone 15 Pro, there will be a slightly different A17 (Bionic?) next year for the iPhone 16 and for use in iPads.
Apple Reportedly Planning to Switch Technology Behind A17 Bionic Chip to Cut Costs Next Year
The A17 Bionic chip initially used in the iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 15 Pro Max later this year will fundamentally differ from a version of the same...
www.macrumors.com
10%? Same cpu core count? This is more like an a16+ in intel skylake+++ parlance.
Did the cpu architecture even change or is it the same cpu architecture from a16, albeit with higher clocks?
Did the cpu architecture even change or is it the same cpu architecture from a16, albeit with higher clocks?
I think the article itself is wrong. The code 16.2 is allocated to the 14 Pro(6.1 inch) and the code 16.1 is allocated to the Pro Max. If we view it this way, we can see that the normal Pro doesn't have the same scores maybe because of the throtteling caused by the heat( it is known that the Pro Max can dissipate more heat). Besides, last year the Pro had lower scores in the first weeks of the release, but scores can be gradually higher when we see better optimisation in IOS 17.They are using the same processor at the same speeds but the Pro Max has a higher resolution and thus more pixels to push around
That has always been the case and I keep asking myself why they wouldn't simply clock the Max variant a little higher, but it is as it is.
Guys most of the gains went into the machine learning, 2x increase and a good amount of features now are being pushed toward it. iPhone is already the most powerful Phone before the 15 so apple doesn’t feel threatened there and its come to the point that we aren’t utilizing the current chip to the fullest so apple felt the gains were useful else where
Doesn't sound like M3 will be a huge leap over the M2 if this is any indication.
Apple purposefully held the regular 14’s chips back on A15 so that going forward the pro models would always have a chip that’s one generation ahead. Looks like Apple is further differentiating by making a pro variant. So yes it’s likely going be A17 and A18 Pro, then A18 and A19 Pro, and so on.
There’s always the thermal constraint and battery drain considerations. It’s not as simple as slapping on an extra core.
For example anyone can search on Geekbench's website for iphone 15.2 or iphone 15.1 and see that the .2 is normal Pro and .1 is Pro Max
Maybe the efficiency of the A17/3nm comes more in the form of thermal management instead of battery life?
Always been like that, ipad pro 11 always scored better than the 12,9 counterpart because of lesser pixel resolution, so it taxes the cpu less to drive all those pixels, same logic with pc games where the common practice is to lower resolution to get higher fps or be able to use higher quality settings (Ex. 1080p60 high settings/1080p144 medium settings or run at 4k30 medium settings). I remember the days where the first iphone SE with the A9 was considered a monster for gamming running faster than the mighty iphone 6S because the SE screen was so low res that it improved performance quite a lot compared to the higher res 6s.,
Just what I thought. M3 might be a deception for me. I'm glad I didn't wait for this and bought my M2 Pro Mac Mini.
At least we can 100% confirm it'll have ray-tracing support. The lack of it used to put Apple's GPUs capabilities far behind PC GPUs. They're more and more committed to gaming - but will AAA games follow ?
Is it true ray tracing on the new chip is 30 fps only? Also ray tracing on a small phone screen isn’t gonna exactly gonna blow anyone away.
Seems pointless to me at the moment
Seems pointless to me at the moment
I re-ran Geekbench 6 on my iMac. Why again is matching an octa-core desktop in performance, not considered to be impressive for a phone? 🤔 🖥️📲
M1: 2,384 and 8,642
A17P: 2,908 and 7,238
M1: 2,384 and 8,642
A17P: 2,908 and 7,238
That's a definite no isn't it? In the bit of the presentation featuring the VP of silicon design (I probably didn't get his title exactly right), while he was still talking about the CPU cores and hadn't yet moved on to the neural engine or graphics cores, he explicitly mentioned that they had made changes to the microarchitecture of the CPU cores. I can't remember if he said that about only the performance cores or whether he mentioned microarchitecture changes for both power and efficiency cores but he definitely explicitly mentioned CPU microarchitecture changes in A17 vs A16.
Frustratingly in that bit of the presentation, when discussing the performance CPUs he quoted a figure for percentage performance increase vs an A16 performance core yet when he moved on to the efficiency cores all he said was "up to three times more power efficient than our competitors" (again, I might not have got that quote word-perfect) when what I really wanted to know was any power efficiency improvements for the A17 efficiency cores compared to the efficiency cores in the A16.
Personally, my guess is that the effort into the GPU improvements are less about the iPhone and more about the Macs when this A17 Pro scales up and becomes the M4 line.
I think M3 will be better than this 10%/7% boost because with A17 we are looking at the improvement over A16. M2 was likely based on A15, so I think a more reasonable assessment of M3 improvements would be to compare A17 to A15.