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 4S Geekbench Benchmarks ~68% Faster than iPhone 4
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Notice that iPhone 4S is 800MHz while iPad 2 is 1000MHz or 1GHz.
Apple probably lower them for a long-lasting battery.
Does 200 Mhz really impact the battery life that much?
That's true. Then again, the vast majority of peolpe are not aware of specs. They don't know and don't care. They care about the experience of using the hammer, not the chemical makeup of the metal.
With specs like this it's really only the price of entry. You need to have roughly comparable performance in certain areas in order to provide the kinds of experiences people want. Anyone who buys a phone based on benchmarks alone is missing the point. The best test is to ask peolpe using the handset how much they enjoy it. Another great test is to check to see what they are doing - buying apps? Browing the web? Taking pictures? Stuff that works well and feels great to use tends to get used more. This tells you a lot more than any set of benchmark tests can tell you.
Remember, these tests were designed for software devs to know what they can and can't do when they programme apps for a device. They are, in many ways, worse than useless for consumers.
True, until manufacturers start using those specs in their advertising:
Phone Manufacturer: "Our phone has a 1GHz processor"
Customer: "I've no idea what that means, but it must be important or they wouldn't have mentioned it. I see the iPhone 4S is only 800MHz so it can't be as good"
Ask that to one of over 1000 apple chip engineers.. for sure, they know what's better.
I guess the only thing is thinking towards the future. If it had 1GB one would feel more secure about it supporting features going forward, although if they can keep up the pace and things like Siri are newest gen only, none of that may matter. PC-era paradigms don't necessarily apply hmmm.
Well you sir are in the minority. 99% of phone users was the longest battery possible. Myself included.
Well, that argument would be perfectly valid if it was ever shown to be true.
Consider the Gameboy vs the Gamegear. Consider the DS vs the PSP. Consider every generation of home games consoles - in each one the machine with the most impressive specs did not sell the most units.
Consider the 3GS, still selling better than any of the far faster handsets on the market. Same goes for the iPhone 4.
Yes, big numbers can sway some people. But so can nicer colours or the offer of a prize draw! In the end, though, experience shows us that people care less about numbers than you might expect. They don't understand numbers so they ignore them. They do understand the feeling they get when they use the device. That's what Apple has always been about.
I don't think this is true.
Android fans bashed iPhone fans like no other arguing how specs is everything.
Actually, I'm blown away by Samsung's Galaxy S II's screen size or HTC Sensation.......
I have no clue about the benchmark scores (until now) and always thought Apple is the underdog in hardware (which they are)
However, I'm surprised to see such a huge difference based on these benchmark scores alone. It really shuts those Fandroids up.....
I'm so tired of their arguments, and help Apple defend.
If you like a phone. GOOD. Stay using Android. But please don't try to bash someone by saying "it sucks, inferior tech" and laugh "ohhh 4S is sooo outdated"
It really makes them really shallow to be very honest.
Wow, they throttled it back just enough so you'll want to buy the A6 when it comes out. Don't you guys question anything Apple does?
The SGX543MP2 is quite impressive. This is the dual-core version of the GPU that's going into the Playstation Vita after all (the SGX543MP4, quad core in that application) so that's no surprise. It remains to be seen when this will be adopted into SoCs that the Android OEMs use or when nVidia catches up to it performance wise with the Tegra platform.
Geekbench scores unfortunately are not provided for other SoCs (perhaps because Geekbench is not available on other platforms ?) so we can't really compare how much the 800 mhz actually hurts compared to the competition.
The Sunspider benchmarks are an unreliable test as we can see from the jump in performance between just iOS 4 and iOS 5. Too many software layers there to really get an accurate view of anything but the performance of the actual software (and iOS 5 is looking mighty impressive, can't wait to see the scores ICS comes out with).
All in all, a solid offering from Apple, as always in this space it seems (Apple, get some good GPUs back into the Mac! You were doing so great since 2008). Can't wait to get mine, 275th in line now at my carrier, nationwide!
Geekbench scores unfortunately are not provided for other SoCs (perhaps because Geekbench is not available on other platforms ?) so we can't really compare how much the 800 mhz actually hurts compared to the competition.
The Sunspider benchmarks are an unreliable test as we can see from the jump in performance between just iOS 4 and iOS 5. Too many software layers there to really get an accurate view of anything but the performance of the actual software (and iOS 5 is looking mighty impressive, can't wait to see the scores ICS comes out with).
All in all, a solid offering from Apple, as always in this space it seems (Apple, get some good GPUs back into the Mac! You were doing so great since 2008). Can't wait to get mine, 275th in line now at my carrier, nationwide!
As far as GPU performance goes, it seems so. Apple is the only implementor to have used the SGX543 series GPU in a phone to date and that seems to be the fastest GPU out there right now (Texas Instrument is planning to use the SGX544 in the 5x series of the OMAP SoCs and in the 4470 due out in Q1 2012, which are not out yet). Tegra 3 hasn't yet shipped and neither has Qalcomm released the new version of its Snapdragon SoC with the Adreno 220 series GPU.
It would be really nice to have actual CPU benchmarks though, to see how Apple's implementation of the Cortex A9 architecture stacks up against everyone else's.
(Are we having a discussion about specs here ?)
Sorry but your statement is dumb. They didn't throttle it back because they wanted future sales, they throttled it back because it doesn't need to be juiced up as high as the iPad processor. The speed in the "benchmarks" speaks for itself..... so will the battery life, the user experience, ect ect.
Not saying it's better than phone X, simply using the numbers to dispute your silly statement.
Super juiced ghz looks great on paper but if user experience suffers because of all that speed i.e. the phone will not last all day on a charge because the processor is a pig then whats the point to having all that "extra" ghz?
Last edited:
LOL I'm with you. I'm skipping it. First off my contract isn't up and I would have to pay way too much for this phone. It isn't a big enough upgrade from the 4...in my eyes anyways. And don't worry about the negative marks they dont mean anything. Im not here for popularity. Besides, The Zombies cant't help themselves. See watch......
You're a man of few words. And letters too, I might add.
----------
Exactly... Apple are more interested in producing a balanced product that works the best it can out of the box, rather than just simply achieving amazing benchmark figures.
The same thing happens in the auto industry. Modern cars on the market aren't producing the maximum amount of grunt that their engine can produce, but rather are throttled down so that it doesn't simply burn through the fuel at a stupid rate. Because you won't be driving your car at the maximum speed every day, it's set up to conserve fuel, and get your the most out of your car with expected day to day use.
Looks Great.
lol....
68% faster ? Streuth,
However, something didn't add up until i saw this:
"The iPhone 4S A5 processor is likely underclocked (800MHz) as compared to the iPad 2 processor (1 GHz), explaining the slightly lower performance."
"Underclocked" would sounds about right.. But why ?
As both the 4S and ipad 2 use the same duo-core A5 chip.
lol....
68% faster ? Streuth,
However, something didn't add up until i saw this:
"The iPhone 4S A5 processor is likely underclocked (800MHz) as compared to the iPad 2 processor (1 GHz), explaining the slightly lower performance."
"Underclocked" would sounds about right.. But why ?
As both the 4S and ipad 2 use the same duo-core A5 chip.
Benchmarks depend heavily on browser implementation, Galaxy S with Android 2.3.7 is on par with iPhone 4 with iOS 5
The Galaxy S II uses the Mali-400 or the SGX540 GPU. So in essence, for GLBenchmark it's going to be slower. We don't yet know the SoC that will be used in the Nexus Prime, but if we go by the Galaxy S II HD, it's probably an OMAP4460 which uses the SGX540 GPU, which would be slower. The Galaxy SIII is rumored to be moving to the OMAP4470, which would make it faster, but that's unannounced and not close to shipping (the SoC itself ships in 2012).
Again, we have no CPU benchmark numbers here for the competition, so with the same Cortex A9 architecture, it's quite possible that Samsung's Exynos, nVidia's Tegra 2, TI's OMAP4 and Qalcomm's current Snapdragon offerings are faster than the iPhone 4S. We'd need an actual measure of integer/floating point math for that, is there even a software package available on both Android and iOS that can measure this ?
I'm pretty sure I see the Galaxy S 2 in those benchmarks, and it appears to be getting readily spanked by the 4S. Just saying, I personally could care less about specs when it comes to cellphone, I want real-world performance, and the iPhone 4 even has that.