0.001% of iPhone owners read MR. That's roughly how many people care about this issue. On Android side, those either buy Nexus devices or they install custom ROMs. In short - not an issue.
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 5 Benchmarks Appear in Geekbench Showing a Dual Core, 1GHz A6 CPU
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
0.001% of iPhone owners read MR. That's roughly how many people care about this issue. On Android side, those either buy Nexus devices or they install custom ROMs. In short - not an issue.
Ironic. You have to buy a Nexus device to insure that you'll get timely update for a device you forked out a bit of money for.
What if I don't want a custom rom, and the reliability and stability of the actual update like my neighbor has on his Nexus 7? What happens if you're running a custom rom and need to have it sent in for warranty purposes, Does this void your warranty?
Another reason why Apple users enjoy the fact that their devices "just work" and can assure you won't be stuck on 6.0 for nearly 2 years.
The Geekbench for the iPhone 5 has prompted many highly optimized, overclocked SG3s to submit their scores to improve the average.. It's working
It's a shame that the Geekbench results show the exact clock frequency used then.
Some of the over-the-top numbers from the SGS3 (2300+) is shown to be run on overclocked phones - and there is no hiding it since the frequency is stated in the results.
The numbers around 1800 though is not and has been run on the standard configuration.
Ironic. You have to buy a Nexus device to insure that you'll get timely update for a device you forked out a bit of money for.
What if I don't want a custom rom, and the reliability and stability of the actual update like my neighbor has on his Nexus 7? What happens if you're running a custom rom and need to have it sent in for warranty purposes, Does this void your warranty?
Another reason why Apple users enjoy the fact that their devices "just work" and can assure you won't be stuck on 6.0 for nearly 2 years.
The really ironic part is that both iOS and Android offer exactly one phone model that gets timely update. So, there is absolutely no advantage for iOS there. Lately more Android vendors (the smaller ones) actually went with stock Android.
What causes this slow update process is they have to develop the update for a particular phone, test it out work out most of the kinks and then get it approved by the carrier. Just multiply that by how many phones a manufacture makes and rank them from most popular to least. Which is a bummer for some people who don't get a popular phone and get left out of the update all together. This is a major problem with android. I think having the huge number of devices is an advantage and disadvantage
But then again there are people who don't pay attention to things like os updates whether its an iphone, android, or whatever it is they use.
Sorry to disappoint you. The iPhone 5 is not the world's thinnest smartphone, the Huawei Ascend P1s is (6,7 mm vs. the iPhone 5's 7,6 mm - www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?idPhone1=4409&idPhone2=4910). It is also not the fastest smartphone. The Galaxy S III has scored well above 1800 points in the same test as shown in the article (GeekBench) link: http://db.tt/aj2IGJqq
The screenshot is from my own Galaxy S III, so I can personally guarantee that it is not a fake.
This thin phone stuff is BS anyways... but can you slide the huawei though a 7.6mm thick hole? No? Cause of a damn camera bump... None of this matters cause the Oppo Finder actually measures 6.65mm at its thinnest point, and more importantly 7.1mm at its thickest. Then again, it's not 4g, china only etc, but then again the thin crap doesn't matter really. Most of the measurements use the thinnest part of the phone and don't count a big bump, ie like the RAZR etc which advertise thinnest point... Which is retarded.
As if Apple would end up building one of these and calling it the thinnest phone, by measuring all the parts but the camera.
Oh wait... that's what android does.
So cool!
An iPhone more powerful than our old 2004 G5.
But I still think the 3GS is the best size.
An iPhone more powerful than our old 2004 G5.
But I still think the 3GS is the best size.
LG Optimus G is using Krait cores just like the JP Galaxy S3. Just because Krait has A15-like elements does NOT mean it was a custom designed A15. Just like how the Apple A6 has A15 similarities does not mean it's a custom designed A15 either.
Krait, Cortex-A15, and the Apple A6 are different cores, and there does not seem to be any definitive non-NDA documentation describing their differences.
nit-picky, I know. But for some of us who've actually done CPU logic design, it matters.
I'm going to have to go back and read that paper, because I'm fairly sure you're either misunderstanding something, or over-applying a specific situation to the entire category of multi-core processor designs.
There is, indeed, a point at which adding cores will only buy you a 25% improvement in performance at the same clock speed, but with modern processor designs that point is *well* after dual- or quad-core designs. Heck, it was past quad-core designs back in the days of the Pentium Pro. (Diminishing returns hit when you went past 4 cores back then.)
Indeed, having gone back and read the paper, I was correct with my assumption. You're misinterpreting the results of the paper, and I'm pretty sure you're reading conclusions where the paper's authors *don't* state any.
This says that, in their simulations, multi-core speedups tapered off notably after the 2-4 core range. Note: they were *simulating* a different CPU and system architecture, so there's limits to the conclusions which can be drawn *period*.
Moving on to the chart where I think you're getting your numbers (since "25%", or even "%" doesn't actually appear anywhere in the article text), the paper states:
This is what we've *both* been saying all along.
It goes on to say:
and also:
FFT is Fast Fourier Transform. In other words, this paper is written about their analysis results for a very specific scenario, FFT calculations. This is *not* the general case, because different algorithms (even within the same application) will parallelize differently with different constraining factors. Indeed, there are algorithms which parallelize so poorly that you hit diminishing returns as soon as you add a core to the *first*, but there are also algorithms which can be parallelized across dozens (and even hundreds) of processor cores. (This is what allows supercomputers, with hundreds of cores, to bring their power to bear on those calculations.)
In other words, you've taken the results of a very specific study and generalized it (incorrectly) across the entire domain of multi-core computing.
Last edited:
This benchmark makes me really question the validity of benchmarks. I mean come on. How can a dual core 1 Ghz processor score comparably to a quadcore 1.4 Ghz processor? I'd understand if the quadcores were made by nobodies whom had no idea how to make processors. But we're talking about people like Samsung, and Nvidia, who've been in the game a long time. What criteria is Geekbench using? Are all four of the cores of the quadcores being used compared to all two cores of the A6? No wonder so many say not to look at benchmarks for accurate performance evaluations.
Apple cannot afford OLED? that is the most funny thing I've heard in a while... are you kidding me?
You're both half right. And what both of you are talking about is also covered in that white paper you mentioned.
You're right that you can't simply divide the benchmark score by the number of cores. Nor multiply them. Because the overhead in managing x number of cores increases exponentially.
But, knowing why this overhead exists means there's a number of things you can deduce.... one of which what holmesf and tbrinkma was trying to say. (although how tbrinkma tries to reason it through is completely wrong; only his conclusion is correct.)
What holmesf and tbrinkma was trying to say:
: for the average application, which is primarily single-threaded
: a dual core CPU that scores 1600 in an arbitrary multi-core benchmark versus
: a quad core CPU that scores 1600 in an arbitrary multi-core benchmark,
the actual difference in runtime of the average application will be significantly better on the dual core CPU than the quad.
To which you said:
Let me try to explain it in simpler terms for other readers.
Suppose that you have 1 core. It scores 1000 on it's own.
Make it a dual core. Now it scores 1300. (300 improvement with 1 additional core)
Make it a quad. Now it scores 1500. (200 improvement with 2 additional cores)
Suppose you have a different core. It scores 1200.
Make that core a dual. Now it scores 1500.
You post that to a forum. Mass mayhem, cheering, and booing ensues.
Somebody inevitably shouts "but they get practically the same score!"
Had you ran the average application on both devices, you'd be using just one or two cores, unlike the benchmark. And given that breakdown, you'd see that for a single threaded app, the dual core CPU has a 20%. And for a two-threaded app, the dual core has a 15% advantage, despite having roughly equal benchmark scores.
Inevitably, somebody will also then chime in and say "20% and 15% is insignificant!" At which I'd have to point to how big of a deal the world made when Intel went from Core to Core 2 for the same 15-20% gain at the same clock. And then once again from Core 2 to Nehalem, also at the same clock. And likewise, it's the average difference between a Cortex A8 and A9 at the same clock as well.
The example I gave above utilizes the data from the 1Ghz range of data from 5.2.3 in your white paper, at a constant clock rate. If you then add in the fact that the A6 accomplishes scores like this at 60% of the clock speed, then it becomes something actually impressive in its own right not because it performs fast, but because the significantly slower clock speed is a win for battery life.
With that said, I expect somebody to finally make good on their word to ship an A15 soon, and I expect it to be also impressively fast. Because realistically, no matter what the fanbois on each side of the debate says, nobody actually makes good use of that much processing power in our pockets because there's too many programmers who are still accustomed to the excess of resources they had on the desktop. I'm annoyed at how many times I've tried an app from friend and watched it go all sluggish and crash, and then had to email back "hey, somebody on your team's got a memory leak in their crappy threading calls in class xyz and therefore your app is waste of my battery. fix it."
Its just a benchmark. Again, real world usage will matter more.
And its not like these test don't favor either of the other at any point of time. Its supposed to be a static test (same metrics used for each device). So, at the end of the day, it will show what it shows.
Its not that others don't know how to make processors. Just that Apple has made advances here. They bought companies that make processors. They put it to good use. Apple was and never will be about the "specs". They don't need to be. That's "PC". Mac is about "It works!". They don't look at it from the tech side. They look at it from the consumer side. Just because its only 1Ghz doesn't mean it can't do what it needs to do very fast.
You're absolutely right!
It is rare that adding more cores gets a linear increase in processing power.
The reason is that there is overhead in having more cores.
Examples of this include:
1) Lower memory bandwidth per core. You're feeding more cores. So each core can get less out of the same memory controller.
2) Smaller cache. If you don't end up with enough room for enough cache, you'll have a significant penalty from the smaller effective cache.
3) Cache coherency. Basically, when several cpus, which all have their own cache, need to access data, they have to talk to all the others to make sure they're aware of the access. Otherwise the cache will have stale data. Every core has to then talk with every other core. Hence, more cores, more talking.
Apple went off and designed their own core for many possible reasons. One of which could be the above. But not necessarily. We probably won't know what actually motivated them to do so, but I'd take a guess that it had most to do with battery life and then secondly performance.
To get a better understanding of processor design, go read the definitive book on computer architecture:
Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach
by Hennessy and Patterson
----------
From what I recall, Geekbench utilizes all cores. So yes, it's a dual core at a lower clock beating out a quad core at a higher clock.
I don't know the details of what Geekbench tests, but like all benchmarks, the only one that matters is the one tested against what you're actually running.
Dramatic benchmark score comparisons like that arn't all that rare in the industry to be honest if you've been watching since the 90s. But I just find it amusing that anybody would think Apple's a nobody, even if they didn't recently buy two CPU design firms.
Samsung and nVidia are big players, indeed.
But I think you might want to know that Apple's been in digital design longer than nVidia.
----------
.......
......
...
..
Tegra, A6, OMAP, Exynos, etc are all synchronous.
Perhaps you were looking for a different word?
Symmetric, maybe?
lol...CPU clock speed is not the end all. You should read up on computer architecture. Your statement isn't correct even when only accounting for Mac products.
We can probably agree the big surprise is Apple went ahead to create their own microarchitecture instead of settling with the standard ARM. Samsung and nVidia might be great but they are still limited by the Cortex A9 architecture.
I'd love to read what went on behind all this. I'd guess we finally know what all those chip designers at Apple have been doing as A5 was largely a very "vanilla" ARM chip in its core.
The Geekbench for the iPhone 5 has prompted many highly optimized, overclocked SG3s to submit their scores to improve the average.. It's working
I think it's more like some Android owners thought - hmm, wonder what my geekbench score is... I ran it earlier today on my S3 and got over 2080. Not overclocked or "highly optimised" (whatever that means), though I am running Jelly Bean which isn't officially released yet - Samsung has been leaking it like a colander. It looks to me that ICS isn't much different though.
I suspect the reports (mostly in Apple orientated sites it seems) about the iPhone 5 beating the average Android score prompted more than just me to see what scores we get. But it's not a realistic comparison until we get a similar number of iPhone 5's running the benchmark so that we get a true average across both platforms.
But anyway, undoubtedly the iPhone has gained significantly. The iPhone 4 and 4s are way behind in these benchmarks so nice to see that it's caught up. Not that the previous ones were that slow I guess. Lies, damn lies and statistics - makes for great link bait and forum fodder
Wild conjecture followed by cold, hard facts...as usual
I was saying that the most important OS features Android has since early versions:
Attachments
As if apple are the only ones to tweak and cutomise. Maybe it's a first for Apple but not a first for the industry.