Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I really had no idea that there were any differences between touch screens. This is fascinating.

Yep. Not to mention that there is a range of response in such screens. A rather large range all things considered.

Remember those ugly ass machines that Apple allegedly uses for iPhone 5 display replacements. Part of that, it has been said, was to measure the more specific range of a particular screen and code it into the board of that phone. To improve response
 
I guess it is OK to talk specs as long as Apple beats Android. As soon as you bring up specs that are better in an Android device, all of the sudden you are a "specwhore".

To be fair, other than the size of the display. I'm not sure there are any specs in an Android device that are better than those in an iPhone.
 
This is the kind of thing that makes Apple products great. Attention to these little details. That being said, I love my Nexus 4, and my wife loves her iPhone. Get what you like best, and don't get butthurt when someone else gets something different.
 
And that's really the whole ball game when it comes to perceived speed, whether or not something happens when the user provides input. A task that takes a second after a second of input lag is going to seem much slower than a task that starts right away after input but takes two and a bit seconds to complete.

As for dual core vs. quad core, Anand Lal Shimpi discussed the matter in his 5S review and seems to think that at the moment, two cores is the better target companies should be aiming for. In other words, quad core is more about marketing than anything else.

Yeah well, iPhone might not own the fastest SoC at the time, and probably never will, but it's fast enough for what it is. That, combined with great touch screen sensor makes the best touch screen smartphone on the market.

So yeah I wondered why OEMs do not pay great attention to touchscreen hardware. It's not surprise when few of my colleagues with high end Android (S3, S4, One etc) feel something great when borrowing and fiddling around with my mere 4S. It feels "magical" in spite of older and inferior, spec wise. Rendering their own droid phones feel a bit dull.

"The touchscreen feels great on iPhone" is generally what they're saying. You touch and swipe your phone more often than opening apps. Even typing accuracy has something to do with touchscreen response time.
 
"iPhone 5 Touch Screen Twice as Fast as Android Touch Screen"

A device is quicker than a operating system? Its either IOS vs. Android or iPhone vs. S4 or N4 or whatnot.

Let me guess, a Diesel car is quicker than Audi.

Firstly an Audi TDI R10 beat its petrol equivalents in the Le Mans 24 hour endurance race. Therefore yes a diesel could beat an Audi petrol vehicle.

Secondly, it does not rely entirely on the engine but on a great many things that determines how something is. In vehicles it's also about the ability to hold to corners at great speed, it's about torque, aerodynamics, weight, power distribution blah blah.

Therefore it's not as simple as saying its one component that makes a thing great but it's combined components that makes a touchscreen responsive, a processor that assists with the touch commands, the operating system and how efficiently it runs along with its simplicity in order the user gets the required feedback to either adjust or respond to the next step of their process.

It's also about cost too, how well seething is made is usually reflected in its price and the value it brings.

These are applicable to Apple and I'm sure others.
 
if lag is so big of an issue, why you do put up with such slow IPS LCDs? 16ms is pretty horrendous, gaming monitors are 1-2ms and do not ghost no matter what is being displayed.

Because a gaming monitor would drain the battery in any smartphone empty in a few minutes.

Lower latency (faster than 60 Hz display refresh, direct mode GPUs, etc.) will be a serious trade-off against battery life. The magic is that iOS is making up some of the lag purely by having a good low latency software architecture for a smartphone.
 
Latency is very important in music apps. This is the most important reason why there are hundreds of succesful music apps for iOS and only a handful for Android. Though even 50 ms is way too much for playing instruments live; it needs to be below 10 ms.

Rob Fielding has done a lot of work on the playability and development of non-fretted touch instruments on iOS, and his Mugician app goes well below 10 ms in latency. The key factor in achieving low latency is to drop UIKit completely - that means, no fonts, no dialogs, no transitions provided by the OS. All visuals must be created with OpenGL only.
 
Yes! I always knew this was the case. And this makes a big difference to the user experience, Google and its partners really need to catch up.
 
The reason that such a minimal amount of lag is noticeable is because we are simulating a physical movement on the screen. When we move our finger, our brain knows exactly when it should move. When we "swipe" an internet page and it does not move perfectly when our finger moves, it doesn't feel right. Same principle as getting motion sickness at an IMAX-like theater because the movie and motion that should be associated with it are not perfectly in sync.
 
Latency is very important in music apps. This is the most important reason why there are hundreds of succesful music apps for iOS and only a handful for Android. Though even 50 ms is way too much for playing instruments live; it needs to be below 10 ms.

Rob Fielding has done a lot of work on the playability and development of non-fretted touch instruments on iOS, and his Mugician app goes well below 10 ms in latency. The key factor in achieving low latency is to drop UIKit completely - that means, no fonts, no dialogs, no transitions provided by the OS. All visuals must be created with OpenGL only.

Stuff like this would imply that there is significant OS work being done by Apple to achieve the low latency they're getting, on top of whatever hardware decisions they've made, which would certainly vindicate Apple's vertical integration. If there are gains to be made in software, Apple seems to be making more such gains over Android.
 
There's a difference between this report and talking specs.

The android argument is usually "we have X processor with X power, therefore it MIGHT be a fast phone"

This argument is "Our phone IS faster. Period".

Two very different discussions.
 
Who cares about screen speed? I've got a hex-core 6.5GHz ARM Z4-X345 with 64 petabytes of RAM, AND an SD card and removable battery.

Sure, my phone still lags now and then -- when doing CPU-intensive tasks such as going back to the lock screen -- BUT SPECS MEAN EVERYTHING! (except for if the specs are in Apple's favour, such as here)

exactly...i can't stand fandroids who tout 8-cores this, 10 ghz that, etc...doesn't change the fact that android is a buggy, laggy, PoS.
 
im not surprised. might be bias, but everytime i use an android phone, it feels clunky and slow.

Not a bias at all, I use an S4 and an iPad 3. iPad 3 and iOS are significantly smoother, iPhone 5 is also smoother.

Feel like Android doesn't use the hardware given as efficiently.
 
Super slow? It takes a person on average 300-400 ms to blink. So 59 ms, you're talking about 5-6x faster than the blink of an eye.

But you are missing part of the picture of our reaction system. A blink is a worst case scenario of seeing a threat approach our eye/face, the brain recognizing that threat after the image is processed, then the brain sending a signal to the musculature of the eyelid, and the eyelid finally completing the contraction. Our mind's ability to perceive a delay, or lag, in an expected response to touch is very different, because our visual center is already trained on the input and it's expected response before the action takes place. Seeing our finger touch something and waiting for the touched item to respond is simply a function of visual reaction time, which is very fast (as low as 10-20 ms). There is not a "decision loop" involved, or a brain to muscle signal delay, as with the blink. This lag perception is typically perceived by most humans once greater than 50ms. You can read volumes about this in articles about game and controller design, and even in TV's that have a "game mode" which reduces video processing to reduce lag in time from when player action is generated by player's console input to when the TV displays the action - such as sniping the perfect "head shot" in "Call of Duty", or in aircraft and simulator allowable latency times.

"Studies of Virtual Environments show that people are generally able to detect latencies as low as 10 to 20ms (Ellis, Mania, Adelstein, & Hill, 2004). Delay of 25ms did not have a measurable effect on the performance, but 69-75ms delay starts to show an effect (McKenzie, 1993; Jay, Hubbold, 2005). "

Read more here

So yes, absolutely, people can tell the difference in 50 or 100ms response time.
 
I really hope they test the first iPhone. I bet it stands up against today's flagship android devices.
 
Hmmmm, my experiences were opposite. It's an iphone 4 but it still was lagging when it first came out. It didn't have the silky smooth operations that everyone was praising about. I tried my friends galaxy s2 and it was fast and smooth. No lag at all.
 
Oh thank god.
I erratically swipe my fingers back and forth in meaningless movements all the time for no reason.
So good to know that my lag time for doing meaningless stupid crap is less then that of Android users.
Now I feel validated for buying the SAME FREAKIN' phone year after year :rolleyes:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.