It doesn't cost Apple anymore or much more to do a 4" than it does a 4.7". $100 more for a 4" than a 4.7" would be alittle ridiculous. But I would pay the same.
Last edited:
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 5se vs iPhone 5 Photo (Supposedly)
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It doesn't cost Apple anymore or much more to do a 4" than it does a 4.7". $100 more for a 4" than a 4.7" would be alittle ridiculous. But I would pay the same.
I never said it was. All I said is in the article that I posted it says that the new 4" iPhone will have 1GB of ram and I said I am hoping it is wrong. I never said it was 9to5 or anyone else that said it.
Last edited:
What I meant was that the article doesn't say it will have 1GB of ram - it says that 1GB of ram is one of the rumoured features from rumour sources other than the main reliable ones.
I once spoke with someone who worked at Motorola a few years ago (around the time the 5 was introduced) and he said some interesting things about how crucial thermal management is and he had no doubts that Apple would have to go bigger not only to tempt Android users with a larger screen, but to improve heat dissipation and give engineers more "wiggle room." What I'm trying to say here is it's not as easy as you make it out to be.
I am not saying it is or will be easy just that it doesn't cost much more to do a 4" than the 4.7". If Apple wouldn't keep going thinner and thinner they would have enough room to make it happen. But they seem fixated on making it as thin as a sheet of paper. I would rather they leave it the thickness as the 5S or even thicker if they need to make it happen.
Last edited:
The 5 was introduced 4 years ago. Its direct descendant the 5c was discontinued last year. The 5 was likely in development at least two years prior to being released, and it's hardware probably locked a year before its launch.
Since then they've released the Watch. Progressively thinner iPads and iPhones. The thinnest MacBook ever. Is it not possible in 5-6 years they have figured out how to manage some of their their alleged heat problems in the 4" iPhone? How much wiggle room do you think is inside an Watch? Apple's entire MO is smaller and thinner. Since the iPhone 5 was developed, they've made a lot of progress in miniaturization and internal ergonomics. While it's definitely not easy, that seems to be par for the course.
Maybe there was no 4" 6 two years ago because of these alleged heat problems, which they've now worked out. It would seem to make sense with a 6S that has a smaller battery, and more energy efficient processor, without compromising performance. That's the kind of innovation which allows them to introduce new products that simply weren't possible even the year before.
And once more: DOUBLE THE FRAME RATE in some tests aren't a "modest" improvement by any mean.
You are downplaying the iPhone 6 to maintain your position but you are depicting a false picture.
Oh just give it up, I know I have.
I am hoping for an a9 with 2gb, but a a8 with 2gb should be very very capable.
Unless Apple is releasing a 1334x750 4 inch, then they should go with A9
And you are ignoring every other benchmark that shows the minimal improvements of the A8 over the A7, compared to the A5 over the A4, or the A6 over the A5 or the A7 over the A6 or the A9 over the A8. The iPhone 6 was a big update for form factor but not for performance.
I am not downplaying anything. Awesome that frame-rate doubled in some tests, but most benchmarks showed only minimal improvements. You are exaggerating the performance gains of the iPhone 6 while ignoring the performance gains made on other generations that absolutely decimate the gains made by the 6.
The only "other benchmark" you are speaking about is Geekbench.
According to Geekbench an A9X could compete with an Intel i5, that is simply not true ...
According to Geeckbench there were 20% difference between tsmc and samsung a9... that is utterly ridiculous .
I showed SEVERAL tests from different benchmarks.
Last edited:
1. A7-> A8 was a tangible improvement alright but not as much as the generations before or after it. That is a fact.
2. A8 will be 1+1/2 year old tech when this iPhone 5se/6c comes out. That is a fact.
3. If the iPhone 5SE/6C/mini gets an A8/1Gb Ram* it means it will be positioned at the low end like the 5C was at the time.
3a. This phone will not last as long due to developers now having more processor power/Ram to their disposal. It will get fewer updates from Apple: less futureproofeness.
4. If the iPhone 5SE/6C/mini gets an A9/2Gb Ram* it will be high end just like the 5S was at the time.
4a. This phone will last longer due to having more processor power/Ram: more futureproofeness.
5. iPhone 5S users are people who bought a premium device 2+1/2 years ago.
6. iPhone 4S/5 users are people who buy their device for futureproofness.
7. iPhone 5S users want to upgrade to a new premium device now.
-> Neither iPhone 5S nor iPhone 4S/5 users want an iPhone 5SE/6C/mini with the A8/1GB Ram combo.
-> The A8/1GB Ram option is an option for people who would also have bought an iPhone 5C.
Of course there would be many exceptions to this reasoning, especially people who are not as tech saavy.
This obviously only applies to people who also want a 4" display.
*Other combinations are possible like A8/2GB Ram, A9/1Gb Ram.
2. A8 will be 1+1/2 year old tech when this iPhone 5se/6c comes out. That is a fact.
3. If the iPhone 5SE/6C/mini gets an A8/1Gb Ram* it means it will be positioned at the low end like the 5C was at the time.
3a. This phone will not last as long due to developers now having more processor power/Ram to their disposal. It will get fewer updates from Apple: less futureproofeness.
4. If the iPhone 5SE/6C/mini gets an A9/2Gb Ram* it will be high end just like the 5S was at the time.
4a. This phone will last longer due to having more processor power/Ram: more futureproofeness.
5. iPhone 5S users are people who bought a premium device 2+1/2 years ago.
6. iPhone 4S/5 users are people who buy their device for futureproofness.
7. iPhone 5S users want to upgrade to a new premium device now.
-> Neither iPhone 5S nor iPhone 4S/5 users want an iPhone 5SE/6C/mini with the A8/1GB Ram combo.
-> The A8/1GB Ram option is an option for people who would also have bought an iPhone 5C.
Of course there would be many exceptions to this reasoning, especially people who are not as tech saavy.
This obviously only applies to people who also want a 4" display.
*Other combinations are possible like A8/2GB Ram, A9/1Gb Ram.
Last edited:
we were speaking about an A8 / 2 Gb iPhone 6C, just like the iPad mini 4.
It would be an huge improvement over the iPhone 5S....
No. You brought in the 2Gb Ram, since the rumors suggest 1Gb. And besides, my argument may become narrower but still stands even with the opposition of A8/2Gb vs. A9/2Gb.
Nobody cares what is enough for now. People who buy premium devices or want futureproofeness will not be satisified with 2+1/2 year old tech. They want to pay premium for premium.
So its on Apple to decide for what market they want to position that device.
Nobody cares what is enough for now. People who buy premium devices or want futureproofeness will not be satisified with 2+1/2 year old tech. They want to pay premium for premium.
So its on Apple to decide for what market they want to position that device.
Yes, and the majority of your own benchmarks showed that improvements of the 6 over the 5S were minimal, especially when compared to the improvements of the A5 over the A4, the A6 over the A5, the A7 over the A6 and the A9 over the A8.
Nobody is saying that the iPhone 6 had no improvement in performance over the 5S, it did. However the increase in performance is quite minimal in most areas when it is compared to other generations.
[doublepost=1453980354][/doublepost]
It would be a big improvement in ram, but only a modest improvement in terms of CPU/GPU + it would consume more power than the A9 which is more efficient, and it would miss out on things like Live Photos and always on 'Hey Siri' which are tied to the A9.
For the last time:
12% gain
27% gain
41% gain
These are NOT minimal increase, especially considering that A8 is a tweaked A7 with a new GPU.
These are TANGIBLE increase.
Is your point the gap between A6 -> A7 is bigger than A7 -> A8 ? Indeed it is , like it was for the step A5 -> A6 before that.
That doesn't change the fact the A8 had tangible improvements over the A7, even in driving a bigger display.
Just coz im using "old" phone, it doesn't mean im "not as tech saavy" as others or cant afford new one every single year, i just dont see the point if its serves my needs, and i can do everything with it (for the same reason im not getting new MBP every year)...
Coming from 4s (A5\512MB), whatever specs it will have (A8\1GB, A8\2GB or A9\2GB), im sure it will be nice upgrade.
Coming from 4s (A5\512MB), whatever specs it will have (A8\1GB, A8\2GB or A9\2GB), im sure it will be nice upgrade.
12 and 27 percent gains are not big. They are quite small compared to most other gains made in processor leaps by Apple. The point is that besides the iPhone 3G, the iPhone 4 and the iPhone 6, most iPhones have featured large increases performance, making a big difference over the performance from the year before.
Even you say it yourself ' "A8 is a tweaked A7 with a new GPU" - Eg not much of an improvement - 2013 technology with slight improvements. And this is the point, 2013 technology with slight improvements is not that great for a 2016 iPhone, especially when people buy iPhones to hold onto for a while.
You also overplay the effects of a larger display. The iPod Touch 5 doesn't perform worse than the 4S (with a 0.5 inch display difference) despite both sharing the same processor and ram.
Sure the improvements could be tangible, it doesn't mean that they're that great - I could notice the difference between a 1.8 litre engine and a 2.0 litre engine, but that doesn't change the fact that 1.8 to 2.0 litres is a small difference compared to 1.8 to 2.5 litres.
[doublepost=1453986243][/doublepost]
Had the 4S included the 3GS's processor and ram (or even 512mb of ram and the 3GS's SOC) it would be don't have been overly usable today. Probably would have gotten to iOS 6 or 7 tops.
Pretty soon you won't be allowed to buy food unless you've got a Twitter or Facebook account.
This is Apple were talking about, that sold 8gb iPhones and continues to sell 16gb iPhones in flagships like the 6s. Why would Apple give this phone 2gb of ram, when even the iPhone 6 has only 1gb of ram. 2gb of ram is 6s specs. Apple isn't going to make it better the iPhone 6. Apple doesn't really care if they sell under specs phones. While they will flagship models with 16gb of storage. I imagine a 2gb a9 4 inch iPhone won't be til at least the iPhone 7 comes out and it will probably with 16gb of storage lol.
Last edited:
I just hope the Lightning connector of the new 4" has 17 pins and will allow high speed data transfer. I've got 64GB and it takes forever to backup and restore. I've been pretty lucky with iOS updates so far, but this weekends update to 9.2.1 required a complete backup and factory restore. Took all day with the standard USB A interface.
lightning should have been faster from day 1... its so slow!
Not to criticize or to be negative to your points, as I respect the posts you have and the effort you have been making. However, I think this thread is getting to a stale point in terms of circular arguments. That said for those who are not well informed and stumble upon this conversation, I feel it needs to be said:
The A8 in the iPhone 6, yes there were some improvements. But the A8 as a chip itself? Compared to the A7? The improvements were marginal. Your posts keep pointing to benchmarks but you must keep in mind the architecture of the chips. This refresh rate stuff you are getting from an outdated PC centric benchmark is imo mostly unsubstantiated, and I am not sure why it keeps being used. I am sure It has morphed into a benchmark standard, and too often people get caught up in the benchmarks, forgetting about the actual chip and how it works together. When we look at the chip itself, the A8 may be coined as the "next gen" chip from Apple, but the components it used were of the same "family" of conponents as the A7...they were more or less simply enhanced. The actual next generation versions of those components were used in the A9, and along with a smaller fab, that is why the A9 sees much larger gains than what the A8 saw relative to the A7.
Think of the A8 as more of a refinement of the excellent architecture used in the A7. Even in the above linked benchmarks, when considering a CPU and how it relates to every day tasks, a 12% performance improvement is not substantial. Even a 25% improvement is not substantial. An 80% improvement? Yes, that is significant - as that borders closer to completing tasks twice as fast. But when we are simply opening up a calendar app or weather or messages or phone, it is not something that is significant (I suppose an argument could be made for how every gain counts, and that is where two sides of CPU debates also exist even among the die shot lovers and chip fanatics)
The A8, in a nutshell, uses the same CPU as the A7 with some enhancements. That is it. There are a few modifications to make it more efficient, and work on a smaller process, but its essentially the same skeleton; notable architecture wise too right down to the same cache, how said cache is used, how the pipeline functions and its width...its more or less, the same. That is why they are so similar in the first place. Consider: Yes the A8 in the iPhone 6 benchmarks higher, but the A8 in the iPod Touch 6G benchmarks slightly slower (relative to the iPhone 5s's A7, or even the A7 in the iPad which runs at the same clock speed as the A8 in the iPhone 6) in most CPU benchmarks, and, actually in some GPU benchmarks the touch 6g is either on par; slightly lower or slightly higher as well...yet it uses the same A8 chip clocked at a ~300MHz slower speed than the 6. The point I'm making is that they A7 and A8 are more on "par" than any of Apples previous chips, save the original iPhone / 3G or maybe even the 3GS and 4 (but at least the 4 has 2x ram...and that itself is a completely different story and debate for another time). But why the A6 in the 5 was clocked @ same speed iirc as the A7 in 5s, yet the results were completely different. A7 was in a different category of mobile processor. (And I mean relative to performance, not to it being a 64 bit chip)
If we stick to benchmarking apps, then yes there are multiple GPU benchmarks that show a solid improvement - as is to be expected but then again few apps/games push the A7 GPU as it is, to the breaking point where one needs a new GPU to handle said app/game. And even then, the gains the A8 made are pointless today, and pointless to argue over, when the current high end chip Apple has to offer is the A9 which is a pretty large leap over the A7. So when people clamour for the A9 in this new 4" iPhone, it is more understandable than having to defend the merits of the A8 over the A7. Also keep in mind, the GPU in the A8 is of the same "family" (GX variant) as the GPU in the A7 with architecture tweaks and, again, enhancements. It is like a very optimized version of the GPU in the A7. The A9 actually used a quantifiable next generation chip, and it is why we see more gains with that vs. the A8, than we do with the A8 vs A7.
(You can also look at basemark X as another benchmark indicator of GPU performance. The 6 comes out stronger when it is pushed harder, and similar to A7 when performing normal tasks or idle)
Add to that, the RAM in the 5s and 6 were identical in terms of type (lpddr3), speed (I'm pretty sure they can same freq) and capacity (1GB) and it is even less convincing hardware wise. One can further understand why 1GB in the 5se would thus be a let down in this regard.
There were significant improvements Apple made to enhance the efficiency of the chips, but at its core, the A8 was more or less an enhanced A7. We also need to keep in mind the A8 was on a 20nm process, which is a pretty big upgrade from the process the A7 was on. That can also lead to all sorts of improvements in a chip.
The general design of the A7 was enhanced with the A8, but it was not actually "evolved" until the A9. For whatever reason.
On a final note, I think the point people are making here, and it is a valid point, is that a lot of people who upgraded their iPhone 5s's to the 6, and spent a lot of money they didn't need to spend for what amounted to a small upgrade. So the thinking goes that if this "5se" is similar to the iPhone 6 internally, then it is a similar meagre upgrade. Now lets say you are someone who purchased the 5s on launch day at the end of 2013 and - for whatever reason, justified or not - you feel the need to upgrade to a new 4" device. You have waited some time for this 5se and to learn it is a similar "jump" (or rather, hop) in power compared to your current phone, one can understand where the frustration would set in
Now if you have an iPhone 5c, or an iPhone 5, or an even older iPhone, it is a much more attractive upgrade spec wise.
Hopefully it just comes with an A9, 2GB of ram, and this thread can be rendered pointless in the end.
Last edited: