iPhones don't explode?
[doublepost=1547691591][/doublepost]
Might be a little early to see it, let's see with iOS13 when Apple's gonna need a reason for users to upgrade to the next iMagic.
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.
Leaked Benchmarks Suggest iPhone XS Outperforms Samsung's Upcoming Galaxy S10+
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
[doublepost=1547691591][/doublepost]
It’s pretty obvious the iPhone will still be faster than even a newer Samsung device a year after. I wouldn’t be surprised if it took them till 2020 to catch up to the current iPhone. But by then the iPhone will be even further ahead.
The "feature" was included in early versions of IOS 12 for the A11 devices. All that needs to happen now is somebody who hammers their phones battery (500+ charges in a year) to post their performance.
Apple can do any throttling in any time they want and they already showed it, if it's not the right time for them now it will be in the next iOS update (13). My X isn't as fast as it was when I bought it, just the UI became way smoother with iOS 12 in fact my battery health is at 91% with 1 year of usage. iPhones don't last long stop with that myth.
Samsung is facing the same problem in mobile as Apple is on the desktop: their OEM's chip performance is lagging, which limits your ability to do anything.
As I said when the XS launched - the 2018 XS will outperform the 2020 Qualcomm flagship offering in single thread performance.
"Battery health" on the iPhone strictly means how much charge the battery can hold, and that varies over time, as all batteries do. You don't get throttled based on that, you get throttled based on wether or not your battery can adequately supply the correct voltage, that typically only happens when a battery has been charged or discharged a certain amount of times.
I have an iPhone 6 with 91% "health" with 510 charges that was just throttled and an iPhone 6 with 450 charges and 87% "health" that hasn't been throttled yet. The batteries degraded differently over time yet the one with more charge cycles has been physically weakened more.
Your bias towards Androids on this issue is showing, batteries do generally last a long time.
Apple warranties the phone based on "health" if it drops below 80% within a year, or two if you have insurance. But you could technically have a battery with 50% "health" that powers the device fine it'll just last 20 minutes.
Looks like your S8+ is about half the power of an iPhone X. But it opens apps just just fine, nice!
I never stated I get throttled based on battery health,I stated the battery took a huge hit for a 1 year old phone which is said to last many years, that's a myth.
Funny how Apple fanatics are all about the tech specs when it suits them.
Batteries are luck of the draw. After a year my 7+ has 89% health, my 8+ still had 94% after a year. You can't guarantee a battery will degrade in a linear way, especially with different charging habits and such.
Those iPhone 6's I mentioned have great battery "health" after 4 whole years.
Yes I own both and I can compare side by side unlike you which the only thing you look at are paper benchmarks, yes the ones when Apple used to have the lowest scores compared to Android flagships back in the day, which now you praise so much.
So if you notice that Snapdragon is an 8Core CPU, while the iPhone uses a 6Core chip and is still ahead, barely but still ahead while being 2 cores behind.
If you want to see a closer comparison, the iPad Pro uses an a12 8Core chip
Now you're talking around a 5,000 single core score and 17,000+ Multicore.
Now understand a lot of that single core score comes from the A12 being clocked quite a bit higher, around 2.5GHz vs the Snapdragon 1.8. That itself is quite a boost on single thread applications.
If you want to see a closer comparison, the iPad Pro uses an a12 8Core chip
Now you're talking around a 5,000 single core score and 17,000+ Multicore.
Now understand a lot of that single core score comes from the A12 being clocked quite a bit higher, around 2.5GHz vs the Snapdragon 1.8. That itself is quite a boost on single thread applications.
All my phone's have the same charging habits, my old S5 battery lasts more than my 1 year old iPhone X. There's no point over it.
Does it really matter.
I think that users mostly buy a phone based on the operating system and cost.
I don't believe I ever heard someone say that they picked a certain phone based on processor benchmarks.
I think that users mostly buy a phone based on the operating system and cost.
I don't believe I ever heard someone say that they picked a certain phone based on processor benchmarks.
"Specs don't matter"
-A helluva lot of Apple fanatics when Apple is behind in the spec war
"Aawwwwww yeaaaaaah!!!!!! Suck it [insert other company here]!! WE are the best. WE know how to [insert winning spec]!! WE kicked [insert other company here] butt.
-A helluva lot of Apple fanatics when Apple is ahead in the spec war
-A helluva lot of Apple fanatics when Apple is behind in the spec war
"Aawwwwww yeaaaaaah!!!!!! Suck it [insert other company here]!! WE are the best. WE know how to [insert winning spec]!! WE kicked [insert other company here] butt.
-A helluva lot of Apple fanatics when Apple is ahead in the spec war
Couldn't have said it better besides benchmark war and not spec which Apple is still way behind.
Note a days people do not always consider synthetic benchmark very seriously though Apple has proved that their processors are fantastic again. It is due to closed ecosystem where hardware and software integration may give certain advantages over OEM makers like Samsung. Having said that the kind of devices they test with QHD display resolutions, highly customisable OS vs restricted, true multitasking etc..takes away some efficiency while performing.
Nobody buys a phone just to run meaningless synthetic benchmarks. What matters more is real world performance and iOS devices, for example, don't hardware decode VP9 for YouTube >1080p and despite misleading synthetic benchmark results, Apple SoCs aren't fast enough to software decode VP9 that six year old x86-64 CPUs can do.
All that power and still no split screen or window multitasking.
Everyone arguing over benchmarks, yet most of you have no idea how the processing power is actually utilized. If you think your calculator or youtube app is going to open faster on an A12 vs Snapdragon 855, think again. I have the 8+ and S9+, and some cross platform games load quicker on my S9+. You're only going to get near full clock speeds on tasks that actually warrant it, otherwise we'll have extremely short battery life.
Things like Video editing/rendering and specific games that are optimized to use more processing power, will be quicker on the A12. But other than that, the battle between the XS and S10+ will be dependent on the OS, UI, and other hardware.
Everyone arguing over benchmarks, yet most of you have no idea how the processing power is actually utilized. If you think your calculator or youtube app is going to open faster on an A12 vs Snapdragon 855, think again. I have the 8+ and S9+, and some cross platform games load quicker on my S9+. You're only going to get near full clock speeds on tasks that actually warrant it, otherwise we'll have extremely short battery life.
Things like Video editing/rendering and specific games that are optimized to use more processing power, will be quicker on the A12. But other than that, the battle between the XS and S10+ will be dependent on the OS, UI, and other hardware.