Comparing different benchmarks. Your scores aren't valid.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Smartphone11/360
iPhone 4: 3545
iPhone 4S: 2250 - 1.39x
iPhone 5: 914.7 - 2.5x
Sorry, main upgrade path is where its at.
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.
Overview of Apple's A6 Chip Development and Future Plans
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Smartphone11/360
iPhone 4: 3545
iPhone 4S: 2250 - 1.39x
iPhone 5: 914.7 - 2.5x
Sorry, main upgrade path is where its at.
Different implication, the new MBA's are very powerful now but I am thinking more along the lines of a Chromebook or something entirely cloud based. Days of battery life instead of hours.
It's worth keeping in mind, as I've posted about later on in the thread, that the 4S score is on iOS 5, and the 5 score is on iOS 6. Unfortunately your scores aren't valid either. I've done some more digging - an iPhone 4S running iOS 6 should be in the 1743 range. So, to sum up:
iOS 5:
3GS - 4737
4 - 3545 - 1.3x
4S - 2250 - 1.6x
iOS 6:
4S - 1743
5 - 914.7 - 1.9x
So yes, the biggest jump so far.
But enough to claim that the S cycle will never be as big or bigger an improvement? Not in my mind. And even if the 5S is only a 1.6x javascipt performance improvement again, it'll still be a substantial improvement, making mobile Safari that much more snappy.
It's worth keeping in mind, as I've posted about later on in the thread, that the 4S score is on iOS 5, and the 5 score is on iOS 6. Unfortunately your scores aren't valid either. I've done some more digging - an iPhone 4S running iOS 6 should be in the 1743 range. So, to sum up:
iOS 5:
3GS - 4737
4 - 3545 - 1.3x
4S - 2250 - 1.6x
iOS 6:
4S - 1743
5 - 914.7 - 1.9x
So yes, the biggest jump so far.
But enough to claim that the S cycle will never be as big or bigger an improvement? Not in my mind. And even if the 5S is only a 1.6x javascipt performance improvement again, it'll still be a substantial improvement, making mobile Safari that much more snappy.
First note, the 3GS was on iOS 3 not iOS5, and its unmarked as to what iOS the iPhone 4 was using, but my assumption would probably be iOS 4 based on the trend. Which by your logic invalidates ALL of the data since they're not all on the same iOS.
But even so, basically you're confirming that the 4S upgrade, which (like the 3GS) was suppose to be all about speed (the S) wasn't as big an upgrade (both feature and speed-wise) as the 5.
I don't see how you can make the claim that the S upgrade cycle is on the same level as the main upgrade cycle. There are no grounds for that.
edit: Here are some iOS 5 results posted from some guys blog (not sure of the legitimacy).
http://davidbcalhoun.com/2011/ios5-sunspider-iphone-4s-vs-iphone-4-vs-iphone-3gs
iPhone 4 was lower, iPhone 4S and 3GS were higher on iOS 5 than Anandtech.
Last edited:
Well, AnandTech is contradicting itself. In the following 4S review, they specifically note that the 3GS was running iOS 5 GM.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4971/apple-iphone-4s-review-att-verizon/4
The same reivew above indicates iOS 5 GM as well for the iPhone 4.
Yup, the 4S -> 5 update, with the new chip, is a pretty significant performance bump. I still think it's at least premature, and possibly altogether incorrect, for you to state "the S iPhones are going to become a lot less desirable." A single datapoint does not indicate a trend.
It's easy. The average S to main performance update is (1.3 + 1.9 + 2.5)/3 = 1.9x. The one main to S performance update we can see is 1.6x. Not a big difference in my book. :shrug:
Yeah, ultimately it's hard to say any of this for sure without numbers we can be confident in. As it stands, I remain content to be on the S cycle, and would be extremely shocked if the 5S brought no or only a minor performance update. I expect it'll be in the 1.5x realm again, and it'll sell like crazy again.
Well honestly nobody knows for sure.
However all of these reports seem to indicate a very strong possibility of a custom Apple core.
It isn't A15. A15 is an ARM implementation of an instruction set standard, A6 and Krait are alternative implementations of the ARMv7s architecture.
However all of these reports seem to indicate a very strong possibility of a custom Apple core.
It isn't A15. A15 is an ARM implementation of an instruction set standard, A6 and Krait are alternative implementations of the ARMv7s architecture.
1) Your "average" is wrong.
Average "S" upgrade = (3G->3GS + 4->4S)/2 not (3GS->4 + 4->4S + 4S->5)/3. The average you did was the average performance boost from each upgrade from the past 3 upgrades.
2) Your logic completely ignores the article and thread we're talking about!
You're likely to get an A6 and A6x, followed by an A7 and A7x etc etc. THIS IS WHAT THE THREAD IS ALL ABOUT!!!!!
The main speed bumps you'll see are the ANx -> A(N+1), much like we see with Intel's tick-tock strategy. (Other people talked about this earlier in the thread).
To summarize, the evidence that the S cycle will become a smaller upgrade lies in the fact that its one main "claim to fame", the speed bump, is transferring over to the main upgrade cycle. We can confirm this with benchmarks (see new iPhone 5 vs 4S), the memory boost and THIS ARTICLE noting that Apple is likely to enter a 2 year chip development cycle correlating with the main upgrade path (which we just saw evidence of with the iPhone 5).
Small correction. They are alternative implementations of the ARMv7s Instruction Set Architecture. But of course, they likely have many similarities as a result of implementing the same ISA. Krait and A15 are triple decode, and it's likely A6 is too. A15 is 15 stage pipeline, whereas Krait is 11. A6 is likely 11 at the most given its low clock frequency (my guess is 10. Scorpion was 10). All three have 1MB L2 cache. All have a VFPv4 FPU. Krait and the A6 both have 2x32 bit LPDDR2 memory interfaces. Not sure what frequency memory people are using with Krait though.
Totally get what your saying, Apple already makes a product that you'll want, and will do exactly that.
http://www.apple.com/ipad/
Microsoft is doing one to
http://www.microsoft.com/surface/en/us/default.aspx
I think what your after is a versatile tablet, not a Laptop.
I think being Able to run Windows and run windows programs is one of the things that has helped the Mac increase sales.
Perhaps, but for what reason? The pros who use parallels likely were fine using both machines if they had to. The average consumer probably just wanted the 'safety' of being able to use windows but find they never need to. I'd be curious what the actual breakdown is.
It just breaks down to, lots and lots and lots of people NEED windows to get work done, play games, or in general run software that won't run under OSX, or better windows versions exist than OSX versions of whatever. There are exceptions of course.
Ever try to run Windows on a PowerPC machine? Its a disaster.
Its not so much of a breakdown, I just think the intel switch not only made better Macs, but I think lots of people who wanted a Mac, but didn't feel like buying 2 separate computers, felt alot safer going into a Mac, because they knew they could switch over to Windows if they need to.
I feel losing the Ability to run Windows would hurt the Mac.
Not to mention, Intel makes the best Desktop/Laptop chips in the world. And they have the best Fabs in the world, why would Apple want to ditch them?
Generally to me, I love mah Macs and I love my Windows/Linux PCs as well. However.
Its a windows world, has been for a LONG time and it will be for a LONG time as long as MS keeps putting out great OS's, so the ability to run windows imo is an AWESOME thing for Apple. I would be willing to but Windows being able to run on Macs has gotten them more than a few sales.
Last edited:
You're both not valid. You're using benchmarks that don't directly test the CPU, but rather depend on algorithmic differences that change depending on what OS you're running.
Heck, Javascript typically can't use multiple cores because its was designed to be single thread only, so benchmarks that depend on javascript wouldn't utilize extra cores.