Still, it's a bit hard to imagine the iphone 8 not keeping up this early in its lifespan.
Of course, RAM isn't the sole hardware criteria, there's all the other AR/VR stuff that differentiates the 8/+ from the older phones.
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.
Possible Benchmark for A12 Processor From 2018 iPhone Surfaces Featuring 10% Faster Speeds, 4GB RAM
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course, RAM isn't the sole hardware criteria, there's all the other AR/VR stuff that differentiates the 8/+ from the older phones.
Apple likely focused on the GPU because it is a bigger win for most apps. Frankly it is inline with there heavy focus on the GPU at the last two WWDC, especially compute via Metal. As long as two years ago it looks like Apple knew where future performance would be.
Don't forget the other possibilities too, advancements in the AI/ML processor could be significant.
[doublepost=1530572916][/doublepost]
Biggest corporate lie in history!!!!!!
[doublepost=1530573466][/doublepost]
Well we don't know if the numbers are valid, but lets assume they are. The GPU is getting a good bump and frankly that is very important to the performance of modern OS'es. I suspect people are getting hung up on the wrong features or specs. The CPU is only a player in modern system performance and that contribution can vary a lot form one app to the next.
Beyond that lets just imagine that this SoC never throttle like the A11 does. That could lead to far better sustained performance. Nothing is perfect but it is the performance delivered in you hand that counts.
It looks like Apple decided to just modify the A11 slightly, keeping it at 10nm and call it the A12. The increase in RAM is more important. This reminds me of the A7 (iPhone 5s) to the A8 (iPhone 6). The more significant performance improvement will probably come next year with the 7nm A13 (iPhone 11), just as it did with the A9 (iPhone 6s).
I meant important for potential future applications. No issues so far on my X either.
According to these benchmarks, no
(6 cores is plenty fwiw...heck the A9 is more than enough power to run iOS)
We have no idea what those cores are, the multicore scores are a bit odd if there were actually 6 high performance cores. I'm thinking Geeekbench needs an update to identify 3 heigh perfromance cores and 3 low power cores in this SoC.
Knowing Apple, any power savings will be negated with an accompanying decrease in battery size.
The YouTube app (with its wrong-functional back arrow
) is really bad at that. Refreshes constantly and doesn't even bother to remember what video you were watching when it does.True, but we also don't know if these are even valid in the first place. There were incorrect A11, A10 and A9 benchmarks before in the summers past.
We've also never had 3 high performance and 3 low performance cores in an A-class chip before, this geek bench does not distinguish that and neither have prior geek bench scores for the A10 or A11.
The A11 is 2 high performance cores, like the A10, as well as 4 efficiency cores. The A11 is the first A-class chip that can use all the cores simultaneously, whereas with the A10 it was either the low or the high performance cores, never both simultaneously.
I am suspicious of these being the A12, and do not believe they are purely based on history, but I was just replying to the prior poster...that according to these benchmarks, there are not 8 cores.
The YouTube app (with its wrong-functional back arrow
Yeah the YouTube app is the worst for it and is just a trash app in general. I usually resort to viewing my history and pick back up from watching there. Frame drops when scrolling through comments like some slide show is also terrible.
Last edited:
Not sure if face ID processing speed is limited by software or hardware, but I can sure say multiple times I'd see the circle wheel spinning. Touch ID is far superior and faster without a doubt.
Also up for 4gb of RAM but I really don't think speed is an issue or has been for a couple of years.
Just when I think you are nonredeemable, you actually manage to throw this bit out there.Knowing Apple, any power savings will be negated with an accompanying decrease in battery size.
Would be nice if you started to pull those threads a little bit more, you'd be amazed at what other things Apple does, to drive people nuts enough to post in forums, non-stop.
I am not blind to what Apple does. I guess what we do disagree on is the “why”, and I suppose I have been able to ride out this paradigm shift by positioning myself to maximise the benefits of being in the Apple ecosystem, while minimising the downsides.
Note to everyone: a 10 percent increase in GeekBench does not mean the A12 is ONLY 10 percent “faster”. That’s not how benchmarks work. I imagine you’ll see statistics about larger increases in specific tasks, like AI, etc.
So, before you say “that’s it?”, please understand how a benchmark works.
[doublepost=1530585325][/doublepost]
So, before you say “that’s it?”, please understand how a benchmark works.
[doublepost=1530585325][/doublepost]
A 10 percent increase in a GeekBench score does not mean the phone is only 10 percent faster. GeekBench is not a reliable indicator for specific phone tasks (think on-device AI)
All you ARM-based Mac fans better remember this when you criticize Intel for its (lack of) speed gains; although the 8th Gen CPUs are seeing significant performance gains. Apple will face the same hurdles as Intel as CPU frequency increases. There is no panacea.
I couldn't agree more.
Before you get too ecstatic, read this article..... In short, ARM and RISC -based CPUs are optimized for different workloads and while some tests demonstrate the ability of ARM to match or slightly surpass RISC/Intel CPUs, when Intel CPUs outperform ARM, it is always by a wide margin.
There are at least three possible outcomes in the CPU race:
1. physics and process limitations will mean that Apple's ARM-based CPUs will catch up to Intel, but encounter the same challenges and limitations. (My position)
2. Apple will surpass Intel's CPU development at least in part due to lower cost of production (big assumption)
3. software will delimit the platforms more than hardware, segmenting into Android, Windows, and iOS/ARM-based Macs (also my position).
My concern with the last option is the significant drop in QC/QA in Apple's recent software--both iOS 11 and macOS 10.13.
Links?
Reality check: We really don't know how an ARM-based Mac will perform, so the positions which I listed above are really the assumptions (me included) under which we all work.
And all the people here saying the specs didn’t matter, it’s all about the user experience. Well, the experience with 1 GB was not good.
I remember back in the 90's when a new computer would be 50-100% faster than last years. Guess those days are long gone. Now all we see is 10%. Oh well...
Perhaps also include
4. Apple will produce an x86 chip optimised for Mac hardware and macOS without legacy crud (unless that is what you meant by 2, it could have meant ARM CPU surpass intel, which I doubt).
