Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone 6 was probably the worst iPhone they have released, iphone 6S probably one of the best. Although they look the same, the 6S is vastly superior and still a decent phone, iPhone 6 is not.

Why do you think the 6 is so bad?

Honest question.

I’ve never owned one but it did seem a little slow when I’ve played around with one. Presumably it didn’t have quite a powerful enough processor to drive its screen - nor enough RAM.

And oh yeah, bend gate.

I liked how light it was though.
 
Why do you think the 6 is so bad?

Honest question.

I’ve never owned one but it did seem a little slow when I’ve played around with one. Presumably it didn’t have quite a powerful enough processor to drive its screen - nor enough RAM.

And oh yeah, bend gate.

I liked how light it was though.

Bendgate, touch disease, 1gb ram, A8 not really being that much faster compared to A7, no noteworthy camera improvements.

The only new features it brought to the party was a larger display (which admittedly was highly sought after) and Apple Pay (which would not come to outside the US until much later; I got the feature like 9 months after the 6S was released). When you compare how much the 6S got a year later, it felt like the iPhone 6 was rushed out to meet pent-up demand for a larger iPhone.

It's things like this which make me glad to be on the "s" cycle of things, as they seem to be more future-proof in general.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluecoast
They really need to push on better battery life and faster face id. These are the two noticeable points that any iPhone user would really appreciate. Anything else is just marketing hype with no connection to real-life usage.

Have you tried iOS 12? Faceid is noticeably faster.
 
Looks like this might be the year where it gets exponentially harder to push single threaded gains. Every year they kept impressing me with how much they improved an already great single core lead, and now they're right up against Intel instructions per clock per core.

I guess this year they're going to say something like "and this year, it's all about the GPU for AR" on the inevitable A12 slide. And if next year can't get bigger SC gains, probably more cores are coming.
 
It would probably surprise you to find out that there are around 150 million iPhone 6/6 Plus still in use. Apple actually launched a new 32GB iPhone 6 last year for the Asian market.

Early reports have the iOS 12 beta running quite well on it. Seems like the A8/1GB platform, already nearly 4 years old, has another couple years of life, even if iOS 12 ends up being its last supported release.

surprise me what? I have both a 6 and a 6s and even running 12 Developer Beta. They can play with the clock as they did but 1 GB of RAM is only 1 GB of Ram and it has been and it is very painful to use.
 
The YouTube app (with its wrong-functional back arrow :mad:) is really bad at that. Refreshes constantly and doesn't even bother to remember what video you were watching when it does.

This.

It's incredible how poorly optimized caching is in an otherwise great app.
 
Main question here is, are these rumoured processors already fixed of Meltdown and Spectre bugs.

If they fixed them and also improved the speed by 10% than this is a massive improvement.

ps: These with iOS 12 speed improvements would make for one fast iPhone/iPad.

ps2: I also hope that we will see in the future a version of Arm processor in Macbook.
 
You have to keep in mind these SOCs are passively cooled, while a core i5/7 is fan, or liquid cooled. That means that these chips will have throttling problems, because they cannot sustain peak performance once the temps increase past thermal limits. Looks good for a synthetic benchmark on paper when it only stresses the chip for a minute, or two, but in real world if you where running a program for any length of time your performance would dip big time.


NP, I think a lot of people don't realize this. You have this A11/A12 chip, with probably a very small copper heat sink, given how thin the phones and tablets are. This also goes for the Androids as well. Oh wow, look at the scores they get. The desktops have active cooling, with a huge copper heat sink and a fan on top, so they can sustain peak computing power indefinitely. It would be funny to run a program like prime95 stress test on an iPhone to see how long it takes to overheat, or crash.

You're right of course, they do throttle when passively cooled. But, if the Ax chips were put in a Mac Pro, as the person you replied to asked, they'd obviously have active cooling solutions applied and be able to sustain their peak speed too. Looking at it from the opposite angle, how long do you think an i7 would last at peak clock in a phone?
 
Remember when they said the 6 Plus had enough memory at 1Gb?
It did, and then the software got crappier and needed more.
[doublepost=1530635826][/doublepost]
Could be the A-series finally starting to run up against Moore's Law. They spent years catching up to Intel and here we are. This especially makes sense given the larger jump in GPU performance, which typically seems to outperform CPU gains in recent years. Alternatively Apple could be focusing more on battery life improvements since we are moving to a smaller 7nm process.

Either way I hope this means 6-8GB of RAM in the new iPad Pro.
Yeah, that's what I kept saying in response to people saying things like "these ARM processors are going to surpass Intel at this rate."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gudi
This smokes my mid-2010 15" Macbook Pro with GT330m Nvidia card... by at least 2.5x... if I remember correctly...

And, it's on the heels of my Mac Pro 5,1 6-core Westmere CPU....

Does this mean there will be a MacOS for A12 processors?
 
Benchmarks themselves are simply assigning an arbitrary quantitative figure to the abstract of performance, their whole point is to allow for a comparison. Therefore it’s a perfectly reasonable way of looking at it. In absolute terms, this ‘10% increase’ is starting from a much larger base and so the overall performance increase is still bigger than many chipset generations in the past.
How are they arbitrary? They are absolute metrics tied to measurable performance differences. I think you're trying to write intelligently but end up being too abstract therefore losing your own point mid-sentence. The proportion is the same, which allows people to gauge the difference themselves. Nobody reads an article today and thinks, "but in terms of A7 to A8, how does this match up?" They want to know, understandably, is how much faster will it will be from what they have right now?
 
How are they arbitrary? They are absolute metrics tied to measurable performance differences. I think you're trying to write intelligently but end up being too abstract therefore losing your own point mid-sentence. The proportion is the same, which allows people to gauge the difference themselves. Nobody reads an article today and thinks, "but in terms of A7 to A8, how does this match up?" They want to know, understandably, is how much faster will it will be from what they have right now?
You could say an A10 scores 10,000, you could say it scores 126,000 - ultimately it’s still doing the same amount of work, but you’ve assigned an arbitrary figure to it. You’ve made the number up, it has no intrinsic meaning outside of comparisons with the same series - that is what I mean by arbitrary.
 
Could be the A-series finally starting to run up against Moore's Law. They spent years catching up to Intel and here we are. This especially makes sense given the larger jump in GPU performance, which typically seems to outperform CPU gains in recent years. Alternatively Apple could be focusing more on battery life improvements since we are moving to a smaller 7nm process.

Either way I hope this means 6-8GB of RAM in the new iPad Pro.

And they hit this point of diminishing returns a lot quicker than Intel did. This is bad news for Apple. Now they'll have to fill a 1-2 hour key note talking about how awesome their camera is.
 
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.
But others have ridden it out by putting their money where their opinions/desires are. Which means either holding off purchase, moving to another manufacturer, or buying something that does not meet their needs. But regardless, if they are here, expressing their opinions/desires that are counter to what Apple is providing, YOU are certainly not going to convince them otherwise - no matter how hard you try.
 
I seem to remember certain members on this forum calling Android a pig for needing 4GB of ram and now the iPhone has caught up. Now crickets from those guys.

*At the time.

Of course now "Android Pigs" are on 8 and 16GB of RAM and it's bloody disgusting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fairuz
I seem to remember certain members on this forum calling Android a pig for needing 4GB of ram and now the iPhone has caught up. Now crickets from those guys.
They're both getting bloated at similar rates, with Android phones still leading in bloat. They make sacrifices when they cater to wider dev community and hardware support, e.g. using Java for apps. And then there's Chrome, which hogs both RAM and CPU for still mysterious reasons.
[doublepost=1530675569][/doublepost]
Why do you think the 6 is so bad?

Honest question.

I’ve never owned one but it did seem a little slow when I’ve played around with one. Presumably it didn’t have quite a powerful enough processor to drive its screen - nor enough RAM.

And oh yeah, bend gate.

I liked how light it was though.
I have a 6, and it was the ultimate piece of garbage when they had the secret un-toggleable CPU throttiling, and now it's still noticeably slow but not too bad compared to the 6S. Ofc it ran fine with the original iOS it came with. Well, the GPS also sometimes doesn't work, and the compass never really worked, and the lightning port often gets clogged, but that's probably just my luck.

CPU throttling + bending issues made for plenty of bad publicity for it. IDK what the bending issues are about; I started abusing my phone after enough things on it broke despite it being babied, and it's still not bent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bluecoast
surprise me what? I have both a 6 and a 6s and even running 12 Developer Beta. They can play with the clock as they did but 1 GB of RAM is only 1 GB of Ram and it has been and it is very painful to use.
I did think you’d be surprised that hundreds of millions of people are still using the 6 and 6S models you’ve called unusable.
 
4GB of RAM is the most interesting take and will be the most beneficial. Improved processors by 10%? Meh, I don’t get excited about that anymore. There’s barely any difference between a 6S and an 8 in terms of speed.
Uh you realize they get like 40 to 80 percent faster almost every year right?
 
And if next year can't get bigger SC gains, probably more cores are coming.

Six cores are quite a few, and Swift doesn't have good concurrency support yet (arguably one of the big pieces still missing). And even if it did, so far efforts to make multithreading more pervasive haven't had a great yield.
 
Uh you realize they get like 40 to 80 percent faster almost every year right?

I wasn’t talking about the 10% increase here specifically, more about the speed increases in general. Obviously improved chips are welcomed as they naturally have to progress, but there’s not much of a noticeable speed difference between a 6S and an 8 in every day usage. It only feels slightly faster now in some areas.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.