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.
Potential Benchmark for iPhone XR Successor Shows 4GB RAM, Moderate Performance Gains
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Already picked up by www.iphonehacks.com
http://www.iphonehacks.com/2019/09/2019-iphone-xr-geekbench-4gb-ram.html
I typically keep my iPhones 3-4 years... which is why I'll probably wait with my 7 Plus (with 3 GB RAM and 8 month old battery) until 2020, to get 5G. A 120 Hz ProMotion screen would also be a bonus.
http://www.iphonehacks.com/2019/09/2019-iphone-xr-geekbench-4gb-ram.html
Of course, it's a flagship phone that isn't even a year old yet.
I typically keep my iPhones 3-4 years... which is why I'll probably wait with my 7 Plus (with 3 GB RAM and 8 month old battery) until 2020, to get 5G. A 120 Hz ProMotion screen would also be a bonus.
Last year's A12 is already TSMC's 7 nm.You won’t see a substantial performance upgrade until 2021 when the bionic chip goes with 7nm architecture.
Last edited:
Meaningless when there's no software (on Android anyway) that could actually run all cores at once.
[doublepost=1567485420][/doublepost]
Rumor is the A13 is TSMC 7nm+ EUV (where some of the chip is done using EUV).
They sort of are. New processes do not offer higher performance anymore (at least not the way it happened before). They do let the designers to pack more transistors on the die and indirectly (by using more cores) increase the performance but only for multi-thread/process scenarios. At least this is my impression about the latest process nodes.
This "stalling" in the A processor performance progress may pour cold water on the dreams of some posters here who expected A processors to overtake Intel/AMD processors in performance very soon.
[doublepost=1567485728][/doublepost]
Firstly, unlike iOS, Android is very liberal in allowing concurrent execution of many apps/processes so many core architecture here is very welcome. Secondly, many operations that really need the performance (like image processing) are easily multithreaded.
Stalling? You think jumping from 4,800 to 5,400 single core is somehow "stalling"? BTW, have you heard of this processor called the A12X? A year old already and it trounces Qualcomms latest & greatest "laptop" SoC, the 8cx. And the A13X is coming up....
There is no stalling the A-processor performance. We are talking about the XR-successor here. You should expect much more from Pro.
Second, new processes offer higher performance. It’s just dumb to try to increase processor performance by relying too much on clock rate. Power consumption/dissipation = CV^2f. Increasing f also generally requires increasing V. Bad idea. It’s much better, for anything running on batteries and without a fan, to increase performance by more efficiently using each transistor (increase IPC).
This is not a new phenomena - it’s been going on for years. If all that mattered was clock rate you’d end up with something like the GaAs F-RISC research project at Rensselaer. Super-high clock rates at the time, terrible CPU performance.
[doublepost=1567486406][/doublepost]
EUV should buy them something like 10-15% performance or power (I imagine they’ll optimize for power, and increase the clock rate a bit by shrinking the critical paths, while also improving IPC with bigger caches/buffers and maybe some minor micro architectural changes. Most of the new stuff will be in the co-processors, which won’t show up in current benchmark testing that isn’t optimized to use the hardware).
A13 is using newer TSMC process than 855+. A12X has 2x the performance cores compared to its phone counterparts and is not suitable for the phones.
This is the main difference between Apple and Samsung/Qualcomm. Samsung/Qualcomm have always had SoCs with double the cores and higher clocks (1 vs 2, 2 vs 4, 4 vs 8) when compared to Apple (up until recently when Apple went to 6 cores). Yet Apple was able to maintain performance. Apple concentrated on making individual cores faster/more efficient while Samsung/Qualcomm took the easy way out (faster clocks, more cores).
When Apple finally decides to make an 8 core processor we get the A12X, which is substantially more powerful than anything Samsung or Qualcomm have. Apple was smart to concentrate on IPC and more efficient cores and it's paid off.
Did you read my post? I compared the A12X to the Qualcomm 8cx, which is a processor designed for laptops, not phones. It's the one used in the brand-new Samsung Galaxy Book running Windows on ARM. And the year-old A12X trounces it.
Well, the problem is that to increase IPC without increasing the frequency one needs to come up with new architecture/design and I do not think we had any breakthroughs in this area for quite a long time. Most performance increases in A processors lately also may be attributed to increasing the number of cores and better processes. Apple also had way more room for improvements from the architectural standpoint because they were gradually implementing the techniques that were used in "desktop" CPUs for a long time. But this resource is almost over now as I understand.
Also, does not XR use the same processor as the current "Pro" generation of Apple phones? It's not like new moniker means much. It probably would not make sense for Apple to use different CPU models in different phones (neither from the cost nor from the marketing perspective).
We haven't yet seen an ARM processor from Apple that is actually designed for a laptop with a much bigger battery and larger chassis.
Frankly... I'd be shocked if all they're doing is putting the same A-series chips from their phones into their laptops. That sounds ridiculous, right?
Let's see what their extremely talented engineers can come up with. They've already made some of the best mobile processors... so imagine what they can do in a higher-wattage laptop package!
I'm not counting Apple out just yet...
Of course I read your post. I just did not understand what's the relevance of some other type of processors in the thread where we are talking about phone processors. Qualcomm is a newcomer to laptop CPU design and it's a side kick for them anyways. They already failed at CPU design for servers. Perhaps they are failing at CPU design for laptops now but who cares.
....and for what....reading your emails faster? For 99.9% of users, a pointless waste of money.
Like last year and year before...before the actual event numbers came out...but with around 1200-1300 points different
So lets wait the phones to be out and then see
[doublepost=1567487732][/doublepost]
It doesnt speed up just your apps...but the algorithm for touciD/faceID...mapping...scaling etc
So lets wait the phones to be out and then see
[doublepost=1567487732][/doublepost]
so based on your logic, are you still rocking an iphone 4s? since you dont need the faster speed for reading your emails and waste of money. Maybe you wanted to say its waste of money to come to iphone 11 from Xs ..but speed improvements are very good and welcomed
It doesnt speed up just your apps...but the algorithm for touciD/faceID...mapping...scaling etc
We haven't yet seen an ARM processor from Apple that is actually designed for a laptop with a much bigger battery and larger chassis.
Frankly... I'd be shocked if all they're doing is putting the same A-series chips from their phones into their laptops. That sounds ridiculous, right?
Let's see what their extremely talented engineers can come up with. They've already made some of the best mobile processors... so imagine what they can do in a higher-wattage laptop package!
I'm not counting Apple out just yet...
Well, obviously mobile and desktop CPUs are very different. I was just referring to the fact that Apple fans were using the progress in A processor performance as argument that it will be easy for Apple to out-design Intel and now this argument is gone. It does not mean Apple can't design a good desktop CPU but the easy (and flawed) conjectures on the Apple's ability to produce superior desktop CPU will probably stop for now.
[doublepost=1567488109][/doublepost]
Samsung and other Android vendors do not make special CPUs for tablets because they do not pretend that tablets are a suitable replacement for laptops. In fact, Samsung often uses cheaper (and less powerful) processors in their tablets compared to their own phones.
....my logic is, it is nothing but bragging rights since on a mobile phone (specifically one touting IOS) they do nothing with this power, so it’s pointless. Why not give us a DEX like experience and allow the phone to give us “Desktop” like performance with Apps that would suit more screen real estate...after all these chips “are faster than many desktop cpu’s.” We can’t even get real multitasking out of Apple despite all this “power”
Every year we get these synthetic benchmarks and Apple making the same claims about their CPU and GPU performance.....but nothing to exploit it? I agree that FaceID and TouchID might be microseconds faster, but so what, for 99% of users, indistinguishable. I have a 6S and never has it ever been slow, other than, perhaps on boot-up after an IOS upgrade? (So I might see a benefit a couple of times a year!)
Last edited:
Like the already released Samsung Note 10?
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/the-galaxy-note-10s-new-exynos-9825-chip-blows-away-the-s10
But it's just an Apple rumour?
You're right... Apple fans shouldn't have used Apple's mobile chip advancements to predict their future desktop chips.
But I'm still thinking Apple will surprise us with what they're working on.
Intel is having problems scaling down to create small-process power-sipping high-performance chips... maybe Apple will have a better time scaling up to create the same result?
Intel is great at desktop but hilariously bad at mobile.
Perhaps Apple being excellent at mobile will give them a leg-up in desktop. I'm excited to see!
The A12 is already utilizing the 7nm process and the A13 will be using 7nm+. The A14 is supposedly going to be using a 5nm process next year.You won’t see a substantial performance upgrade until 2021 when the bionic chip goes with 7nm architecture.
All hidden under the hood. The real new horsepower is being dedicated to computation photography, machine learning inference and possibly on-device training, signal processing (voice recognition), graphics render pipes, image processing, security, and etc. So more people will say more often "it just works". Requires a **vast** amount of new horsepower, but mostly in stuff that's completely invisible to CPU benchmarks.