Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

cdmoore74

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jun 24, 2010
2,413
711
The 7 is suppose to be a beast on paper but I'm seeing the 6S beat it in some test. Are the 2 slower cores being used for simple tasks? I want the 2 powerful cores running at all times while the screen is on and the 2 slower cores while the screen is off. Is this how it should work? Or is this a case of the OS/Apps needing further optimization?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABC5S and g75d3

cdd543

macrumors 6502
Oct 13, 2006
277
27
Denver
The 7 is suppose to be a beast on paper but I'm seeing the 6S beat it in some test. Are the 2 slower cores being used for simple tasks? I want the 2 powerful cores running at all times while the screen is on and the 2 slower cores while the screen is off. Is this how it should work? Or is this a case of the OS/Apps needing further optimization?
I compared it to my wife's 6s and speed wise it's exactly the same whether opening apps or surfing the internet. Don't play many games so didn't focus on that.
 

rawlus

macrumors 6502
Mar 3, 2009
308
159
Boston
The 7 is suppose to be a beast on paper but I'm seeing the 6S beat it in some test. Are the 2 slower cores being used for simple tasks? I want the 2 powerful cores running at all times while the screen is on and the 2 slower cores while the screen is off. Is this how it should work? Or is this a case of the OS/Apps needing further optimization?
Not sure it operates that simply, performance,heat, battery and other variables probably play a role. I know you say you want the high power cores running all the time, but if I said you'd lose 3 hours of battery life for that, then would you still want it? (Totally making that number up)

Trade offs exist. Just having low and high power helps to mitigate some issues and provide additional options for engineers to deliver performance without such a battery hit. I expect this path will be refined in future updates to the OS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: azccw999

lordofthereef

macrumors G5
Nov 29, 2011
13,161
3,721
Boston, MA
From a real world perspective in seeing exactly this. The phone isn't outperforming the 6s. It's why I've said multiple times that the chip itself is a marvel. I just think it's beyond what we need in a smartphone.

This isn't a criticism, per se. But I can understand why people can't get beyond the physical aspect of the phones looking alike. The real world use is damn near identical too.
 

unagimiyagi

macrumors 6502a
Jun 9, 2009
905
229
Perhaps 1 year later, the 7's chip will prove faster when software requires it. It could be simply too far ahead of the curve right now. This is not unusual as the 5s is still way far ahead of what we need in the sense that it "feels" faster than those 8 core android phones.
 

Black Magic

macrumors 68030
Sep 30, 2012
2,799
1,503
The 7 is suppose to be a beast on paper but I'm seeing the 6S beat it in some test. Are the 2 slower cores being used for simple tasks? I want the 2 powerful cores running at all times while the screen is on and the 2 slower cores while the screen is off. Is this how it should work? Or is this a case of the OS/Apps needing further optimization?


Real world you probably won't see a difference unless playing some intense games. If you want to feel like you got your money's worth, run a benchmark program.

IMHO, upgrading from the 6s to the 7 is a waste unless you are really into the camera or you live in Water World.
 
Last edited:

mi7chy

macrumors G4
Oct 24, 2014
10,495
11,155
If processes get migrated to the high efficiency cluster cores things will run noticeably slower so expect performance to be more variable with iPhone 7 than previous models.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nordique

I7guy

macrumors Nehalem
Nov 30, 2013
34,457
24,282
Gotta be in it to win it
From a real world perspective in seeing exactly this. The phone isn't outperforming the 6s. It's why I've said multiple times that the chip itself is a marvel. I just think it's beyond what we need in a smartphone.

This isn't a criticism, per se. But I can understand why people can't get beyond the physical aspect of the phones looking alike. The real world use is damn near identical too.
I agree somewhat. Between 5s and 6s no real changes in real world usage except for battery life except a slight bump in speed. The same would apply here, I expect a bump in speed and battery life. You may be able to notice the difference or not.
If processes get migrated to the high efficiency cluster cores things will run noticeably slower so expect performance to be more variable with iPhone 7 than previous models.
It's not the way Apple describes it. Do you have proof of this or is this pure conjecture?
 
  • Like
Reactions: azccw999

tx2005

macrumors regular
Sep 20, 2013
133
101
The fact is both the 6s and 7 are very fast. The fact also is that the 7 has a newer and faster process in terms of benchmarking and potential. Is that extra horsepower being utilized for every day use? Most likely not since the 6s already performs daily tasks very well.

So what about these youtube videos floating around? For starters we have no idea if the phones being used to compare are being run in indentical settings without stuff going on in the background that might affect speed. In addition, I've read some comments regarding the A10 operating a little differently to help conserve battery life. So just because some random app opens half a second faster on the 6s doesn't mean it's faster. It's a silly arguement.

In any case, all of this should be a testament to how well Apple has optimized iOS 10, as not too long ago we were seeing lag in iOS updates even in phones only 1-2 years old. I've heard nothing but positive comments about iOS 10 on even 5s devices, so that is a testament to how well the operating system has progressed in terms of legacy support.

In terms of the A10, we are reaching the point of maturity with smartphones that you aren't going to notice huge differences in everyday speed as the older devices, especially the A9 already handle that well. Unless you are playing games that push the hardware, you likely won't notice it. That doesn't mean that Apple messed up or lied, but rather that this technology has evolved to a point that even older devices are so fast and powerful that everyday use will not be affected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nordique

aohus

macrumors 68000
Apr 4, 2010
1,903
536
sky
I'm thinking the speed of the iPhone 7 will increase with later revisions of iOS 10.
 

TitsLegendary

macrumors 6502a
Jun 12, 2013
538
324
In my limited use, I don't see the 7+ being much faster than my 6s. I've played a number of processor intensive games and both devices handle them well. It's not completely apples to apples as my 6s is on 9.3.3 and the 7+ is on 10.0.1.
 

now i see it

macrumors G4
Jan 2, 2002
10,913
23,124
Render some long movies or time lapses in Lapse It and you'll see the A10 kick ass over the A9. Those two fast cores are unlikely being used for such mundane tasks as launching apps, texting, or browsing the web. And even if the big guns are being used to launch apps, it's likely the flash storage that's the bottleneck.
 

lordofthereef

macrumors G5
Nov 29, 2011
13,161
3,721
Boston, MA
I agree somewhat. Between 5s and 6s no real changes in real world usage except for battery life except a slight bump in speed. The same would apply here, I expect a bump in speed and battery life. You may be able to notice the difference or not.

It's not the way Apple describes it. Do you have proof of this or is this pure conjecture?
The real difference between those two devices was the screen size. Love it or hate it it changed the user experience completely. I think it's the biggest reason almost nobody talked about notable (or lack of) performance differences. Most people were busy complaining they couldn't get a 4" flagship or excited they finally weren't stuck with a 4" phone any longer.

Fwiw I thought the 6 plus ran like garbage. Constant slow downs, I couldn't have more then maybe three tabs open. Worst iPhone experience I've ever had. Conversely the 6s plus has been by and large the best.
 

doboy

macrumors 68040
Jul 6, 2007
3,768
2,940
In my limited use, I don't see the 7+ being much faster than my 6s. I've played a number of processor intensive games and both devices handle them well. It's not completely apples to apples as my 6s is on 9.3.3 and the 7+ is on 10.0.1.
Because those games were optimized for the lowest performing device it supports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Black Magic

CEmajr

macrumors 601
Dec 18, 2012
4,454
1,251
Charlotte, NC
No surprise there. The 6s Plus was an extremely high powered device that even now iOS doesn't seem to tax very much so I didn't expect to see much real world difference with the 7/7 Plus. Upgrades to "S" models are usually where we see major power boosts as the 6s Plus was way more powerful in real world usage than the 6 Plus. I expect the 7s to be a noticeable jump over the 7.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nordique

redman042

macrumors 68040
Jun 13, 2008
3,062
1,657
My 6s Plus absolutely flies, so I don't expect the 7 to make a very noticeable difference in everyday tasks, but when I push it, I think I will see a difference. Sounds like it's designed to be smart about when it uses its full capabilities. It should make a big difference while rendering a video, background processing facial recognition, higher end Siri functions, etc.

I think part of what Apple is trying to do here is prepare the iPhone design to do a lot more in the future. Imagine if in OS 11 or 12, Apple moved Siri processing entirely to the phone (and made it a lot smarter too). THEN they will certainly need all the CPU power they can get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: twood65

S_Z

macrumors newbie
Sep 18, 2016
11
9
Render some long movies or time lapses in Lapse It and you'll see the A10 kick ass over the A9. Those two fast cores are unlikely being used for such mundane tasks as launching apps, texting, or browsing the web. And even if the big guns are being used to launch apps, it's likely the flash storage that's the bottleneck.

Are you sure? That would be an interesting test. According to PCMag:
http://uk.pcmag.com/smartphones/84555/news/the-iphone-7-is-the-fastest-phone-ever
"Benchmarks don't tell the whole story, though. We made every iPhone export a one-minute 1080p video to a 720p file in iMovie, and found that iMovie—at least for now—is no faster on the iPhone 7 than on the iPhone 6s. Both phones exported the file in 10 seconds, as opposed to 17 seconds with the iPhone 6 and 22 seconds with the iPhone 5s."

As far as storage being a bottle neck the A9X in iPad Pro have no problem outrunning the A9. My guess is that the iPad Pro still is the fastest iOS unit in real world applications even though the iPhone 7 should be faster according to benchmarks:
 
  • Like
Reactions: now i see it

nordique

macrumors 68000
Oct 12, 2014
1,985
1,603
Just picked up a 7

Did some speed tests, they are identical from what I've seen so far

However there's a chance that OP you may be right the slower "low power" cores may be part of the reason for any perceived slow down

That said, they shouldn't be since the A7 is already more than enough power for iOS 10 (5s runs fantastic on it)

Truth is, the A9 is way more than enough speed for anyone doing general smartphone things.

Most of the iPhone buying population isn't aware that the top end of the chip is really only pushed in graphically intensive games, which I doubt everyone downloads and plays.

Apple has some incredible marketing, and the 7 is a beast of a phone but so is the 6s. It's still very, very powerful today.

That said, I couldn't find a single speed difference between the 2 devices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABC5S

nordique

macrumors 68000
Oct 12, 2014
1,985
1,603
Real world you probably won't see a difference unless playing some intense games. If you want to feel like you got your money's worth, run a benchmark program.

IMHO, upgrading from the 6s to the 7 is a waste unless you are really into the camera or you live in Water World.

Having just picked one up, I fully Agree.

(For the record, a few graphocally intense games I've checked out appear identical on both devices and run identically as well)
 

jonfarr

macrumors 6502a
Jun 29, 2012
716
136
Portland
I think one of the main problems people are having with the comparisons is that during the keynote, Apple was comparing the 7 to the 6, not the 6s. Even on the spec page it says it gets 1-2hours more battery than the 6. Nothing stated about the 6S, I think i saw somewhere the the 7 plus actually has less battery runtime that the 6s Plus.
 

I7guy

macrumors Nehalem
Nov 30, 2013
34,457
24,282
Gotta be in it to win it
The real difference between those two devices was the screen size. Love it or hate it it changed the user experience completely. I think it's the biggest reason almost nobody talked about notable (or lack of) performance differences. Most people were busy complaining they couldn't get a 4" flagship or excited they finally weren't stuck with a 4" phone any longer.

Fwiw I thought the 6 plus ran like garbage. Constant slow downs, I couldn't have more then maybe three tabs open. Worst iPhone experience I've ever had. Conversely the 6s plus has been by and large the best.
For me, I can't say it changed my user experience completely. The biggest change was battery life. I still love and hate the 6s at the same time and when I use my old 5s i miss and am glad I have a new form factor. So I'm both here and there simultaneously. With the 7 I expect some subtle differences to the 6s and better batter life.
 

patrickbarnes

macrumors 6502
Sep 24, 2012
273
303
In my real world testing my 6s and 7 are 100% identical in speed (except with the 7 glitch when going back to the home screen or pulling up the app switcher).

Upgrading from 6s to a 7 is a waste of money (unless you use a $650 trade in or something).
 
  • Like
Reactions: auero and ABC5S
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.