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.
Video Shows Benefits of 2GB RAM in iPhone 6s
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OS X and iOS handle memory in a very different way.
There is no swap to disk in iOS, if an app needs more RAM another app in background may be purged from memory and if the active app asks for too much memory it may eventually be killed by the operating system.
You havent noticed before?
Youre on the homeshopping channel from Apple! Macrumors.Where ONLY counts you KEEP buying apple stuff! Only on macrumors you can read that the new apple tv IS much better, much faster, and yeaaaahhhhhhhhh Siri.
The better isnt explained, its still only HD in the 4K century, its ONLY 200/250% more expensive then the last model.
And Siri?? Only USA! The rest of the world can pay for it (like many many many features on iphone/pad/tv.
Like the rest of the world had to wait SIX years to get a Siri in their own language.
Macrumors, wouldnt supprise me at ALL, is sponsored by Apple.
When Apple announced the iPhone 6s, they didn't mention that the new iPhones carry 2GB of RAM, an increase from 1GB on the iPhone 6. The 2GB RAM was later confirmed in Xcode and benchmarks. This increased RAM allows the iPhone to keep more Apps and data active in memory.
iDownloadBlog recorded this video showing the difference between the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6s after loading several websites in Safari:
The iPhone 6s is able to keep more websites active in memory without requiring a reload when returning to the tab. The additional RAM should also allow more apps to remain active in memory without relaunching.
The iPhone 6s and 6s Plus just launched on Friday.
Article Link: Video Shows Benefits of 2GB RAM in iPhone 6s
They didn't mention it because quite frankly 2GB of RAM is embarrassing in this day-and-age, especially when compared to Android phone specs and not even the flagship Android phones. Apple will tell you that there is no benefit in more than 2GB which is horse-something and again goes to show their motive is to make as much as much margin as possible and also stifle the longevity of their products.
Look at what £120 ($190) will buy you in terms of spec on a budget Android phone >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/08/review_wileyfox_swift_android_smartphone/
I'm not having a pop at iPhone users, lovers, fanbois, but you gotta wake up and smell the coffee!
The only "spec" Apple is behind their competition is RAM amount. A9 is faster than anything out there.
Your assertion that's a true argument is correct. Evidence to support that is the huge success Apple is enjoying, supported by their outstanding financial performance. That's also bolstered by, for example, Samsung's continuing poor financial performance in their Mobile Communications business unit. People are willing to open their wallet and pay more for a superior smartphone.
Sighhhhhh. Then you will have to change your user name to nouveau-android.
You are absolutely correct that the iPhone 5 is a much better device for multitasking and keeping tabs open than the iPhone 6 Plus.
Macrumors when Apple doesn't add 2 gigs of RAM: "Omg Apple, get with the times already"
Macrumors when Apple adds 2 gigs of RAM: "Why didn't you do it earlier?", "I thought 1 gig was enough?"
I think some people just come here to bitch around.
Macrumors when Apple adds 2 gigs of RAM: "Why didn't you do it earlier?", "I thought 1 gig was enough?"
I think some people just come here to bitch around.
I'd agree with that assessment for very active users. The 99.99% who are casual users? Not so much. Even active users will go long stretches where they're not browsing or doing anything else that requires significant RAM. Texting for example, doesn't need much RAM, so the extra gig provides no benefit while consuming power. I'm guessing (and we're all guessing here since we can't easily test) that it's likely there's at least a 1% loss for active users, probably somewhere between 5% and 10% for average users because of the added RAM.
Just checked that phone out. It's good but TBH it's a low to mid range phone. The geekbench scores are in the range of the iPhone 5, which you can get hold of for just a few quid more than this phone these days, but some of the features such as the display, the camera (despite having more megapixels...) and battery won't be as good as the 5.
At the end of the day you get what you pay for, and spec sheets aren't the be all and end all of a phone, they are just one aspect you have to consider.
Bah, I still cannot load 100 tabs without refreshing, I am a power user.
Bah, only 8MB cache memory, I cannot keep 200tabs open at the same time. Bah, page memory is so slow, need more tabs.
Bah, only 8MB cache memory, I cannot keep 200tabs open at the same time. Bah, page memory is so slow, need more tabs.
But my wife's 6plus can hold 5 tabs without refreshing. We can both play this game. Have some more ammo.
Last edited:
That's the same reason as it is for desktop computers, ie, it doesn't help to explain this purported difference. I think you might be confusing here the theoretical increase if things were moved to 64-bit without any modification and the actual increase after people make the obvious changes to their code to adapt it to 64-bit.
Fine. Then sir, maybe you should move on and use other non-Apple products since you seem to have zero faith that Apple will give you what you want in the products you use. Wow.
Happy for those who felt they needed this, I haven't run into massive reload issues since the iPhones went from 256MB to 512MB long ago. That said, I rarely use more than 3 tabs of Safari, and I can imagine the sites I visit aren't as complex as others.
Considering iOS and safari never closes anything, of course more memory is important. Personally I would prefer if Apple started to figure out a way to clean up after a while, I don't like playing the game of flicking open apps closed every now and then, I don't need every app or tab I have used remaining "open" for the history of using the device, there is no real reason to keep an app open in a standby state indefinitely.
But there are people who only use the Solitaire and occasionally launch their Netscape browser to look at their AOL mail (and perhaps open Notepad once in a rare while for some power user work). Why would they want technology to move forward when their 128 MB of RAM and Pentium processor does everything they could ever need or want?
Seem like fairly appropriate reactions. If they finally did something that should have been done earlier, while it's good that it's finally there, it doesn't mean that people shouldn't be upset that it took them that long to do it. Applies to many other situations in life where people have had similar reactions to delayed actions.
I'm still not sure that there's anything that practically shows that going from 1 GB to 2 GB of RAM will result in any noticeable increase (or decrease) in battery consumption in general, just from simply having more RAM present.
Last edited:
