Apple's iPhone 6S Plus smashes its Android competition in AnTuTu's 2015 Top 10 chart

[jos]

The end of 2015 came and went, and now it’s time for AnTuTu to reveal its global performance chart ranking the Top 10 most powerful smartphones to have hit the shelves last year.AnTuTu gathered data from its latest V6.0 benchmark and compiled in a single list. The new version of the benchmark allows for cross-platform comparisons, which means we now have an opportunity to easily compare the performance of the iPhone 6S series with the finest Android handsets released in 2015. The list includes the Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge Plus and Note 5, as well as several flagships from China. The data above was collected from AnTuTu V6.0 and excludes statistics from V5.7. The figures have been averaged from at least 500 entries per model, which should give a relatively accurate view on how the smartphones perform in synthetic benchmarks.Needless to say, the iPhone 6S series dominates the competition and, in fact, are the only commercially available smartphones capable of topping the 100K points mark, with a whopping 132,620 points.

 

Source

AnTuTu, the company behind the highly popular cross-platform mobile benchmark with the same name, has just announced which of the world's smartphones topped the performance charts in 2015. Although Apple's iPhone series doesn't come with octa-core processors, extreme core clock speeds, or whopping amounts of RAM, it turns out that the iPhone 6s Plus was by far the fastest smartphone of the previous year in terms of raw processing power.

The second-placed handset, the Kirin 950-powered Huawei Mate 8, was about 30% lower than the average AnTuTu score of an iPhone 6s Plus.  iPhone 6S Plus is powered by the Apple A9, a chipset that integrates a 1.84GHz dual-core Twister CPU and a PowerVR GT7600 GPU, paired with 2GB of RAM. On paper, the iPhone 6S Plus may not sound all that impressive compared to the Huawei Mate 8, a device which makes use of a 4GB of RAM and a Kirin 950 SoC with four Cortex A72 CPU cores clocked at 2.3GHz, four Cortex-A53 CPU cores clocked at 1.8GHz, and a Mali Mali-T880 MP4 GPU. It's also worth noting that both the Apple iPhone 6S Plus and the Huawei Mate 8 run a resolution of 1920 by 1080 pixels, which should put the two devices on equal footing in terms of required resources.

why iphone wins in antutu6
3. New CPU Testing Added
　　The employment of multi-core CPU caused the incompetent of actual using experience and hardware limiting performance. In view of this situation, Antutu V6.0 adjusts CPU testing items and adds several new one, based on practical use with more pratical meaning. Antutu found that in most cases, only one core is doing work and many applications are poorly supported by multip-core.We increase the proportion of single core test significantly. All these will make the testing results be more realistic.
　　4. New Score Proportion in Antutu V6.0.
The proportion of CPU+RAM : UX : 3D design to be 1:1:1. The proportion of 3D and UX items have been increased. Proportion of CPU and RAM have been decreased.

http://www.antutu.com/en/view.shtml?id=8161

[eLucid]

How is this news, exactly? We've known this for a while now.

[jos]

How is this news, exactly? We've known this for a while now.

because chart is released just now. And only now they give out cross platform comparison apples to apples..

[Unhelpful]

inb4 android fanboys that are just as bad a apple shills

[Starelementpoke]

How is this news, exactly? We've known this for a while now.

What he said.

[bcredeur97]

coolio. Hope my phone lasts a long time.. That's all I really care about these days.

[Sakkura]

It's pretty silly that they heavily increase the reliance on singlethreaded benchmarks in an era where mobile OSs and even apps are getting a lot better at multithreading. It's no surprise that Apple wins by a landslide once you emphasize singlethreaded performance either. What would be more interesting would be realistic benchmarks, but this is just a set of arbitrarily selected synthetics.

[RedRound2]

It's pretty silly that they heavily increase the reliance on singlethreaded benchmarks in an era where mobile OSs and even apps are getting a lot better at multithreading. It's no surprise that Apple wins by a landslide once you emphasize singlethreaded performance either. What would be more interesting would be realistic benchmarks, but this is just a set of arbitrarily selected synthetics.

 

Most desktop programs arent multithreaded so what makes you think phone apps are.

I assume the reason why qualcomm and samsung went multicore in the first place was because they were unable to achieve desired single threaded performance and thermals (same reason for PC according to techquickie) which apple somehow managed to by sitting on their lazy butts /s

[.spider.]

Most desktop programs arent multithreaded...

Wut?

[flibberdipper]

Wut?

He has a somewhat valid point. Run Word and I dare you to tell me that that thing uses more than one core. 

[silberdrachi]

To be honest now i think most mid to high end phones are at the point where they are able to keep up with the graphical and programmatic needs of the phones now days. I dont have stutters or hangups or graphical lag anymore like we had on phones even 2 years ago. It feels to me like the phones that are being released have little need for marketing on their processing power and rather are more heavily marketing on the camera and extra features (fingerprint/health sensors) or the integration with other products (smart watches or fitness wearables).

 

Yeah its great that we have surplus processing power, but none of the applications that i think an average user takes advantage of will need it now.

[Sauron]

Most desktop programs arent multithreaded so what makes you think phone apps are.

 

The fact that pretty much all android phones use quad cores (or even true octas in some case). The developer can be pretty much assured that there will be more than one or two cores. On top of that almost all desktop programs that would benefit from multithreading are multithreaded at this point... and those that aren't, both on desktop and mobile usually wouldn't really benefit from more performance anyway. If I'm wrong, point me an application that doesn't perform well on android phones because it isn't multithreaded.

[RedRound2]

To be honest now i think most mid to high end phones are at the point where they are able to keep up with the graphical and programmatic needs of the phones now days. I dont have stutters or hangups or graphical lag anymore like we had on phones even 2 years ago. It feels to me like the phones that are being released have little need for marketing on their processing power and rather are more heavily marketing on the camera and extra features (fingerprint/health sensors) or the integration with other products (smart watches or fitness wearables).

 

Yeah its great that we have surplus processing power, but none of the applications that i think an average user takes advantage of will need it now.

 

On computers maybe but on phones we can expand a whole lot. Sure iOS and android as of today dont need anymore power but extra performance does give option to expand into the realms of a computer. Windows phone desktop interface is a great concept albeit poorly done an not ready but with my personal experience i find a severe lack of processing power (or it seems like that)

[Mo5]

but it's still slower than an Core i7 /s

https://embed.gyazo.com/e25909c17ea1478f6a81889739a86f34.png

[silberdrachi]

On computers maybe but on phones we can expand a whole lot. Sure iOS and android as of today dont need anymore power but extra performance does give option to expand into the realms of a computer. Windows phone desktop interface is a great concept albeit poorly done an not ready

 

Ill agree, but once again youre going into a very niche market when you are talking about people plugging phones into some sort of hub to use it as a computer. The average user browses the web, sends texts/ims, takes pictures, plays angry birds, and occasionally calls someone. These arent super processor intensive tasks, and for right now processor speed or core count isnt going to be a selling point.

 

In the future yes phone manufacturers are going to have to come up with more ways to use phones, or other features that will justify you upgrading your phone. But for right now i could say i could turn off the updates on my N5x and use this for the next few years and never feel like its missing something (assuming services still worked).

[iamdarkyoshi]

Still would rather use android, I dont care how powerful the fucking phone is. Compared to android, you really cannot do a whole lot on iOS. IOS is like owning a Ferrari with a missing gas tank

[Kobathor]

I would want a better phone, if my $100 Android smartphone wasn't enough. Luckily, 720p looks awesome from 10" away (the screen is 5.5", I'm not gonna shove it up to my face) and the 3400mAh battery suits it well for finishing the average usage day off with 30% battery, not 0%. Games run smooth, music listening is AWESOME, and having 64GB of extra storage on my SD card is great. 

 

Sure, the 6s is powerful, no denying that.. But what are you gonna do on iOS that will ever use half of that power? More than one Facebook tab?? 

 

Same for Android, the S6 is also pretty powerful.. I know Android has some pretty heavy games, but who actually plays those on a regular basis? Just get a 3DS if you want mobile games.

[RedRound2]

The fact that pretty much all android phones use quad cores (or even true octas in some case). The developer can be pretty much assured that there will be more than one or two cores. On top of that almost all desktop programs that would benefit from multithreading are multithreaded at this point... and those that aren't, both on desktop and mobile usually wouldn't really benefit from more performance anyway. If I'm wrong, point me an application that doesn't perform well on android phones because it isn't multithreaded.

 

There are very little quad threaded application in windows and i have no reason to believe that android will have it soon. Octa core are just unoptimized power hungry quad cores that need another set of quad cores to provide breathing room if you ask me. Apple did make the A series chip dual core implying that may have see valid reason for it but never felt necessary to beyond that as many apps just don't need 4 simultaneous thread rather just faster performance. Again idk too much about this and im speaking behalf on what i've observed

[RedRound2]

Ill agree, but once again youre going into a very niche market when you are talking about people plugging phones into some sort of hub to use it as a computer. The average user browses the web, sends texts/ims, takes pictures, plays angry birds, and occasionally calls someone. These arent super processor intensive tasks, and for right now processor speed or core count isnt going to be a selling point.

 

In the future yes phone manufacturers are going to have to come up with more ways to use phones, or other features that will justify you upgrading your phone. But for right now i could say i could turn off the updates on my N5x and use this for the next few years and never feel like its missing something (assuming services still worked).

 

Again you're talking about today. We have the idea, we have the software, we have everything except powerful hardware and the only thing we can do is progress step by step until we achieve it. In the future we just probably have to walk near a set of peripherals and our phones may start wirelessly transmitting the data

[Sauron]

There are very little quad threaded application in windows and i have no reason to believe that android will have it soon. Octa core are just unoptimized power hungry quad cores that need another set of quad cores to provide breathing room if you ask me. Apple did make the A series chip dual core implying that may have see valid reason for it but never felt necessary to beyond that as many apps just don't need 4 simultaneous thread rather just faster performance. Again idk too much about this and im speaking behalf on what i've observed

 

I don't see why you'd use windows, a completely different operating system on a completely different platform aimed at a completely different usage, as an example to say that android doesn't have many multithreaded applications. Make some direct examples of android applications that would benefit from multithreading but don't have it.

 

Apple makes dual cores because they have a platform that has always been on a low thread count - it's for backwards compatibility. Plus, they may just have a different design philosophy, not all chips need to be the same. Besides a fast dual core can handle quad threaded tasks almost as well as a quad core with cores that are half as fast. On top of that they don't care if they're actually the fastest, all they want is for random charts like these that don't give you any information on what is actually being measured to make it seem like they're by far the fastest, and therefore make it seem like 800$ for a phone is a reasonable price.

 

As for octas, some are two quads, but some are actual octas.

[suicidalfranco]

nice. wouldn't buy an iPhone, but nice nonetheless 

[Sakkura]

Most desktop programs arent multithreaded so what makes you think phone apps are.

I assume the reason why qualcomm and samsung went multicore in the first place was because they were unable to achieve desired single threaded performance and thermals (same reason for PC according to techquickie) which apple somehow managed to by sitting on their lazy butts /s

 

Benchmarks make me think so. Here's an analysis from Anandtech, with this relevant observation:

 

 

When I started out this piece the goals I set out to reach was to either confirm or debunk on how useful homogeneous 8-core designs would be in the real world. The fact that Chrome and to a lesser extent Samsung's stock browser were able to consistently load up to 6-8 concurrent processes while loading a page suddenly gives a lot of credence to these 8-core designs that we would have otherwise not thought of being able to fully use their designed CPU configurations. In terms of pure computational load, web-page rendering remains as one of the heaviest tasks on a smartphone so it's very encouraging to see that today's web rendering engines are able to make good use of parallelization to spread the load between the available CPU cores.

 

Even freaking Hangouts seems to be pretty well optimized for quad cores.

 

It seems to me that the lower per-core performance, as well as limited battery life, of phones has prompted developers to optimize their software more. On desktops, they can just be lazy because that 3.5 GHz monster from Intel isn't going to buckle under the stress of sending a message or loading a web page.

[asim1999]

2 reasons:

Software optimisation and Metal

Lower resolution screen with more powerful GPU

[LAwLz]

Fun fact about AnTuTu: It's a really shitty benchmark.

The iPhone is very powerful. Possibly the most powerful smartphone. AnTuTu is a terrible way of confirming it though. Might as well use the Windows Experience Index to compare CPUs.

 

 

Most desktop programs arent multithreaded so what makes you think phone apps are.

I assume the reason why qualcomm and samsung went multicore in the first place was because they were unable to achieve desired single threaded performance and thermals (same reason for PC according to techquickie) which apple somehow managed to by sitting on their lazy butts /s

1) I'd go as far as to say most desktop programs are multithreaded. How well they can utilize several cores is another question, but the threads are there. Even my text editor, NotePad++, is using 10 threads right now. My hearthstone deck tracker has 38 threads. µTorrent? 15 threads. Steam? 22, without counting things like SteamWebHelper (12 threads), SteamService (4 threads) and many more.

 

2) What makes people think phone apps are multithreaded? Because we have evidence for it.

 

3) No... Back single threaded performance and thermals was not the reason why Samsung and Qualcomm went with very high core count. The reason why they did it was because of big.LITTLE. They got so many cores because the cores are designed for different uses. For example in the Snapdragon 810 we have four very low lower cores coupled with four very high performance cores. Why waste resources powering up a big and power hungry core when a smaller and more efficient core can do the same task at a speed the user won't mind/notice?

[Noctus]

Fun fact about AnTuTu: It's a really shitty benchmark.

The iPhone is very powerful. Possibly the most powerful smartphone. AnTuTu is a terrible way of confirming it though. Might as well use the Windows Experience Index to compare CPUs.

 

 

 

 

Dont..... otherwise the Geek Squad will be at you're door late at night requesting you come with them for a "talk". 

 

:rolleyes: