"Dual-core iPhone 6s obliterates Galaxy S6, Note 5 and other top Android phones in performance tests"

[captain cactus]

Single core scores have always been much better on Apple A-series equipped devices. Now that multi-core scores are up there too with just 2 cores, I'm really curious to see what the A9X will bring us. 

 

Probably something that shits on everything ever produced.

[Sauron]

For single core yes. But it's still clickbait. The multicore are essentially identical. It's still impressive what Apple can do with 2 cores, but I don't think performance on benchmarks is a reason to buy a phone since like 2012 when it actually meant something about the experience.

 

The thing is, single core performance in this case means nothing because they aren't competing under the same os. As I said earlier, all cpu intensive android apps (or almost) are optimized for 4 cores, because almost all android phones have quad core cpus.

 

Either way I agree, performance isn't as big a deal as battery life, screen size/quality/resolution(as long as it's 1080p or lower, above 1080p doesn't make sense) and price - the latter being where both these models fail hardcore.

[PlayStation 2]

so samsung apple follow the intel philosophy while everyone else follows the amd philosophy

neato

[captain cactus]

Interesting, but I'd hope they'd be the fastest; the phone just came out. It should beat everything before it, especially the phones that have already been out for months.

Compare this to the SD820. Then we'll see what's what.

 

Sorry to inform you that even the A7 is still faster on the single-core than most top-spec Android phones, such as the S6 and the Note 5.

 

The A7 is 2 years old at this point.

[Sauron]

Single core scores have always been much better on Apple A-series equipped devices. Now that multi-core scores are up there too with just 2 cores, I'm really curious to see what the A9X will bring us. 

 

Probably something that shits on everything ever produced.

 

Except it's going to be competing against low power core i5s... and let's be honest, it won't come close to touching them. Also, "everything ever produced" includes desktop cpus, so you might want to rephrase that.

[captain cactus]

Except it's going to be competing against low power core i5s... and let's be honest, it won't come close to touching them. Also, "everything ever produced" includes desktop cpus, so you might want to rephrase that.

If you think I put desktop CPUs in a statement about mobile CPUs you need to think again.

 

As for the " it's going to be competing against low power core i5s... and let's be honest, it won't come close to touching them" part: the A9 is already on the same performance level as the Core-M series found in the MacBooks. Granted, it's not an ULV i5, but it's getting awfully close to it. The A9X will be on-par or even better than that.

[jaggysnake57]

who gives a shit....stop trying to compare iphone specs to samsung specs its not as simple as that

[patrickjp93]

Sorry to inform you that even the A7 is still faster on the single-core than most top-spec Android phones, such as the S6 and the Note 5.

The A7 is 2 years old at this point.

3.5 actually.

[Sauron]

If you think I put desktop CPUs in a statement about mobile CPUs you need to think again.

 

As for the " it's going to be competing against low power core i5s... and let's be honest, it won't come close to touching them" part: the A9 is already on the same performance level as the Core-M series found in the MacBooks. Granted, it's not an ULV i5, but it's getting awfully close to it. The A9X will be on-par or even better than that.

 

Not at all. The arm instruction set is heavily limited compared to the x86 instruction set. Even if in some benchmarks it may seem they are close, in tasks where cpu performance actually matters they are miles apart - not that iOS even supports such tasks, which is part of the reason even the thought of comparison is ridiculous. Either way until we see the numbers speculating on performance doesn't make much sense. And yes, I know apple claims it will be faster than a core i5, but bear with me if I don't necessarily trust their word on it. Who knows what they based that statement on.

[BuckGup]

I want to see Mac OSX running on the 6S and I will buy it

[patrickjp93]

If you think I put desktop CPUs in a statement about mobile CPUs you need to think again.

As for the " it's going to be competing against low power core i5s... and let's be honest, it won't come close to touching them" part: the A9 is already on the same performance level as the Core-M series found in the MacBooks. Granted, it's not an ULV i5, but it's getting awfully close to it. The A9X will be on-par or even better than that.

Not really. Geekbench is heavily optimized for ARM and the workloads cell phones are typically used for. It's by no means a comprehensive test of what Intel's ULV chips can do.

[CommandMan7]

Except it's going to be competing against low power core i5s... and let's be honest, it won't come close to touching them. Also, "everything ever produced" includes desktop cpus, so you might want to rephrase that.

The A9 scores are currently around the level of the I5-5200U with almost the exact same single core scores, and the 5200U is only around 700 points ahead on multi-core scores.

 

I5-5200U Geekbench: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?q=5200u

[SirNumbers]

The A9 scores are currently around the level of the I5-5200U with almost the exact same single core scores, and the 5200U is only around 700 points ahead on multi-core scores.

I5-5200U Geekbench: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?q=5200u

Geek bench isn't good for desktops. I would never believe the i5 is equal to a cell phone processer

[Sauron]

The A9 scores are currently around the level of the I5-5200U with almost the exact same single core scores, and the 5200U is only around 700 points ahead on multi-core scores.

 

I5-5200U Geekbench: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?q=5200u

 

geekbench is notoriously arm biased.

 

-but don't take my word for it, linus torvalds is more reliable than I am.

[Psykomantis00]

two sets of processing nodes, low load and smaller lighter tasks uses the weaker cluster and keeps the larger 4c off. 4 small 4 big. 

 

I don't get why we're comparing the single core of a dual core and a single core of a 4 core (8 total, typically 4 measured) 

 

and the term "obliterates" is clearly arbitrary 

Here we go guys. The first fanboy has already done the whole "hur dur but benchmarks don't matter" back peddle.  

[Castdeath97]

Interesting, but I'd hope they'd be the fastest; the phone just came out. It should beat everything before it, especially the phones that have already been out for months.

Compare this to the SD820. Then we'll see what's what.

 

 

Don't forget that the Note 5 has an even larger screen, with more pixels, in a considerably smaller body.

...the last part was just thrown in to show they can be just as design forward as Apple.

 

Because it's a BGR piece. And they suck on Apple's teat as if there's no more liquids left in the world, and that's the only source of anything good.

BGR pieces (not going to call them articles) are always shit even for Apple. Read their iOS 9 performance review, keeps stating that performance got a large hit on older devices while reviews from arstechinca and Gizmodo state otherwise. Their source? A video which shows a extra 0.5 second delay in some app launches. They are just looking for clicks as usual.

[ttam]

They are fudging it to make it so single core is king. Phone realistically will be on par with the Note 5/S6

[VerticalDiscussions]

Did he just say years ahead lol.... (Not really again...)

[Hunter259]

They are fudging it to make it so single core is king. Phone realistically will be on par with the Note 5/S6

whut

[Laederem]

hur durrrr

piss off, calling out worthless commentary on inconclusive benchmarks doesn't imply fanboying 

 

I don't give a shit about what phone you like. I don't like either of the companies and people can spend their money as they wish.

[Mew]

The thing is, single core performance in this case means nothing because they aren't competing under the same os. As I said earlier, all cpu intensive android apps (or almost) are optimized for 4 cores, because almost all android phones have quad core cpus.

 

 

 

Just because Anandtech proved that Android is well threaded in general doesn't disprove the possibility or the fact that single threaded performance is as important, if not more so. Until someone reputable is able to compare 2 cpus that have roughly the same multithreaded performance (for example 1 quad core clocked at 2ghz vs 1 dual core clocked at 4ghz *this is all hypothetical*) and see which comes out on top. I have a strong feeling that the dual core will still come out ahead because there's always the off chance that an app isn't well threaded and will perform poorly. Another thing that I've noticed (after playing gta5 a lot) is that when you have a program that is well threaded and pushes all your cores to 99-100%, your apps in the background are going to suffer. I literally can't even watch a twitch stream in the background while playing gta5 because the 4690k just isn't powerful enough. 

 

 

almost all android phones have quad core cpus.

 

LG G4 is a 2 big, 4 SMALL cpu so it's essentially a dual core, albeit marketed as a hexacore. Most reviewers and users have said that the G4 felt snappy which proves that a fast dual core that doesn't throttle is better than a slower quad core that throttles.

 

 

Edit: I should probably add my thoughts on this.

 

Apple realizes that the only way to challenge Intel is to beat them in IPC and single threaded performance and that a high IPC IS the only way to guarantee a snappy experience as well as good battery life (race to sleep). I've been following the twitter feed on Anandtech's website and I can't remember if it was Ian or Ryan saying that A9 may have higher IPC than Haswell. I do not see this as a bad thing at all because if anything, Apple could become the competitor that Intel needs to really ramp up their performance increase and give us, the customers, the performance that we've been craving.

[Sauron]

Just because Anandtech proved that Android is well threaded in general doesn't disprove the possibility or the fact that single threaded performance is as important, if not more so. Until someone reputable is able to compare 2 cpus that have roughly the same multithreaded performance (for example 1 quad core clocked at 2ghz vs 1 dual core clocked at 4ghz *this is all hypothetical*) and see which comes out on top. I have a strong feeling that the dual core will still come out ahead because there's always the off chance that an app isn't well threaded and will perform poorly. Another thing that I've noticed (after playing gta5 a lot) is that when you have a program that is well threaded and pushes all your cores to 99-100%, your apps in the background are going to suffer. I literally can't even watch a twitch stream in the background while playing gta5 because the 4690k just isn't powerful enough. 

 

That's weird, because on my i7 2600 at stock clocks I can watch a 1080p 60fps youtube video on my second monitor while playing a game on my main no problem. To be fair I don't have gta v and it may use the cpu more than most, but we're talking android games... and for that matter, a dual core would suffer from that more than a quad core would. It's easier to reserve one core for background apps when you have 3 more that can run the game, whereas in a dual core you'd have to split access to one of the two cores, which would most likely end up in more than a 25% performance hit. Not only that, you're comparing what goes on on windows, which has been through all kinds of cpus including single cores for a long time, to android, which has gone multicore almost from the start. The performance problems in fx cpus don't derive inherently from the fact they have low single core performance, but from the fact that many windows programs simply don't use more than 4 or even 2 cores. On android this disparity isn't there, because almost everyone has a quad core and most notably, top selling flagships do. The LG G4 is an exception, that doesn't mean developers will take that as a standard; also, I never said a fast dual core can't compete with a quad core that has slower cores, what I said is that if the software is well optimized the quad core won't suffer from its lower ipc. And throttling is also an exception rather than the rule...

 

I call bullshit on the a9 having higher ipc than haswell and people from anandtech should know better. The only real numbers we can use for comparison are geekbench results, and geekbench sucks balls as well as being heavily arm biased.

 

And no, even if their cpus were actually competitive with intel do you really think apple would sell them to anyone? They don't exactly have a reputation of sharing their tech, even for a price. They'd use their cpus in their own computers (which is possible, although of course that would make macs useless for anyone trying to get actual work done - but I digress) and that would be it.

[dizmo]

Sorry to inform you that even the A7 is still faster on the single-core than most top-spec Android phones, such as the S6 and the Note 5.

 

The A7 is 2 years old at this point.

Well when you have less pixels to push...

I also don't care. Apple could be twice as fast, I still wouldn't buy their product.

[cangath]

hope im not reposting, people were looking for a graphics benchmark

[captain cactus]

Well when you have less pixels to push...

I also don't care. Apple could be twice as fast, I still wouldn't buy their product.

We're talking CPU, not GPU.