[Updated] iPhone 6s uses NVMe SSD, capable of up to 1800+MB/sec reads

[LAwLz]

Oh...but they do do that on OS X.

 

 - Link

I wasn't aware that OS X did that. But please note that it is not the default behavior and like the article says, it does result in lower image quality.

 

 

No doubt apple's processor is pretty swell. Heck even their gpu too. But I still think its mostly their code which allows to run as well as it is. Think of AMD's DX11 Driver situation as compared to Nvidia. Also see low end windows phone with 512 mb of ram. MY buddy had flashed an ipod to run andriod too, and man it wasn't pretty at all. These examples has shown and led me to believe its mostly code at these points. you yourself have brought up androids performance pitfalls. So yea Apple Hardware is good. /but I still believe that it's the code which allows for it to perform this well.

Well in that case I don't think I can change your mind.

[Ex14]

I wasn't aware that OS X did that. But please note that it is not the default behavior and like the article says, it does result in lower image quality.

Thats default behaviour Unless you choose it to be not scaled, Retina macbooks and macs default to this kind of method in rendering

In the default “best for Retina Display” setting, the desktop, menu bar, icons and Finder windows are drawn at 2880 x 1800, but they are drawn larger than they would normally be at 2880. Apple draws everything at 4x the size to make the desktop behave exactly as it would on a 15.4-inch 1440 x 900 display - this is the backing scale factor (2.0) at work.

 

Well in that case I don't think I can change your mind.

Probably. I mean my beliefs arent based on any ACTUAL empirical evidence. just a hypothesis that i have come to form. Ideally i would be happy if their A9 chips could run andriod or linux or some common OS.

[79wjd]

I wasn't aware that OS X did that. But please note that it is not the default behavior and like the article says, it does result in lower image quality.

the 15" rMBP actually does default to 1920x1200, although you can change that to whatever resolution you want with something like SwitchResX, although god help you if you actually want to read what's on the screen at the native resolution. 

[LAwLz]

Thats default behaviour Unless you choose it to be not scaled, Retina macbooks and macs default to this kind of method in rendering

Not if I understand Anandtech correctly:

 

If you select the 1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1200 scaling modes, Apple actually renders the desktop at 2x the selected resolution (3360 x 2100 or 3840 x 2400, respectively), scales up the text and UI elements accordingly so they aren’t super tiny (backing scale factor = 2.0), and downscales the final image to fit on the 2880 x 1800 panel. The end result is you get a 3360 x 2100 desktop, with text and UI elements the size they would be on a 1680 x 1050 desktop, all without sacrificing much sharpness/crispness thanks to the massive supersampling. The resulting image isn’t as perfect as it would be at the default setting because you have to perform a floating point filter down to 2880 x 1800, but it’s still incredibly good.

 

The way I interpret that is that the default is to not supersampled and scale down.

 

 

Anyway, the fact is that they do it on the 6+ because of compatibility issues. It reduces performance and image quality so they wouldn't do it if it wasn't their last resort.

[Sauron]

...how does this even matter? It's not like it was sluggish before...

 

Now we'll end up with laptops that are just screens and keyboards where you slide the phone in to a dock, and bam.  It powers it.  Get some fans on the phone.  

 

Asus did it.

[Ex14]

Not if I understand Anandtech correctly:

 

The way I interpret that is that the default is to not supersampled and scale down.

 

 

Anyway, the fact is that they do it on the 6+ because of compatibility issues. It reduces performance and image quality so they wouldn't do it if it wasn't their last resort.

 

 

In the default “best for Retina Display” setting, the desktop, menu bar, icons and Finder windows are drawn at 2880 x 1800, but they are drawn larger than they would normally be at 2880. Apple draws everything at 4x the size to make the desktop behave exactly as it would on a 15.4-inch 1440 x 900 display - this is the backing scale factor (2.0) at work.

This is the default.

Isn't that super sampling?

 

The quote you took from me above is talking if  you select an inbetween resolution, and hence when supersampling is applied to the screens native resolution it turns out to be detrimental (albiet i don;t think by much) to quality.

Also I'm not sure whether the 6+ has compatibility issues or not, but I think you're mistaken in one aspect and that is the effect supersampling have on IQ. fact is Super sampling is a technique to improve image quality. Nvidia's DSR and AMD VSR uses supersampling. Also, Sony Z series Smartphones and Nokia's Top end lumia as well. In fact Linus does it for his videos as well! So for super sampling to be Detrimental to a IQ. That quote you took off me, if you really got into it you;ll see its supersampled however the image is first upscaled before being downscaled to fit the resolution. Its a wierd kind oprocess cause up scaling kills quality.

[Ex14]

...how does this even matter? It's not like it was sluggish before...

 

 

Asus did it.

It probabl;y matters for apple only. I see it as possibly part of getting more common components between their product line so they can lower cost by ordering more in bulk.

I loved that asus idea tbh....too bad it didn;t really take off...

[LAwLz]

This is the default.

Isn't that super sampling?

No that's not super sampling.

 

Super sampling = rendering at above the native resolution and then scaling it down.

What the default setting does is render everything at 1440x900, and then double the pixels in both X and Y, which results in a 2880x1800 image. 2880x1800 is the native resolution. So the Macbook Retina takes small things and makes them bigger. Super sampling is taking a big thing and making it smaller. The part about drawing things larger than they normally would is because the screen is acting like a 1440x900 display.

 

 

 

Also I'm not sure whether the 6+ has compatibility issues or not, but fact is Super sampling is a technique to improve image quality. Nvidia's DSR and AMD VSR uses supersampling. Also, Sony Z series Smartphones and Nokia's Top end lumia as well. In fact Linus does it for his videos as well!

The 6+ does not have compatibility issues with apps because of the hacks Apple implemented to get around the lack of dynamic scaling in iOS. If they just ran the display at the native resolution then compatibility would be broken.

I don't know about the Lumia phones but Sony does not use super sampling in their phones. Their new 4K smartphone renders things internally at 1920x1080 (or whatever it was) and then upscales it to 4K. What the iPhone does is downscale content.

 

 

Yes you can use super sampling to get rid of aliasing, but that's not what is going on with the iPhones and OS X (when you for example selects 1920x1200 mode on the Retina Pro). Like Anandtech wrote, there is a (small) decrease in image quality when you select that mode. If it did increase image quality, wouldn't Apple use it on all their devices? They only do it on the 6+ and 6S+, which also happens to be the devices which resolutions don't align with their point system.

[Sauron]

It probabl;y matters for apple only. I see it as possibly part of getting more common components between their product line so they can lower cost by ordering more in bulk.

I loved that asus idea tbh....too bad it didn;t really take off...

 

Might have had something to do with it being 700$ and still more of a tablet than an actual laptop. Wouldn't be a problem for apple customers though...

 

Still, I'd love for asus to try it once more with the new intel atoms this time, and maybe a windows/android dual boot (that would be awesome af).

[Ex14]

No that's not super sampling.

 

Super sampling = rendering at above the native resolution and then scaling it down.

What the default setting does is render everything at 1440x900, and then double the pixels in both X and Y, which results in a 2880x1800 image. 2880x1800 is the native resolution. So the Macbook Retina takes small things and makes them bigger. Super sampling is taking a big thing and making it smaller. The part about drawing things larger than they normally would is because the screen is acting like a 1440x900 display.

 

 

 

The 6+ does not have compatibility issues with apps because of the hacks Apple implemented to get around the lack of dynamic scaling in iOS. If they just ran the display at the native resolution then compatibility would be broken.

I don't know about the Lumia phones but Sony does not use super sampling in their phones. Their new 4K smartphone renders things internally at 1920x1080 (or whatever it was) and then upscales it to 4K. What the iPhone does is downscale content.

 

 

Yes you can use super sampling to get rid of aliasing, but that's not what is going on with the iPhones and OS X (when you for example selects 1920x1200 mode on the Retina Pro). Like Anandtech wrote, there is a (small) decrease in image quality when you select that mode. If it did increase image quality, wouldn't Apple use it on all their devices? They only do it on the 6+ and 6S+, which also happens to be the devices which resolutions don't align with their point system.

Well ig uess thats that i cant find more info on how Retina scaling works but there are still a few things that i believe you're wrong/confused about.

Firstly i mean the pictures the lumia/sony phones take, not the diosplay themselves. Only the Z5 premiuem upscales content and only medias content.

Secondly, Supersampling doesn;t just bring Alaising benefits, it also allows for more detailed images and (as addtional information) lowers noise in pictures.

Lastly

 

A great example of how bullshit this argument is is the fact that the iPhone 6+ and 6S+ does not run at their native resolution (it runs at 2208x1242), because iOS simply does not support 1920x1080. Apple had to work around this limitation by having the phone render everything at a higher resolution internally and then scale it down. Does that sound like being optimized to you?

So it renders at a higher resolution, but then is Downsized to a 1080 resolution? Isn;t that super sampling? Also While anandtech DID say theres a slight loss in quality, they did mention that its a step up from just straight up upscaling /what not. so yes. I think it is being optimied. Optimised to look as best as the icons and stuff can on the 6+ AND even better, the software/os is optimisied/well written to the point it doesn;t really take a hit on perf. 

We have gone on a huge tangent of the topic at hand here so if anything we can continue this discussion on PM/DM

[LAwLz]

-snip-

 

We have gone on a huge tangent of the topic at hand here so if anything we can continue this discussion on PM/DM

You can't compare cameras and displays. They work in different ways.

You can't compare 3D models in games vs static images in for example an app. They work in different ways.

 

With that I have said everything I want to say. Don't really feel like continuing the conversation any further since I don't see any point.

It was a fun talk.

[GeekPower0]

As much as I hate to say it - I could easily see phones overtaking light usage for an example school documents and stuff - if we get a proper keyboard for it. I mean, they almost have the performance now with the new Apple processor beating out certain other processors.

 

Continuum for Windows 10?

[warmmilk]

My guess would be for 4k/4k editing since Apple really emphasizes that you can shoot and edit 4k right from your phone. 

 

 

I'd actually say it's because they don't want the user to know or think about the backend/implementation. So if I had to guess it was added to improve editing for higher bit rate files (like 4k)/other, so they proudly say that you can shoot and edit straight from your phone (thereby referencing this change without burdening the user with useless information). Relative comparisons are far better for the average user than absolutes. 

 

 

 

EDIT: I don't know if the NVMe ssd helps with 4k editing as I don't know what bitrate the device is using, it's simply an example. 

 

good point, but in reality, the whole "4k editing" is really just something the could put in their presentation as a selling item.  nobody does any real/serious video editing on a phone or ipad...  its really either just trimming the length or one of their prebuilt templates in iMovie...

 

I guess I can kinda seeing video editing on an ipad, but a phone just doesn't have enough screen area even on phablets...  even if a phone can easily handle proper video editing power/speed wise.

[79wjd]

good point, but in reality, the whole "4k editing" is really just something the could put in their presentation as a selling item.  nobody does any real/serious video editing on a phone or ipad...  its really either just trimming the length or one of their prebuilt templates in iMovie...

 

I guess I can kinda seeing video editing on an ipad, but a phone just doesn't have enough screen area even on phablets...  even if a phone can easily handle proper video editing power/speed wise.

Certainly there won't be any professional editing (other than maybe for show) on an iPhone; however, the average user (well....I guess not average since the average user won't even bother editing videos) might edit video to some extent, and faster storage could prove to be beneficial. Like I said, I don't really know what kind of real-world performance impact this will have, if any. It's very likely Apple just upgraded to NVMe storage since it will eventually have to happen, so they might as well switch to it now and work out any potential bugs rather than adding it and multiple other new tech in future devices which could potentially cause some kind of. And to me extra clear, I really don't know the reasoning behind their decision as I'm not Apple, so I can merely speculate. 

[warmmilk]

Certainly there won't be any professional editing (other than maybe for show) on an iPhone; however, the average user (well....I guess not average since the average user won't even bother editing videos) might edit video to some extent, and faster storage could prove to be beneficial. Like I said, I don't really know what kind of real-world performance impact this will have, if any. It's very likely Apple just upgraded to NVMe storage since it will eventually have to happen, so they might as well switch to it now. 

 

yeah, I can see that.  and in reality, its not like apple would pass on the savings for memory cost (money and GB wise) to the consumer...  they'd just have more profit.  so I gotta change my vote to faster storage

[79wjd]

yeah, I can see that.  and in reality, its not like apple would pass on the savings for memory cost (money and GB wise) to the consumer...  they'd just have more profit.  so I gotta change my vote to faster storage

Well, Apple will eventually drop the 16gb base model and make the 64gb the base model (unless they decide to be annoying and do 32, 64, 128...or maybe even 32, 128, 192/256). It's just a question of when, and that point will be the day before the average base-level consumer can't get by with just 16gb of storage, and would then have their experience negatively affected by the limited capacity. 

[warmmilk]

Well, Apple will eventually drop the 16gb base model and make the 64gb the base model (unless they decide to be annoying and do 32, 64, 128...or maybe even 32, 128, 192/256). It's just a question of when, and that point will be the day before the average base-level consumer can't get by with just 16gb of storage, and would then have their experience negatively affected by the limited capacity. 

 

apple being apple, I'm expecting 32/64/128

 

but yeah, unless you only use your phone for calls/texting/web browsing a little 16 is already not enough.  but in that case you dont really need an iphone

[79wjd]

apple being apple, I'm expecting 32/64/128

 

but yeah, unless you only use your phone for calls/texting/web browsing a little 16 is already not enough.  but in that case you dont really need an iphone

I kind of disagree. A lot of people can actually manage with 16gb of RAM -- clearly enough that it's still reasonable to have that as the base model (it wouldn't still be if it upset and/or negatively affected enough people). Some people also prefer an iPhone over Android/Windows alternatives -- I personally switched to my 5s from a Razr Maxx, and I do prefer using an iPhone (and have since the day I got my 5s -- as for the reason/s why I'm really not sure, I just prefer iOS); the only thing I miss about Android is being able to place apps wherever I want on the home screen. Now, to be fair, I haven't really used Android since Jellybean (when I had my Razr Maxx), but I also have a Note 8.0 running kit kat and I don't notice that much of a difference between JB and KK. 

 

I would really like a new android flagship to see how things are today...but that's not going to happen, so I guess I'll just have to stick with antiquated JB experience. 

[warmmilk]

I kind of disagree. A lot of people can actually manage with 16gb of RAM -- clearly enough that it's still reasonable to have that as the base model (it wouldn't still be if it upset and/or negatively affected enough people). Some people also prefer an iPhone over Android/Windows alternatives -- I personally switched to my 5s from a Razr Maxx, and I do prefer using an iPhone (and have since the day I got my 5s -- as for the reason/s why I'm really not sure, I just prefer iOS); the only thing I miss about Android is being able to place apps wherever I want on the home screen. Now, to be fair, I haven't really used Android since Jellybean (when I had my Razr Maxx), but I also have a Note 8.0 running kit kat and I don't notice that much of a difference between JB and KK. 

 

the reason the 16GB still sells is as simple as it being the cheapest one, and as stupid as it sounds, a lot of people don't put 2 and 2 together when buying a phone at the store and "a whole $100 more, thats insane" and then running out of space 2 weeks later.  with todays camera's people run out of space fast just on pics and vids... and now apple has their whole "short video thats not a video" thing for their pics

 

I prefer iOS also, I tried android last year, caught the tail end of Kit Kat and first couple months of Lolipop, I didn't like it.  the only thing I like about android is that I can text directly from my pc with a third party app... was handy at work when texting friends, made it more efficient to slack off .   

 

when I said basic phone users dont need an iphone, I was more referring to the newest flagship model.  previous gen iphones can be had for 100 with contract.

[79wjd]

the reason the 16GB still sells is as simple as it being the cheapest one, and as stupid as it sounds, a lot of people don't put 2 and 2 together when buying a phone at the store and "a whole $100 more, thats insane" and then running out of space 2 weeks later.  with todays camera's people run out of space fast just on pics and vids... and now apple has their whole "short video thats not a video" thing for their pics

 

I prefer iOS also, I tried android last year, caught the tail end of Kit Kat and first couple months of Lolipop, I didn't like it.  the only thing I like about android is that I can text directly from my pc with a third party app... was handy at work when texting friends, made it more efficient to slack off .   

 

when I said basic phone users dont need an iphone, I was more referring to the newest flagship model.  previous gen iphones can be had for 100 with contract.

If you were to take a survey of people who have the 16gb version, most don't actually have an issue with it's capacity. I'm not saying no one has an issue, a lot of people due, and a lot of people make a silly decision by opting to save $100, but if it was a big enough issue Apple would change it before upsetting too many customers. Keeping customers happy is far more important than that $100. 

 

haha, ironically, that's the reason I didn't even bother to give Android a thought when I picked up my 6s Plus. Those third party android apps aren't consistent enough, and having a Mac means all my texts/calls get synced to my phone over wifi (and any imessages get set straight to my computer regardless of the status of my phone).

 

Well, yes and no. Larger screens are really nice for web browsing (and smaller screens are really nice for when you want to be able to use one hand....). Generally I recommend people not to get last generation devices seeing as a $100 difference really isn't a lot when you think about how much you're paying over time (and how that $100 is like an extra $4/month).  (Yes, I get what you're saying -- you can get the 64gb previous generation for the same cost as the current generation 16gb version)

 

Back when the 5c/5s came out my mom needed to get a new phone -- previously she was using a 3G -- and understand that she uses it for calls, texts, and the occasional google search (i.e. she could easily get by with a basic phone -- the reason she got the 3G in the first place was because it was the only device that would actually connect to her car's bluetooth). So her 3G was still more than enough for her and only wanted to upgrade because the battery was shot. However, I didn't even bother telling her to get a 5c since it's just a silly choice to not spend the extra $100 and getting something which will last longer -- even if it's only one generation longer. 

[79wjd]

good point, but in reality, the whole "4k editing" is really just something the could put in their presentation as a selling item.  nobody does any real/serious video editing on a phone or ipad...  its really either just trimming the length or one of their prebuilt templates in iMovie...

 

I guess I can kinda seeing video editing on an ipad, but a phone just doesn't have enough screen area even on phablets...  even if a phone can easily handle proper video editing power/speed wise.

You know what it actually might be....People always used to complain about how painfully long it took for an iPhone to turn on, this speeds that up dramatically. My 6s+ starts in about 12 seconds, whereas my 5s is about 35 seconds. 

[SuperfastJellyfish]

...how does this even matter? It's not like it was sluggish before...

 

If Samsung or any other manufacturer did this, you either wouldn't bother chiming in, and perhaps even give praise. Just because it's Apple doesn't mean it's an insignificant event.

[Mew]

You know what it actually might be....People always used to complain about how painfully long it took for an iPhone to turn on, this speeds that up dramatically. My 6s+ starts in about 12 seconds, whereas my 5s is about 35 seconds. 

 

Now... if only they could use usb type c or a usb 3 variant of the lightning cable to transfer songs lightning quick. 

[warmmilk]

haha, ironically, that's the reason I didn't even bother to give Android a thought when I picked up my 6s Plus. Those third party android apps aren't consistent enough, and having a Mac means all my texts/calls get synced to my phone over wifi (and any imessages get set straight to my computer regardless of the status of my phone).

I used chomp as my text app and push bullet for texting via pc, worked great for me, never any issues. And you don't even have to be on the same network for it to work. I even use push bullet with iOS, it just doesn't have texting capabilities, but convenient for links or small file transfers... All thought it's glitchy with iOS sometimes

[warmmilk]

You know what it actually might be....People always used to complain about how painfully long it took for an iPhone to turn on, this speeds that up dramatically. My 6s+ starts in about 12 seconds, whereas my 5s is about 35 seconds.

You're right, I didn't even notice that till you pointed it out. Tested out my 6s and same 12 seconds

Not that I ever really restart my phone...