As if Anandtech wasn't enough, official Geekbench scores are out, of course pitting the iPhone 6 against all competitors, include Samsung's darling galaxy series.
And wouldn't you know it, Android fails. For yet its seventh year in a row.
As if all Android phones falling well behind the iPhone 6 in consistent performance and sheer speed wasn't enough, Android manages to fail SPECTACULARLY by performing weaker while being equipped with DOUBLE the RAM, TWICE the clock speeds, and sporting QUADcore processors over the iPhone 6's DUALcore. What the heck is going on here, and why haven't Apple haters awoken from their sheer blind ignorance? I thought Apple makes cheap junk that they just charge more for?
I can't even laugh at Android fanboys, because I'm way too busy being frustrated that there does exist people who choose to believe falsehood over a mountain of evidence based on tangible reality.
@thehig1: I have a battery-case. How much more you can do on a platform is a subjective experience. I have experienced that I can do far more on iOS than I can on Androids limited-supported OS.
It's Anandtech and Geekbench. Those are the two highest authorities when it comes to scientific benchmark testing in the industry. I don't need to post any links if a majority of news outlets are already trumpeting the results from these two firms. You're a fan of Google, aren't you? Go use their service and run a search on the web yourself.
@thehig1: I have a battery-case. How much more you can do on a platform is a subjective experience. I have experienced that I can do far more on iOS than I can on Androids limited-supported OS.
I find that hard to believe, Android OS is open and IOS is closed, by default there is much more you can do with Android OS.
@thehig1: can you get every android update? the answer would be no, because android is an open source OS it has been reskinned by the multitude of phone manufacturers out there. So you have to live with wondering when or if your iteration of android will get an update. Odds are you may be waiting weeks, months or years for that update. Meanwhile you have to live with not getting the features and security updates that may come later down the line. Is it worth it to live with the security holes? is it worth it to have an OS that anyone including hackers and scammers can program for?
@thehig1: can you get every android update? the answer would be no, because android is an open source OS it has been reskinned by the multitude of phone manufacturers out there. So you have to live with wondering when or if your iteration of android will get an update. Odds are you may be waiting weeks, months or years for that update. Meanwhile you have to live with not getting the features and security updates that may come later down the line. Is it worth it to live with the security holes? is it worth it to have an OS that anyone including hackers and scammers can program for?
Well I use a custom ROM that is updated weekly, so updates are not an issue. Security has not been an issue, for a normal user I don't really think it is, its hasn't been for me
I travel a lot due to my job, and my phone is great to watch TV shows and films, play games with to kill time, the added storage and OS capabilities really help out in areas were there is no internet signal.
For example having a massive amount of memory means I loaded my SD card with films, TV shows all playable offline.
I also have the back catalogue of game systems like NES/SNES/Genesis/PS1 that my phone emulates and I play using a bluetooth controller.
As i said before, there are more possibilities of what you can do with Android OS by default, never said there was not any drawbacks but the positives greatly out weigh them especially for my needs, an apple device would just not be enough.
@thehig1: on a side not is it possible to eliminate the app drawer looking through a bunch of tiny icons is a royal pain and one only needs a handful of apps at best
@thehig1: on a side not is it possible to eliminate the app drawer looking through a bunch of tiny icons is a royal pain and one only needs a handful of apps at best
you can create a folder and pin it to the front with your most commonly used apps in, or use a custom rom that does not use the app drawer at all.
You get these choices and options with Android OS, its why I like it, its also why I'm a PC gamer and not a console gamer.
It's Anandtech and Geekbench. Those are the two highest authorities when it comes to scientific benchmark testing in the industry. I don't need to post any links if a majority of news outlets are already trumpeting the results from these two firms. You're a fan of Google, aren't you? Go use their service and run a search on the web yourself.
I don't care who the authority is, I make my decisions on a variety of factors. If your not prepared to post links/screenshots showing evidence of what you claim, then I wont believe it.
I could also make a claim saying "CNET have reported that Canon are entering the OS market with their debut OS, the CanOS"
Yeah TC is no substitute for musicalmac, he gives no links and is then owned horribly. Plus I could over clock my phone, install a different kernel or anything. I yawn at boring iOS.
@musicalmac: Why would we believe early benchmarks when they are based on a different chip than the phone will be released with in the rest of the world? My biggest concern with these tests, though, is they pit Apple's brand new chips against older chips for Android. There's a brand new Snapdragon right around the corner, and not every phone it goes into will have a higher than 1080P resolution. That's where I think the main comparisons should be.
Personally, I think Apple should've just stuck with the 5.5" model (or at the very least included the optical image stabilization on the smaller model). A bit more RAM and a slightly larger battery (eliminating the camera protrusion) wouldn't hurt either. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say, "There's just too much RAM in here," or "My battery lasts way too long."
@asylumni: Being one who prefers Apple phones and tablets to anything else, I frequently hear about what is right around the corner and how much better it is going to be. I've been waiting a long time for a true usurper. It's been a very long time since we've been truly surprised by anything.
The links I provided compare the most popular, most widely available flagship phones. They also display how poorly balanced the Note 4 truly is. Additionally, they display how efficiently Apple has built iOS, as the iPhone 6 truly does run circles around other phones with more ram, higher clock speed, and "real" multitasking. It's not a debate, it's a clearly demonstrable fact.
That won't stop people from trying, though.
Edit: The chip in the Note 4 tested is a version that was released to consumers. Is the other version going to be faster? I thought the one released had more powerful hardware. Either way, I don't see why testing a consumer available phone isn't worth paying attention to.
@musicalmac: The Note 4 that was released in Asia has an Exynos chipset instead of a Snapdragon. It's a bit peculiar in that it uses 4 big cores clocked at 1.9 GHz or 4 small cores clocked at 1.3 GHz whereas the Snapdragon 805 uses 4 Krait cores clocked at up to 2.7 GHz. It also uses a different GPU; Mali-t760 as opposed to Adreno 420.
I also question that "real multitasking" test. I never switch to different tasks that quick and it looked like they were using different browsers that could change results.
@asylumni: It was a clear demonstration of Apple's balanced devices. I believe the tests utilized stock browsers, which makes sense. As I mentioned before, there will always be people fighting it.
The Note 4 released in Asia isn't a very well balanced device. It's poor for people who enjoy games on their phone.
@asylumni: It was a clear demonstration of Apple's balanced devices. I believe the tests utilized stock browsers, which makes sense. As I mentioned before, there will always be people fighting it.
The Note 4 released in Asia isn't a very well balanced device. It's poor for people who enjoy games on their phone.
In what way does having two computers run two different programs in order to compare speed make any sense? I think it would make sense to have them run the same program, then you're actually testing the computers, not the program.
@asylumni: Something tells me a real-world usage test like this would have been meaningful to you if the iPhone were the device struggling to keep up.
Fewer cores, less RAM, lower clocks -- better performance. Maybe android L will help, but I've been told every android update was going to crush Apple's iPhone.
@asylumni: Something tells me a real-world usage test like this would have been meaningful to you if the iPhone were the device struggling to keep up.
Fewer cores, less RAM, lower clocks -- better performance. Maybe android L will help, but I've been told every android update was going to crush Apple's iPhone.
Still waiting.
Something tells me if the iPhane came up short, you'd be telling me how this is not a "real world test" because no one switches between apps that quick and would find a different silly test that the iPhone could handle.
I haven't said a thing about lower core numbers or slower clock, and I've only mentioned a little more RAM would be nice. It's also silly to think that the none of the new batch of Android phones, due in the next month or two,won't perform better than the current ones that are saddled with a QHD display.
But here's some other, "real world" tests.
iPhone 6+
Geekbench 3 : 2844
GFXBench ALU onscreen: 1800 frames
GFXBench Fill: 3874 MTexels/s
Oneplus One
Geekbench 3: 3188
GFXBench ALU onscreen: 1882
GFXBench Fill: 4239
That with a phone that costs much much less than the iPhone 6+.
@asylumni: Your assumption is wrong, though I'm flattered that you're using my own rhetoric to reply to me. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Your real-world example isn't real-world at all -- it's meaningless from an end user perspective. Games are likely going to run better on the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6+, especially after more games receive Metal treatment. And we've also already seen how well Apple's operating system handles multiple tasks at once -- and it's quite a bit better than how the competition handles multiple operations at once. My statement about cores, clocks, and RAM was just another simple, factual cotribution to the conversation. Regardless of whether or not you made any mention of it, it's true.
But it won't stop people from trying to fight it. Clearly.
@asylumni: Your assumption is wrong, though I'm flattered that you're using my own rhetoric to reply to me. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Your real-world example isn't real-world at all -- it's meaningless from an end user perspective. Games are likely going to run better on the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6+, especially after more games receive Metal treatment. And we've also already seen how well Apple's operating system handles multiple tasks at once -- and it's quite a bit better than how the competition handles multiple operations at once. My statement about cores, clocks, and RAM was just another simple, factual contribution to the conversation. Regardless of whether or not you made any mention of it, it's true.
But it won't stop people from trying to fight it. Clearly.
You're probably right, you probably wouldn't make any sort of reasoned argument, just stick your head in the sand and deny deny deny.
Of course it's real world. Do you actually think these results are from some sort of fantasy land? And, no, we haven't seen how well the iPhone handles multiple tasks at once, we've only seen how fast it starts one task after the other. This is more a test of the memory controller (and in the case of the browsers, the different programs and network servers). This doesn't say anything about how well the phones actually run the programs. I could put a solid state drive in my computer and have it load up, say, Watch Dogs faster than a high end gaming computer with an economy HDD; but that doesn't mean my HD6870 is faster than, say, a GTX 690.
And no, all your talk of cores, clocks and RAM are statements of fact, they are passive aggressive attacks on me implying things I have not claimed. I'm guessing it's to cover up your own fanatical worship of all things Apple. But I share no such allegiance to any mobile faction and like to look at things as they are, not as the companies say they are.
You're probably right, you probably wouldn't make any sort of reasoned argument, just stick your head in the sand and deny deny deny.
Of course it's real world. Do you actually think these results are from some sort of fantasy land? And, no, we haven't seen how well the iPhone handles multiple tasks at once, we've only seen how fast it starts one task after the other. This is more a test of the memory controller (and in the case of the browsers, the different programs and network servers). This doesn't say anything about how well the phones actually run the programs. I could put a solid state drive in my computer and have it load up, say, Watch Dogs faster than a high end gaming computer with an economy HDD; but that doesn't mean my HD6870 is faster than, say, a GTX 690.
And no, all your talk of cores, clocks and RAM are statements of fact, they are passive aggressive attacks on me implying things I have not claimed. I'm guessing it's to cover up your own fanatical worship of all things Apple. But I share no such allegiance to any mobile faction and like to look at things as they are, not as the companies say they are.
I think the biggest problem you've got is that what I'm saying is true and based in reason and logic. Those numbers in your benchmarks don't mean anything next to a test that analyzes how quickly a device can provide a user with what they're seeking. I'd also recommend you check yourself if you feel as though my references to other basic facts regarding clocks, cores, and RAM are cause for that much angst.
You can call me a fanatic (a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause) all you like, but it's meaningless as a insult and more appropriate as an admission of your own struggles with the realities surrounding you. But if you want to continue relying on a few hundred geekscore points, that's your choice to do so, even if it is a bad one.
Provide me with evidence I cannot refute, surprise me with information of which I am not already aware -- it's something I haven't been given in a long, long time. Until then, I'll continue to use my objectivity to guide my decisions.
EDIT: You can say I'm sticking my head in the sand, but you haven't actually refuted anything I've said with any facts of your own. Games are likely going to run better on an iPhone and the iPhone has slower clocks, less RAM, and less cores than competing flagships. Is any of that false?
@musicalmac: Ah, but you haven't refuted a single thing I've said, you've simply dismissed it.
Fact: two computers running different programs is no way to judge performance. Fact: multitasking is doing multiple things at the same time, not one after the other. Fact: booting up a program tells you nothing of how well that program will run. Fact: people start programs to use them, not to see the splash screen and then exit.
A few more facts: The Oneplus One I've compared is not using the latest SOC and is priced at $350 for the 64GB version. IPhone 6 starts at $750 if you want the 1080P screen + $100 more if you want the same storage.
@AzNaLaN15: according to all the tests I've seen, they pretty much trade blows, depending on the test and iPhone version.
Yah I am just responding to the OP who is saying the iphone 6 is blowing all the androids out of the water. But if you look at comparable tech released around the same time frame 801/805 they trade blows. But graphically the 805 tops the iphone 6 I believe.
@musicalmac: Ah, but you haven't refuted a single thing I've said, you've simply dismissed it.
Fact: two computers running different programs is no way to judge performance. Fact: multitasking is doing multiple things at the same time, not one after the other. Fact: booting up a program tells you nothing of how well that program will run. Fact: people start programs to use them, not to see the splash screen and then exit.
A few more facts: The Oneplus One I've compared is not using the latest SOC and is priced at $350 for the 64GB version. IPhone 6 starts at $750 if you want the 1080P screen + $100 more if you want the same storage.
Traditional desktop computers and the mobile world are very different places. You're preaching to the choir with all that PC talk, and you're actively avoiding the other items I've been discussing. I don't think you're being reasonable, and it makes it difficult to converse with you. I'll repeat myself so you have a jump-point.
"EDIT: You can say I'm sticking my head in the sand, but you haven't actually refuted anything I've said with any facts of your own. Games are likely going to run better on an iPhone and the iPhone has slower clocks, less RAM, and less cores than competing flagships. Is any of that false?"
"The Note 4 released in Asia isn't a very well balanced device. It's poor for people who enjoy games on their phone."
"Those numbers in your benchmarks don't mean anything next to a test that analyzes how quickly a device can provide a user with what they're seeking." -- to add on to that, the test that jumped from app to app was a great way to display how well-prepared the iPhone is at providing a user with what they're seeking in the shortest amount of time. The applications available on the iPhone in combination with the hardware and operating system were better suited to do so -- with less cores, lower clocks, and less RAM. Is this something you still choose to ignore?
I'd also like to add to all of this the reality that 99.99% of games and apps on Apple's iOS app store work on every single iPhone released in the past three years, while the vast majority will still work on any iOS7 device of the past four years. So if you want to talk about price and value, between the longevity of hardware and software support (both first and third party) and the resale value of iPhones, it's impossible to make a an argument for something that isn't an iPhone. Short sighted consumers will be fooled by lower priced android phones, and they'll pay for it.
@musicalmac: Ah, but you haven't refuted a single thing I've said, you've simply dismissed it.
Fact: two computers running different programs is no way to judge performance. Fact: multitasking is doing multiple things at the same time, not one after the other. Fact: booting up a program tells you nothing of how well that program will run. Fact: people start programs to use them, not to see the splash screen and then exit.
A few more facts: The Oneplus One I've compared is not using the latest SOC and is priced at $350 for the 64GB version. IPhone 6 starts at $750 if you want the 1080P screen + $100 more if you want the same storage.
Traditional desktop computers and the mobile world are very different places. You're preaching to the choir with all that PC talk, and you're actively avoiding the other items I've been discussing. I don't think you're being reasonable, and it makes it difficult to converse with you. I'll repeat myself so you have a jump-point.
OK, fine, I'll go one by one.
"EDIT: You can say I'm sticking my head in the sand, but you haven't actually refuted anything I've said with any facts of your own. Games are likely going to run better on an iPhone and the iPhone has slower clocks, less RAM, and less cores than competing flagships. Is any of that false?"
False that games are likely to run better. If an Android phone can execute the operations that games use just as well or faster than the iPhone, then it stands to reason it would run the games as well or better than the iPhone. As for slower clocks, fewer cores and less RAM; it's true, but so what? Clock rate and core number is not be all of computer performance and it's not like there are hidden cores that Apple is just going to activate to increase performance. What you have is what you have. (And yes, these are computers, just not PCs).
"The Note 4 released in Asia isn't a very well balanced device. It's poor for people who enjoy games on their phone."
"Isn't a very well balanced device" makes no sense. And even if it isn't the best device, that doesn't make it a poor device. My previous phone was an LG Optimus F3; THAT was a poor device. It shipped with little internal storage and Google changed the way apps can use microSD cards making the option pretty much non-existent for this phone (even when trying to download a video from the Google Play store). The Asian Note 4 also uses the system that has 4 main cores for normal uses and 4 smaller cores for low power use, not to be used together. So while, yes there are 8 cores, you can't just ignore everything else, like architecture, fab process, etc.
"Those numbers in your benchmarks don't mean anything next to a test that analyzes how quickly a device can provide a user with what they're seeking." -- to add on to that, the test that jumped from app to app was a great way to display how well-prepared the iPhone is at providing a user with what they're seeking in the shortest amount of time. The applications available on the iPhone in combination with the hardware and operating system were better suited to do so -- with less cores, lower clocks, and less RAM. Is this something you still choose to ignore?"
I answered this a few times. The only part where the HTC One M8 fell behind was the browser test that a) used a different browser and b) also depended on external factors such as the network and servers. And it doesn't show "how well-prepared the iPhone is at providing a user with what they're seeking" because people start the programs to use them, not look at a splash screen then shut it down. And yet again you harp on fewer cores, lower clocks and less RAM. Are you going to magically get any more boosting performance further? No? Then so what?
"I'd also like to add to all of this the reality that 99.99% of games and apps on Apple's iOS app store work on every single iPhone released in the past three years, while the vast majority will still work on any iOS7 device of the past four years. So if you want to talk about price and value, between the longevity of hardware and software support (both first and third party) and the resale value of iPhones, it's impossible to make a an argument for something that isn't an iPhone. Short sighted consumers will be fooled by lower priced android phones, and they'll pay for it."
Really? Value? I got an Android phone for $500 less than a comparably equipped iPhone 6+. It's run every single thing I've thrown at it. The Amazon app store gives away a premium program for FREE every single day, sometimes giving away coins as well that can be used to buy other programs. Where, exactly, am I paying for it? I think you're mistaking the lower prices of phones on contracts that fold the savings into the subscription fees with actual lower prices.
"False that games are likely to run better. If an Android phone can execute the operations that games use just as well or faster than the iPhone, then it stands to reason it would run the games as well or better than the iPhone. As for slower clocks, fewer cores and less RAM; it's true, but so what? Clock rate and core number is not be all of computer performance and it's not like there are hidden cores that Apple is just going to activate to increase performance. What you have is what you have. (And yes, these are computers, just not PCs)."
Between Apple's new graphics API, which has shipped and is available right now (sometimes people need reminding of the differences between something that's widely available and something that is "coming soon"), and Apple's well-balanced hardware (SoC + RAM + Resolution) means that anyone who buys an iPhone can expect excellent performance for years. Maybe there is an android phone out there that can out-perform an iPhone in a reasonable, on-screen performance test, but I haven't seen it yet. Surprise me, please. The iPhone 6 is a gaming monster.
"Isn't a very well balanced device" makes no sense. And even if it isn't the best device, that doesn't make it a poor device. My previous phone was an LG Optimus F3; THAT was a poor device. It shipped with little internal storage and Google changed the way apps can use microSD cards making the option pretty much non-existent for this phone (even when trying to download a video from the Google Play store). The Asian Note 4 also uses the system that has 4 main cores for normal uses and 4 smaller cores for low power use, not to be used together. So while, yes there are 8 cores, you can't just ignore everything else, like architecture, fab process, etc.
It makes perfect sense. The Note 4 and LG G3 both suffer from screen resolutions too high for their own good. It's a poor gaming device. Why is this even worth trying to deny? I haven't used one yet, but I'm betting it'll struggle with some UI tasks, too. To help drive this point home, I've even navigated to an android haven to pull out some information in the manner to which you are accustomed:
The Manhattan on-screen performance is especially revealing. You want to talk balance? There's your balance. Both of Apple's phones are outstanding performers. Apple phones are likely going to just run games better than android phones. That iPhone 6 is more than twice as fast for games in some instances. What possible way could we ignore that?
I answered this a few times. The only part where the HTC One M8 fell behind was the browser test that a) used a different browser and b) also depended on external factors such as the network and servers. And it doesn't show "how well-prepared the iPhone is at providing a user with what they're seeking" because people start the programs to use them, not look at a splash screen then shut it down. And yet again you harp on fewer cores, lower clocks and less RAM. Are you going to magically get any more boosting performance further? No? Then so what?
The iPhone delivered faster than the android phones did. That's just how it is. You'll have to come to terms with it eventually.
Really? Value? I got an Android phone for $500 less than a comparably equipped iPhone 6+. It's run every single thing I've thrown at it. The Amazon app store gives away a premium program for FREE every single day, sometimes giving away coins as well that can be used to buy other programs. Where, exactly, am I paying for it? I think you're mistaking the lower prices of phones on contracts that fold the savings into the subscription fees with actual lower prices.
You'll get a phone that's likely worse at gaming, slower to react to your inputs, with an app ecosystem of lower quality, and that will re-sell for far, far less than an iPhone will re-sell for.
Android isn't a failure persay it's just them allowing manufactueres to customize the OS rather than giving users a pure android experience is the problem. If anything the customizing should be left to consumers, things like touch wiz, htc sense, and s health could be apps downloadable to the phones should users want them. Optimization is the key to bringing out the best in hardware
@musicalmac: You seem to be stuck on what is available right now. These are not disposable things that are replaced in a month and I'm not talking about what's coming years down the line, but in the next month or two. You're doing the same thing with Apple's API. Sure, it's available now, but it hasn't been utilized by a huge number of programs yet, either. Here's A ouple of comparable test from the Snapdragon 805 preview.
Pretty close to the performance of the iPhone 6+. Now I'm using the off-screen stats to show the performance at 1080P, since it's unrealistic to assume that every 805 equipped phone this Fall will also have a QHD display and it gives an indication of how well the chip will perform with a display comparable to the iPhone 6+.
With all this focus on FPS, it's easy to forget that another factor contributes to quality; resolution. This is where the base iPhone 6 fails with a sub-par ppi. This is no better than Nintendo stating that the Wii would look just as good as the PS3 and Xbox 360 on a standard definition tv, last generation. While I, too, am yet unconvinced of the benefits in a QHD display, there certainly is a benefit to a native 1080P display over Apple's 750P oddness.
And, yes, "balance" is a BS marketing term. It implies that there is a correct performance level that should be achieved. Even your charts confirm this nonsense, unless you're ready to state that one of the iPhone models isn't balanced, since the performances are very different.
You really need to stop pretending that the whole of the tech world stops when Apple releases a product. New products always come out that perform better than the old. The fact that the many month old Oneplus One can match even a few aspects of the new iPhone 6 with a brand new SOC, and at half the price, shows just how vulnerable Apple's new standard is.
I'm laughing so hard. Mainly because fandroids in here are struggling to convince me that in benchmark tests, Android is "trading blows" with the iPhone.
People still are so insanely in denial, that they think "trading blows" with a phone that has half the clockspeed, half the RAM and half the cores is appropriate damage control.
Fandroids will never live this down. The year that they argued "close performance gap" with a phone that has half the spec-sheet.
Goes to show how Android is pure under-powered crap, and its users struggle to grasp at straws with a supposedly inferior iPhone. This thread is hilariously peppered with these people
@asylumni: Lucky you placed in the apps would work on every iPhone within the last 3 years.
My primary phone is out for RMA and now I am back on my backup 3GS and wow... iOS implements crap like you are not on the current OS version so you cannot install the app...
Why do I need the latest and greatest to access the Gmail app or the ESPN app, etc...
@musicalmac: You seem to be stuck on what is available right now. These are not disposable things that are replaced in a month and I'm not talking about what's coming years down the line, but in the next month or two. You're doing the same thing with Apple's API. Sure, it's available now, but it hasn't been utilized by a huge number of programs yet, either. Here's A ouple of comparable test from the Snapdragon 805 preview.
Pretty close to the performance of the iPhone 6+. Now I'm using the off-screen stats to show the performance at 1080P, since it's unrealistic to assume that every 805 equipped phone this Fall will also have a QHD display and it gives an indication of how well the chip will perform with a display comparable to the iPhone 6+.
With all this focus on FPS, it's easy to forget that another factor contributes to quality; resolution. This is where the base iPhone 6 fails with a sub-par ppi. This is no better than Nintendo stating that the Wii would look just as good as the PS3 and Xbox 360 on a standard definition tv, last generation. While I, too, am yet unconvinced of the benefits in a QHD display, there certainly is a benefit to a native 1080P display over Apple's 750P oddness.
And, yes, "balance" is a BS marketing term. It implies that there is a correct performance level that should be achieved. Even your charts confirm this nonsense, unless you're ready to state that one of the iPhone models isn't balanced, since the performances are very different.
You really need to stop pretending that the whole of the tech world stops when Apple releases a product. New products always come out that perform better than the old. The fact that the many month old Oneplus One can match even a few aspects of the new iPhone 6 with a brand new SOC, and at half the price, shows just how vulnerable Apple's new standard is.
I think I'll point you at another source that's quite a bit more respectable for this sort of thing than either you or I --
For the most part, the A8 SoC performs admirably despite the relatively low (1.38 GHz) frequency and half the cores when compared to competing SoCs. It seems that this is mostly building upon the lead that A7's Cyclone CPUs began. It remains to be seen if other SoC manufacturers will catch up in their CPU architecture at one point or another (NVIDIA's Project Denver in particular is interesting), but for now Apple seems to be quite far in the lead in CPU performance.
Overall, the iPhone 6 has been a surprise for me. While not all that much changed on the surface, this is the first phone that I’ve reviewed all year where I’ve found more to like the deeper I dug. The iPhone 6 is a great phone in its own right and needs no qualifications in that recommendation. While as a current Android user I’m still reluctant to use the iPhone 6 as my only phone, the iPhone 6 is good enough that I’m willing to consider doing so.
So that's something you'll just have to get used to. As for the idea that "balance" is a marketing term -- Apple doesn't use that term, and they're the ones who would create promotional materials. It's not something you promote, it's something you do. The PPI is not sub-par because you haven't been able to reasonably discern any pixels on any iPhone since the iPhone 4 released 4 years ago. If you can't see pixels already, adding more is wasting performance potential. Even the laughable Phonearena can confirm this --
Indeed, while the Note 4 provides a smooth ride whatever you go for, synthetic benchmarks show that it is having a harder time pushing all those extra pixels, especially when talking about heavy graphical content like games. In those scenarios (and even when talking about off-screen results), the A8 actually proves a better performer.
So, another thing you'll just have to get used to. Benchmarks that aren't contextual are also extra useless -- especially preview benchmarks. The iPhone 6+ is enjoying some significant performance advantages compared to the Note 4, and I'm guessing that trend will continue with the Nexus 6.
I think I'll point you at another source that's quite a bit more respectable for this sort of thing than either you or I --
For the most part, the A8 SoC performs admirably despite the relatively low (1.38 GHz) frequency and half the cores when compared to competing SoCs. It seems that this is mostly building upon the lead that A7's Cyclone CPUs began. It remains to be seen if other SoC manufacturers will catch up in their CPU architecture at one point or another (NVIDIA's Project Denver in particular is interesting), but for now Apple seems to be quite far in the lead in CPU performance.
Overall, the iPhone 6 has been a surprise for me. While not all that much changed on the surface, this is the first phone that I’ve reviewed all year where I’ve found more to like the deeper I dug. The iPhone 6 is a great phone in its own right and needs no qualifications in that recommendation. While as a current Android user I’m still reluctant to use the iPhone 6 as my only phone, the iPhone 6 is good enough that I’m willing to consider doing so.
So that's something you'll just have to get used to. As for the idea that "balance" is a marketing term -- Apple doesn't use that term, and they're the ones who would create promotional materials. It's not something you promote, it's something you do. The PPI is not sub-par because you haven't been able to reasonably discern any pixels on any iPhone since the iPhone 4 released 4 years ago. If you can't see pixels already, adding more is wasting performance potential. Even the laughable Phonearena can confirm this --
Indeed, while the Note 4 provides a smooth ride whatever you go for, synthetic benchmarks show that it is having a harder time pushing all those extra pixels, especially when talking about heavy graphical content like games. In those scenarios (and even when talking about off-screen results), the A8 actually proves a better performer.
So, another thing you'll just have to get used to. Benchmarks that aren't contextual are also extra useless -- especially preview benchmarks. The iPhone 6+ is enjoying some significant performance advantages compared to the Note 4, and I'm guessing that trend will continue with the Nexus 6.
You like that source? OK, let's see what else they have to say...
"we see a jump in GPU performance that puts the GX6450 on par with the Adreno 420."
Hmm, on par. So not putting Android to shame.
And your argument for "balance" is self-defeating. Even if there were a proper performance per screen size, either the 6 or the 6+ would be wrong and therefore, unbalanced. You can't call both balanced at two different performance levels.
As for PPI, let me requote what I actually said,
"While I, too, am yet unconvinced of the benefits in a QHD display, there certainly is a benefit to a native 1080P display over Apple's 750P oddness."
And what do you choose to counterpoint with? A QHD display...
But it is BS that you can't discern a difference at 326 PPI. Your source also agrees with this; "I still feel like I’d want higher pixel density to make it the “perfect” display...". Apple, themselves, evidently see an advantage to a higher density with their iPhone 6+ sitting at 401 PPI. Nowhere in that quote is it even implied that the increased pixel density over Apple's "Retina Display" is not noticeable. It simply states that higher resolution takes more computational power (duh). Guess what? The iPhone 6+ will not perform as well as the iPhone 6, due to higher resolution, as well. Does that make it a poor choice for gaming too?
BTW, what ever happened to that supposed iPhone 6 screen prototype that was extremely robust and the millions of dollars of sapphire that Apple bought?
You like that source? OK, let's see what else they have to say...
"we see a jump in GPU performance that puts the GX6450 on par with the Adreno 420."
Hmm, on par. So not putting Android to shame.
And your argument for "balance" is self-defeating. Even if there were a proper performance per screen size, either the 6 or the 6+ would be wrong and therefore, unbalanced. You can't call both balanced at two different performance levels.
As for PPI, let me requote what I actually said,
"While I, too, am yet unconvinced of the benefits in a QHD display, there certainly is a benefit to a native 1080P display over Apple's 750P oddness."
And what do you choose to counterpoint with? A QHD display...
But it is BS that you can't discern a difference at 326 PPI. Your source also agrees with this; "I still feel like I’d want higher pixel density to make it the “perfect” display...". Apple, themselves, evidently see an advantage to a higher density with their iPhone 6+ sitting at 401 PPI. Nowhere in that quote is it even implied that the increased pixel density over Apple's "Retina Display" is not noticeable. It simply states that higher resolution takes more computational power (duh). Guess what? The iPhone 6+ will not perform as well as the iPhone 6, due to higher resolution, as well. Does that make it a poor choice for gaming too?
BTW, what ever happened to that supposed iPhone 6 screen prototype that was extremely robust and the millions of dollars of sapphire that Apple bought?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. GPU performance between the GX6450 and the Adreno 420 are on par with one another, therefore android is not being put to shame. What does that mean? When did I make mention of anything being put to shame? How could a GPU have put android to shame?
Balance is not a self-defeating argument, but your use of my rhetoric is again flattering. The 6+ in context at native resolution still enjoys frame rates roughly twice that of even 805 equipped Note 4 hardware (and is clocked slightly higher than the regular 6), and it'll likely be a similar story with the incredibly expensive Nexus 6. That was a legitimately hilarious reveal. What a huge disappointment for Nexus hopefuls.
Let us also take a moment to visit what both sources (the bad one, and the good one) had to say about the display --
You already know that the Note 4 is the bigger device between the two, and the only culprit here is its display. We're looking at a massive, 5.7-inch Super AMOLED screen by Samsung, with an extremely high resolution of 1440 x 2560 pixels (Quad HD). This works out to a whopping 515 pixels per inch – more than your can take advantage of unless you spend your hands-on time looking at the screen an inch from your face. Turning to the iPhone 6, we've got a much smaller, 4.7-inch IPS screen with a comparatively lower resolution of 750 x 1334 pixels, good for a density of 326 ppi. Sure, this implies an obvious disadvantage for the iPhone 6, but as we noted before, in most usage scenarios, the iPhone 6 appears essentially as sharp as the Note 4.
Credit PhoneArena
And
In practice, I definitely continue to notice the difference in resolution when using the iPhone 6 as opposed to the higher pixel density iPhone 6 Plus and the various Android smartphones with 450+ PPI displays. I definitely don’t find the resolution to be a problem though, as these issues only become significant to me below 300 PPI. I do think that around 450 to 500 PPI is the right place to be when balancing pixel density and power, but Apple’s choice should pay off in the form of better power consumption especially because LED backlights rapidly lose efficiency near the highest current region.
Credit AnandTech
Is your quote a direct quote, or is it something you paraphrased but put quotes around?
And GT couldn't deliver what Apple wanted, and the execs decided to leap from the top of the world with a golden parachute. We'll learn more as the drama develops, but they probably promised something and didn't deliver. It was their choice to sign on the dotted line.
Edit: Feel free to respond to the points I made previously with the source material I provided about the A8. Unless your deflection to displays was an acknowledgement of Apple's superior chip designs, in which case feel free to leave it be.
You like that source? OK, let's see what else they have to say...
"we see a jump in GPU performance that puts the GX6450 on par with the Adreno 420."
Hmm, on par. So not putting Android to shame.
And your argument for "balance" is self-defeating. Even if there were a proper performance per screen size, either the 6 or the 6+ would be wrong and therefore, unbalanced. You can't call both balanced at two different performance levels.
As for PPI, let me requote what I actually said,
"While I, too, am yet unconvinced of the benefits in a QHD display, there certainly is a benefit to a native 1080P display over Apple's 750P oddness."
And what do you choose to counterpoint with? A QHD display...
But it is BS that you can't discern a difference at 326 PPI. Your source also agrees with this; "I still feel like I’d want higher pixel density to make it the “perfect” display...". Apple, themselves, evidently see an advantage to a higher density with their iPhone 6+ sitting at 401 PPI. Nowhere in that quote is it even implied that the increased pixel density over Apple's "Retina Display" is not noticeable. It simply states that higher resolution takes more computational power (duh). Guess what? The iPhone 6+ will not perform as well as the iPhone 6, due to higher resolution, as well. Does that make it a poor choice for gaming too?
BTW, what ever happened to that supposed iPhone 6 screen prototype that was extremely robust and the millions of dollars of sapphire that Apple bought?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. GPU performance between the GX6450 and the Adreno 420 are on par with one another, therefore android is not being put to shame. What does that mean? When did I make mention of anything being put to shame? How could a GPU have put android to shame?
Balance is not a self-defeating argument, but your use of my rhetoric is again flattering. The 6+ in context at native resolution still enjoys frame rates roughly twice that of even 805 equipped Note 4 hardware (and is clocked slightly higher than the regular 6), and it'll likely be a similar story with the incredibly expensive Nexus 6. That was a legitimately hilarious reveal. What a huge disappointment for Nexus hopefuls.
Let us also take a moment to visit what both sources (the bad one, and the good one) had to say about the display --
You already know that the Note 4 is the bigger device between the two, and the only culprit here is its display. We're looking at a massive, 5.7-inch Super AMOLED screen by Samsung, with an extremely high resolution of 1440 x 2560 pixels (Quad HD). This works out to a whopping 515 pixels per inch – more than your can take advantage of unless you spend your hands-on time looking at the screen an inch from your face. Turning to the iPhone 6, we've got a much smaller, 4.7-inch IPS screen with a comparatively lower resolution of 750 x 1334 pixels, good for a density of 326 ppi. Sure, this implies an obvious disadvantage for the iPhone 6, but as we noted before, in most usage scenarios, the iPhone 6 appears essentially as sharp as the Note 4.
Credit PhoneArena
And
In practice, I definitely continue to notice the difference in resolution when using the iPhone 6 as opposed to the higher pixel density iPhone 6 Plus and the various Android smartphones with 450+ PPI displays. I definitely don’t find the resolution to be a problem though, as these issues only become significant to me below 300 PPI. I do think that around 450 to 500 PPI is the right place to be when balancing pixel density and power, but Apple’s choice should pay off in the form of better power consumption especially because LED backlights rapidly lose efficiency near the highest current region.
Credit AnandTech
Is your quote a direct quote, or is it something you paraphrased but put quotes around?
And GT couldn't deliver what Apple wanted, and the execs decided to leap from the top of the world with a golden parachute. We'll learn more as the drama develops, but they probably promised something and didn't deliver. It was their choice to sign on the dotted line.
Edit: Feel free to respond to the points I made previously with the source material I provided about the A8. Unless your deflection to displays was an acknowledgement of Apple's superior chip designs, in which case feel free to leave it be.
It's a direct quote from your own, "more respectable" source (anandtech). It's on the same page you linked, third paragraph, second sentence. I also took the liberty in bolding a part in the quote above where they reiterate that the difference in PPI above 326 is noticeable.
And the difference has nothing to do with the chips. The roughly 62% increase (not roughly double) is much more likely due to the 56% increase in pixels, not some IC wizardry.
Yeah let's compare an outdated 801 to our devices and claim ownage. Oooo even better let's show off the 805 competing with the A8 despite being on completely uneven ground and claim ownage.
Besides the 805 isn't the most powerful Android SoC. The K1 is.
@musicalmac: You seem to be stuck on what is available right now. These are not disposable things that are replaced in a month and I'm not talking about what's coming years down the line, but in the next month or two. You're doing the same thing with Apple's API. Sure, it's available now, but it hasn't been utilized by a huge number of programs yet, either. Here's A ouple of comparable test from the Snapdragon 805 preview.
Pretty close to the performance of the iPhone 6+. Now I'm using the off-screen stats to show the performance at 1080P, since it's unrealistic to assume that every 805 equipped phone this Fall will also have a QHD display and it gives an indication of how well the chip will perform with a display comparable to the iPhone 6+.
With all this focus on FPS, it's easy to forget that another factor contributes to quality; resolution. This is where the base iPhone 6 fails with a sub-par ppi. This is no better than Nintendo stating that the Wii would look just as good as the PS3 and Xbox 360 on a standard definition tv, last generation. While I, too, am yet unconvinced of the benefits in a QHD display, there certainly is a benefit to a native 1080P display over Apple's 750P oddness.
And, yes, "balance" is a BS marketing term. It implies that there is a correct performance level that should be achieved. Even your charts confirm this nonsense, unless you're ready to state that one of the iPhone models isn't balanced, since the performances are very different.
You really need to stop pretending that the whole of the tech world stops when Apple releases a product. New products always come out that perform better than the old. The fact that the many month old Oneplus One can match even a few aspects of the new iPhone 6 with a brand new SOC, and at half the price, shows just how vulnerable Apple's new standard is.
um, the Plus or the 6 is no where to be found in your benchmarks LOL, the iPad Air has the Apple A7, not the Apple A8, you lost, Musicalmac showed you how much better the Plus and 6 run Manhattan ON SCREEN (ON SCREEN TEST HERE IS KEY)
and also the Apple A8 wins also in off screen benchmarks, it outperforms the 805 in basically every single way
Yeah let's compare an outdated 801 to our devices and claim ownage. Oooo even better let's show off the 805 competing with the A8 despite being on completely uneven ground and claim ownage.
Besides the 805 isn't the most powerful Android SoC. The K1 is.
Which the A8X beats, The Apple A8X beats the Tegra K1 in performance and is the fastest ARM SoC on the planet right now.
@xboxiphoneps3: I lost? What did I lose? Where did I claim the iPad Air was what it should be compared against? I simply showed what the 805 scored. If you're curious, the iPhone 6 scores 18.2 fps on Manhattan off-screen and 42.8 fps on T-Rex off-screen. Pretty darn close to the 805. And why off-screen? It shows the comparative performance of the chips for the same resolution. Android isn't like Apple where what you get is what they want to give you, you actually have a choice. All it would take is a manufacturer to pop the 805 in a phone with a 720P screen to pretty much mach the performance of the iPhone 6, and if they don't hobble it with only 1GB of RAM, it could do more.
I'm not saying the 805 is the best thing ever, simply that Android doesn't "fail miserably"; you know, the topic at hand.
Log in to comment