Slashdot Mirror

I looked on http://browser.geekbench.com/p... and it says "Geekbench 4 scores are calibrated against a baseline score of 4000 (which is the score of an Intel Core i7-6600U). Higher scores are better, with double the score indicating double the performance."

I scrolled down to 4000 and couldn't find the 6600U.
If you scroll down further you can see Intel Core i7-6600U 2.6 GHz (2 cores) 3438

They're also saying, for example, a 16 core Threadripper 1950X is slower at multi-core than a 10 core Intel 6950X. Everyone else puts the 1950X at ~50% faster - it has more cache, more cores, more mhz, consumes more power and is a year newer.
If that's how they compare two x86's I'd hate to see how bad ARM vs x86 is in their tests.
They'd have you believe an iPhone XS is about a fast at single core tasks as a Mac Pro boosting to 4.something GHz

So your rant is short circuited.

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

Echoing the AC that replied earlier. Can you provide the specs for the machine you have? I'm happy with my MBP, but if yours is faster, it wouldn't hurt to spec one out.

I am not sure what the parent is using, but I'm using a Dell XPS 15 9550 running High Sierra (Guide)

Geekbench scores put it at roughly 4200 for Single-Core, and 13800 for Multi-Core, which are competitive with recent Macbook Pros. I use it mostly for programming and development (including iOS/Android), and it's been absolutely perfect for that. The extra ports are especially nice for attaching/charging devices.

ARM has come a long way, but it has serious problems trying to scale up. Those issues haven't been solved yet. Taking the current top of the line desktop processor vs the current top of the line A11 from apple, it has a LONG way to go: https://browser.geekbench.com/...

That's the iPhone X putting up just shy of 10k in geekbench, and the intel platform putting up just shy of 70k. That is a pretty big difference to make up, but I look forward to seeing what Apple does.

I'm starting to think that Geekbench scores for the iPhone are bullshit. The A11 Bionic has 2 high performance cores, but somehow out performs chips with 4 high performance cores. Yet iPhones don't appear to be any faster than Android phones, and in fact they are often quite a bit slower in real world use due to having only 2GB of RAM.

Many have criticized the Geekbench processor benchmarks, unbelievably, even Linus Torvalds. But he relented with version 4.0, saying it looks much better. Version 4.2's GPU test fixes put it in line with OpenCL and CUDA results. I don't see any problem.

I've not tried either the SD845 nor the A11 Bionic processors. If you have, you're a better geek than me, which isn't saying very much. I'm sure you're right about the 2GB bottleneck. As I look over their different specs, there are two other things that stand out in the SD845's favor: the GPU, and the core\cache organization.

1) Snapdragon 845's has modest CPU improvements over the SD835, but the GPU upgrade is 32%-40% better, depending on the graphics test. And it beats the A11 in all but two of those tests.

2) The A11 does have a better CPU performance than the SD845, hands down, but there may be more to it than that. The A11 can use all six cores simultaneously, and has AI hardware called a "Neural Engine" that can perform 600 billion operations per second. Some or all of this may help explain why it's a speed demon at multi-core tasks. But not so much at single-core tasks. Just guessing, but maybe that's because it has discrete core clusters and caches. In contrast, the SD845 uses ARM's DynamiQ CPU cluster organization, letting different cores be hosted within the same cluster and cache hierarchy.

That's all I got, except the links below.

http://bgr.com/2017/09/14/iphone-x-vs-iphone-8-a11-bionic-benchmarks-macbook-pro/

https://www.neowin.net/news/qualcomms-snapdragon-845-benchmarks-show-massive-gains

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12420/snapdragon-845-performance-preview

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/11/geekbench-42/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geekbench

https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/263774-qualcomms-snapdragon-845-strong-gpu-performance-less-cpu-improvement-advertised

An i7-7500U still gets 3468/7500

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

An i7-8550u does even better 4829/14721

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

Even an i5-7200U is still 3535/6701

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

A Core m3-7Y32 is 3709/6844

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

The 835 is around level with a Celeron 3865U at 2296/3832

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

I think most people would say a Celeron 3865U is a slow chip

An i7-7500U still gets 3468/7500

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

An i7-8550u does even better 4829/14721

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

Even an i5-7200U is still 3535/6701

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

A Core m3-7Y32 is 3709/6844

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

The 835 is around level with a Celeron 3865U at 2296/3832

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

I think most people would say a Celeron 3865U is a slow chip

An i7-7500U still gets 3468/7500

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

An i7-8550u does even better 4829/14721

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

Even an i5-7200U is still 3535/6701

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

A Core m3-7Y32 is 3709/6844

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

The 835 is around level with a Celeron 3865U at 2296/3832

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

I think most people would say a Celeron 3865U is a slow chip

An i7-7500U still gets 3468/7500

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

An i7-8550u does even better 4829/14721

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

Even an i5-7200U is still 3535/6701

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

A Core m3-7Y32 is 3709/6844

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

The 835 is around level with a Celeron 3865U at 2296/3832

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

I think most people would say a Celeron 3865U is a slow chip

An i7-7500U still gets 3468/7500

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

An i7-8550u does even better 4829/14721

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

Even an i5-7200U is still 3535/6701

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

A Core m3-7Y32 is 3709/6844

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

The 835 is around level with a Celeron 3865U at 2296/3832

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

I think most people would say a Celeron 3865U is a slow chip

Ok so I have run battery diagnostics and appearently my battery is at 88pct according to Battery Life Doctor.

It would appear my phone is not throttled but that the latest iOS is just too much to handle comfortably for my iPhone 6.

Bought Geekbench just now so here we go, the numbers donâ(TM)t mean anything to me right now:
1547 Single-Core Score
2627 Multi-Core Score
Geekbench 4.2.1 for iOS AArch64
System Information
iOS 11.2.1 on iPhone 6

As I assume I cannot downgrade to iOS 10 Im stuck with a poorly performing phone or will have to buy something new. Changing battery wonâ(TM)t help, so good to know that. Happy i had this conversation, even if it was impolite.

I'm pretty sure the numbers have no real-world "scale"; they're in "GeekBench Units", LOL! But, here is where you can see where your iPhone rates among others of your model:

https://browser.geekbench.com/...

And yes, I am afraid that your slowdowns are probably as a result of "An Upgrade too Far". My iPad 2 has been the same way since upgrading to iOS 9. Most things are ok, including some fairly high-demand Apps, but some Text Entry and most Web Browsing activities are positively PAINFUL!!!

My iPhone 6 has been pestering me to Upgrade to iOS 11 (which I would like to do for the File Manager; but don't want to lose some of the 32 bit Apps I have that haven't been recompiled for 64 bit). Glad that I haven't let it win that argument!

In fact, if you want to know a Class Action Lawsuit against Apple that I might be tempted to join, it would be one for Apple not allowing iOS users to DOWNGRADE their OS versions for some REASONABLE length of time after a new iOS version comes out, like 3 to 6 months. In fact, if you'd like to talk about something that insidiously pushes people to Upgrade their iDevices, then THAT is it!

And there is NO reason they can't leave the signing-keys "active" for "Version - 1". None at all...

A Windows 10 ARM machine running x86 code gets 818 on Geekbench

https://www.windowslatest.com/...

I.e. about level with an Intel Celeron SU2300

http://browser.geekbench.com/p...

Running native code it's about 2.5x faster at 2092

http://weborus.com/snapdragon-...

Someone posted the results of some speed tests they had performed and it indicated that the performance degradation is driven by a software check on the handset version, not the condition of the battery.

Given that we have hard evidence to the contrary, that person is wrong. Take a look at Geekbench's test results, which demonstrate a multimodal distribution for any given model's performance. Were your anecdotal claims true, we'd see all units of a particular model showing reduced performance. Instead, however, we're merely seeing some units of a particular model demonstrating reduced performance, indicating that it's a factor other than the handset version that's the determining factor.

But even if you distrust Geekbench's results, remember why this topic is even being discussed: a guy got his battery serviced and noticed his iPhone's performance improved afterwards. If performance was tied to the handset, that wouldn't have been the case. There have been numerous additional anecdotes to that same effect since then, as well as numerous people posting benchmark scores to back up those observations, so at this point it's pretty clear that the reduction in performance is not tied to the handset and that the guy you read was mistaken in some way.

As for your suggested resolutions, removing this feature would be extraordinarily foolhardy. Your suggestions would make sense if this was nothing more than a "low power mode" sort of feature that was designed to stretch a battery's life out for as long as possible on a single charge, but that is not at all what this is. What is happening here is that the battery is incapable of supplying enough voltage during peak demand, resulting in the phone spontaneously powering down during heavy use, potentially corrupting data in the process.

I agree that Apple needs to significantly improve their messaging, particularly in terms of informing iPhone users what's happening, but by no means should they remove this feature. This isn't a "let the user toggle it off in settings" sort of feature. This is a "why haven't other manufacturer's implemented this as standard?!" feature, since the choice is between reduced performance and NO performance.

Of course, I expect that other manufacturers will handle their messaging a bit better...

Which component do you think is better than the one Apple uses in the base machine?

And no - the R7-1700 is not better than the Xeon W-2145 it's substantially worse - http://browser.geekbench.com/v....

As far as the price for the GPU goes... That's literally the price you can buy one for today. If you can find one cheaper, feel free to link it.

If you want an iPhone with similar specs to a Moto E4, then you need to start looking at the iPhone 5 or 5S (the E4 is roughly in the middle between the two). Those are available for a mere $70-$100.

https://browser.geekbench.com/...
https://browser.geekbench.com/...
https://browser.geekbench.com/...

If you want an iPhone with similar specs to a Moto E4, then you need to start looking at the iPhone 5 or 5S (the E4 is roughly in the middle between the two). Those are available for a mere $70-$100.

https://browser.geekbench.com/...
https://browser.geekbench.com/...
https://browser.geekbench.com/...

If you want an iPhone with similar specs to a Moto E4, then you need to start looking at the iPhone 5 or 5S (the E4 is roughly in the middle between the two). Those are available for a mere $70-$100.

https://browser.geekbench.com/...
https://browser.geekbench.com/...
https://browser.geekbench.com/...

Interesting, compared to that 7W Intel CPU(i7-7Y75), the iPhone is comparable at single-thread and WAY faster at mutli-thread. https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/3994279?baseline=4004199

Can be seen here. And here's a comparison with the Intel Core i5 2500 which is still considered a wonderful desktop CPU.

you're comparing a 4 core sandy bridge cpu, made in 2011, with a 6 core processor made in 2017.
wow, totally relevant. although your point of tdp is a good one. but who actually expects a processor that is 6 years older, with 57% of the cores to be faster?
this is a good thing for apple, but try not to let your fanboyism show so much.

although i don't know the scores, a more relevant comparison would be an intel processor made this year, and possibly with the same core count.

Can be seen here. And here's a comparison with the Intel Core i5 2500 which is still considered a wonderful desktop CPU.

you're comparing a 4 core sandy bridge cpu, made in 2011, with a 6 core processor made in 2017.
wow, totally relevant. although your point of tdp is a good one. but who actually expects a processor that is 6 years older, with 57% of the cores to be faster?
this is a good thing for apple, but try not to let your fanboyism show so much.

although i don't know the scores, a more relevant comparison would be an intel processor made this year, and possibly with the same core count.

Can be seen here. And here's a comparison with the Intel Core i5 2500 which is still considered a wonderful desktop CPU.

Can be seen here. And here's a comparison with the Intel Core i5 2500 which is still considered a wonderful desktop CPU.

nahhhhh. it's totally legit:

Aug 22, 2017 Lenovo ZUK Z2 Qualcomm Qualcomm 1766 MHz (4 cores) Android 64-bit 33984 86862

from
https://browser.geekbench.com/...
https://browser.geekbench.com/...

nahhhhh. it's totally legit:

Aug 22, 2017 Lenovo ZUK Z2 Qualcomm Qualcomm 1766 MHz (4 cores) Android 64-bit 33984 86862

from
https://browser.geekbench.com/...
https://browser.geekbench.com/...

Nope - atom chips actually are SIGNIFICANTLY slower. In fact, there's current laptop i7s that are slower than the iPhone's CPU too at this point:

https://browser.geekbench.com/...
vs
https://browser.geekbench.com/...

Nope - atom chips actually are SIGNIFICANTLY slower. In fact, there's current laptop i7s that are slower than the iPhone's CPU too at this point:

https://browser.geekbench.com/...
vs
https://browser.geekbench.com/...