Slashdot Mirror


iPhone 5 GeekBench Results

EGSonikku writes "The iPhone 5 has been benchmarked using the GeekBench tool. According to the results, Apple's claim of 2x higher performance over the iPhone 4S seems accurate. The results show the iPhone 5's A6 CPU is dual core and clocked at 1.2GHz, and is paired with 1GB of RAM. Despite the fact that the Samsung Galaxy S3 has a quad core CPU at 1.4GHz, and twice as much RAM, it seems the iPhone 5 is faster than the S3, or any other Android handset." Meanwhile, Samsung has launched a marketing campaign that compares some of the hardware specs and features between the new iPhone 5 and the GS3.

6 of 470 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Check your countries. by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the blurb: "it seems the iPhone 5 is faster than the S3", from the linked article: S3 has a higher score than iPhone5 by roughly the relative clock ratio. Most tests are single-threaded so the number of cores doesn't matter, but in the few multi-threaded tests, S3 gets far better edge (duh!). The only part where iPhone5 wins is memory bandwidth.

    Whoever misquoted the results this badly must be some incorrigible Apple fanboy.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  2. Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? by beltsbear · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have dropped my caseless iphone 4 and 4s at least 5 times each (yes I am clumsy) without breakage. It is not fragile even with glass on both sides. The main way gorilla glass is broken is a drop on to concrete, even asphalt seems not to do it at hand height. Almost half the people I work with have the iPhone 4 or 4s, out of maybe 10 phones I have seen one broken from a drop. I have had Samsung phones that break on the first drop and Erikson that took only a few drops. None of my Moto's ever broke from droppage.

  3. So many errors! by lowlymarine · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are a ludicrous number of errors here. The summary says that the CPU is clocked at 1.2 GHz, which the screenshot clearly shows is not the case - it's 1 GHz. The quad-core Galaxy S III only has 1GB of RAM, and the LTE variant with 2GB of RAM doesn't have a quad-core CPU. And both the HSPA+ and LTE Galaxy S III's score well above 1600 on Geekbench when actually running on all cores - the test results that are below 1600 and are no-doubt included in this "average" are custom tests run on fewer cores, which is clearly shown if you actually browse the results.

  4. I made a mistake in the story write up... by EGSonikku · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just wanted to fess up to a typo in the story. I accidentally typed that the iPhone 5 runs at 1.2GHz, meant to type 1.02GHz.

    --
    - "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
  5. Re:Oh Noes! by atlasdropperofworlds · · Score: 5, Informative

    There seem to be plenty of S3's in their database that still beat the iP5. There are dual and quad core variants of the S3. Though it doesn't matter because it seems the S3 is actually still faster according to the current, real data on their site.

  6. Re:WGAF? by cheesybagel · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary is bollocks. The iPhone 5 is faster than the dual-core Galaxy S III. The quad-core Galaxy SIII is faster than the iPhone 5.