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.

Comments

Faster is fine - do we need thinner?

[magarity]

I'd rather it were the same thickness as the old model if the battery would last longer. Who exactly is it that thinks so they're so horribly thick?

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner?

[_Shorty-dammit]

I've said the same thing for years about both phones and laptops. Sooner or later they're of a size that is small enough, and continually making components smaller should simply give us more room for more battery capacity. Even if this iPhone 5 gives us similar, or one can hope for slightly better, battery performance compared to the previous model. But one can only imagine how much better it would be if it were still the same size, and all the shrunken components would give us a battery capacity twice that of the previous model.

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner?

[js3]

I'd rather it were the same thickness as the old model if the battery would last longer. Who exactly is it that thinks so they're so horribly thick?

Everyone I've seen with an iPhone has a ridicilously huge rubber case protecting the fragile thing. You should see the one my girlfriends mom has. You would think she was using a phone from early 2000. Why is thin such a big deal when everyone has a case that makes it NOT thin?

Check your countries.

[markdavis]

Please note the summary is obviously about the "International" version of the Galaxy SIII.

The USA version of the Galaxy SIII, and the Evo LTE, and the One X all use the faster Qualcomm S4 chip, not the Tegra 3 they are trying to compare against. And "twice the RAM" should generally have nothing to do with performance.

What does this all mean? Generally, that the high-end [USA] Android phones perform easily as well as the new iphone 5.

Re:Check your countries.

[BorgDrone]

True, but they do this with twice the cores and a highernclock frequency. That makes the A6 pretty impressive.

Imagine if they put a higher clocked, quad-core version of this in an iPad.

Android logo?

[mr_zorg]

The android logo on an iPhone story? Really?!?!

Does the processor matter that much?

[Overzeetop]

At least in the US, the carriers seem determined to ensure that you upgrade every two years anyway, so it's not like you're going to be stuck with a phone which is all that old. It seems more like "fast enough" is simply a responsive GUI and a generally imperceptible execution time for the kinds of activities you do on a phone. I'm not running CFD models, transcoding movies, or running a popular web service on the thing - I'm tweaking photos, or asking it to make simple calculations my HP48 might do, streaming media or rendering a web page (without flash; thanks Steve).

Now that a couple of generations have past for Android and iOS, the options for switching are getting far more expensive and time consuming. Switch all my media to a new program for syncing - major PITA. Re-buy all my apps (not an insignificant endeavor) for the other platform - $$$. Learn where the fuck the Android/iOS developers decide to put some obscure setting I want to change? Heck, even just setting up my icons and replicating a useful look & feel means dropping at least a couple, if not several, hours.

Megapixels, streaming video chat, resolution, memory amount, memory speed - the numbers mean almost nothing. They mean even less when you can't even run the opposing OS on the hardware. But I suppose everybody has to have a ruler handy at some point.

Re:WGAF?

[CapuchinSeven]

Yes let's just ignore the fact that all we've heard for years from Android users is how fast the CPU is in their phones and how important it is to them, like it actually matters. Now the shoe is on the other foot it suddenly isn't a reason to buy or upgrade a phone.

Re:WGAF?

[miltonw]

Actually, you weren't listening. We buy Android phones because we want to buy Android phones. Got it?

Re:WGAF?

[Sir_Sri]

Smartphones are so fast nowadays that whatever you buy is good enough to do 90% of the things people want a smartphone to do.

That's because smart phones are basically 5 year old PC's with small screens.

But for some people the new network (LTE) will be radically different, especially if the 3G in your area has serious congestion issues.

Re:Odd conclusion...

[SuperKendall]

But its *not* impressive. Its totally *meh*. It looks so similar to a 4S that it barely deserves the '5' monkier.

Who cares how it looks? A good design is a good design. And I thought people claimed iOS users were just buying for the looks...

And even then, it actually looks pretty different with the metal back. In person it will not look that much like a 4s between the different back and taller form factor. I actually preferred the older size but the other aspects of the device are compelling enough for an upgrade.

The camera is almost exactly the same as the 4S

Incorrect. Google sample photos, you can see clear improvement in detail. Also, it's improved over the 4s in many other ways - up to two stops better low light performance for one thing (that is not at all nearly the same), and 40% faster to operate which is important in a mobile camera. The camera is actually what I am most interested in, along with greater processing power and more memory to handle some interesting photo manipulations or faster panoramic assembly.

We all were expecting better than what we got.

We were? I was expecting exactly what we got since it's now impossible for Apple to release a week after an announcement and have any secrets left to reveal, too many leaks along the assembly chain. Even then some aspects are better than I thought they might be, like the front camera for example.

Im more impressed with the S3.

And again you ignore the real core consideration that shoudl be present in the selection of any smartphone - what can you run on it? The iOS marketplace is still ahead of the Android marketplace, more in quality than quantity at this point - and that will continue as long as most Android phones are stuck at 2.x, while iOS apps are built atop more and more advanced libraries. You'll get some apps that take advantage of Android 4.0 but a tiny fraction of how many will be coding even against iOS6 at launch much less iOS5...

Re:Comparing apples and oranges

[smash]

I know some software for Android is written against the NDK but lots of it is not, is it fair to compare that against all the iPhone apps that are native?

As far as the end user is concerned, whether it is native code or not is irrelevant. The available apps should be compared. If they run fast, that's all the user cares about. Some theoretical e-peen contest about "oh my smartphone has a quad core CPU that is way faster" doesn't matter if the software available consumes far more resources and doesn't run as fast.