Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

iPhone XS, XS Max Are World's Fastest Phones (Again) (tomsguide.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the apples-and-androids dept.

According to "several real-world tests and synthetic benchmarks," the new iPhone XS and XS Max, equipped with the world's first 7-nanometer A12 Bionic processor, are the world's fastest smartphones, reports Tom's Guide. They even significantly outperform Qualcomm's Snapdragon 845 chip. From the report: Geekbench 4 is a benchmark that measures overall performance, and no other phone comes close to Apple's new handsets on this test. The iPhone Xs notched 11,420, and the iPhone Xs Max hit 11,515. The older iPhone X scored 10,357, so that's about an 11 percent improvement. There's a lot more distance between the new iPhones and Android flagships. The fastest Android phone around, the OnePlus 6, scored 9,088 on Geekbench 4 with its 8GB of RAM, while the Galaxy Note 9 reached 8,876.

To test real-world performance, we use the Adobe Premiere Clips app to transcode a 2-minute 4K video to 1080p. The iPhone X was miles ahead last year with a time of just 42 seconds. This time around, the iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max knocked it down further to 39 seconds. The Galaxy S9+ took 2 minutes and 32 seconds to complete the task, and that's the fastest we've seen from an Android phone. The OnePlus 6 finished in 3:45, and the LG G7 ThinQ took 3:16. One good way to measure real-world performance is to see how long it takes for a phone to load demanding apps. Because the phones have the same processor for this round, we just used the iPhone Xs Max and put it up against the iPhone X and the Galaxy Note 9. The iPhone XS Max was faster every time, including a 15-second victory in Fortnite over the Note 9 and 3-second win in Asphalt 9. The phones were closer in Pokemon Go but the iPhone XS Max still came out on top. The new iPhones did lag behind the competition in the 3DMark Slingshot Extreme test, which measures graphics performance by evaluating everything from rendering to volumetric lighting. The iPhone XS Max and iPhone X received scores of 4,244 and 4,339, respectively, while the OnePlus 6 received a score of 5,124.

As for the GFXBench 5 test, the iPhone XS Max achieved 1,604.7 frames on the Aztec Ruins portion of the test, and 1,744.44 frames in the Car Chase test," reports Tom's Guide. "The Note 9 was far behind at 851.7 and 1,103 frames, respectively. However, the Galaxy S9+ edged past the iPhone XS Max on this test."

72 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. It's got one of them bionic processors.... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    Of course it's going to be the fastest!

    --
    Do you have ESP?
  2. Notched by mentil · · Score: 4, Funny

    The iPhone Xs notched 11,420

    I see what you did there.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  3. WooooHooo? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    As a confirmed iPhone user, am I supposed to actually give a damn about what smartphone is fastest?

    Brings to mind Frank DeFord's book, "The World's tallest Midget".

    It's a friggin Phone for crissakes.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:WooooHooo? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It's a friggin Phone for crissakes.

      If that's what you think then you paid about $800 too much for your phone.

    2. Re:WooooHooo? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It's a friggin Phone for crissakes.

      If that's what you think then you paid about $800 too much for your phone.

      I'm trying to imagine exactly what the OmygawdI'vegottheworld'sfastestsmartphone!!!!! Is going to do for me.

      Can you tell me what actual thing it is going to do better?

      You get a free pass if your hobby is benchmarking. Well, a snicker too. But other than beating other phones in benchmarking, maybe Candy Crush runs faster. But I don't play Candy Crush.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:WooooHooo? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You keep calling it a phone. It should come to no surprise to anyone that you wouldn't know what to do with a modern device.

    4. Re:WooooHooo? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You keep calling it a phone. It should come to no surprise to anyone that you wouldn't know what to do with a modern device.

      The best Smartphone is a lot more a phone than a computer. Are you going to code or edit images, or create videos professionally on your smartphone?

      Yeah, you can make phone calls, you can send texts, you can play simple games on it. You can do a little crappy web surfing on it.

      Oh - and you can tether a real computer onto it so you can actually do something.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:WooooHooo? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Are you going to code or edit images

      Err yes. One of my gripes is that my smartphone is slow to open 50mpxl images in Lightroom. I know seveal photographers who use their pocket computers as part of their arsenal in photoshoots. My phone is also a bit slow at playing back videos larger than 5K. It could be a bit better for streaming and gaming. When I edit videos for uploading on Instagram it could be a damn site faster. And as it's a work pocket computer and I have actual problems with accessing the schedule for the task I'm doing at the moment as it's a 600page PDF that my pocket computer can't search through.

      You lack imagination if you're using it as a phone. And with your lack of imagination you are better off not spending money on something fast. In other news I don't run 100 VMs on my computer so no one cares about Threadripper or Core i9s right? Right?

    6. Re:WooooHooo? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You lack imagination if you're using it as a phone. And with your lack of imagination you are better off not spending money on something fast. In other news I don't run 100 VMs on my computer so no one cares about Threadripper or Core i9s right? Right?

      Yeah, using tools made for the job is lacking imagination. I'm trying to imagine the prime professional work of a professional using a smartphone for photography.

      Next up you are going to tell me that a smartphone cameras are the equal of a good DSLR. I can and have used a smartphone camera instead of my Nikon DSLR. But then again, I have used Diana cameras - I'm planning a project of mating a imaging chip on the back of one.

      But using a smartphone cam or a Diana can be creative because it creates limitations that feed the creative process. But you have to know the rules before you creatively break them.

      I'll be due for a new smartphone soon. Could be one of the XS's. But it sure won't be because of the benchmarking

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:WooooHooo? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, using tools made for the job is lacking imagination. I'm trying to imagine the prime professional work of a professional using a smartphone for photography.

      What other quick auto preview monitor that can apply the predefined functions of your fancy macbook would your recommend for said professional for sub $1000 (or more accurately sub $600 since a halfway decent phone costs money too)? Do you lug around yet another piece of special purpose kit when instead you can achieve the job you require on something that multi-tasks? To be clear I didn't say I know anyone who uses *the camera* in their smartphone in a photoshoot. That would be outright silly.

      Next up you are going to tell me that a smartphone cameras are the equal of a good DSLR.

      Of course! In many situations they are way better than a DSLR. Why just the other day the smartphone I had with me at the stadium was infinitely better than my 50mpxl camera that was at home. The smartphone I had in my pocket skiing likewise since it was kind enough not to break my rib and puncture my lung like my DSLR would have when I landed on my chest.

      But using a smartphone cam or a Diana can be creative because it creates limitations that feed the creative process.

      I could almost get behind this comment but to be honest a smartphone isn't suitable. It tries too hard to be a quality camera to permit "creative processes". The result is often just an average looking picture. Quite unlike say loading a 35mm spool into the Diana. If you're going to go creative, go creative, don't just go sub par.

    8. Re:WooooHooo? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, using tools made for the job is lacking imagination. I'm trying to imagine the prime professional work of a professional using a smartphone for photography.

      What other quick auto preview monitor that can apply the predefined functions of your fancy macbook would your recommend for said professional for sub $1000 (or more accurately sub $600 since a halfway decent phone costs money too)? Do you lug around yet another piece of special purpose kit when instead you can achieve the job you require on something that multi-tasks?

      Yes. If I make imagery, I certainly wouldn't preview them on a smartphone - nor would I ever re-hire someone who did. Hell man - travel and scene setup is expensive, and especially if you are going for print medium, you simply are not going to see it on a smartphone.

      I lug around whatever equipment I have to to do a proper job. Yes, I take a laptop - which is marginal for the purpose. Editing is performed on a desktop with a good calibrated monitor.

      That is true - you didn't Some people have tried to argue that with me here on Slashdot, sI i kinda wanted to head that one off.

      Next up you are going to tell me that a smartphone cameras are the equal of a good DSLR.

      Of course! In many situations they are way better than a DSLR. Why just the other day the smartphone I had with me at the stadium was infinitely better than my 50mpxl camera that was at home. The smartphone I had in my pocket skiing likewise since it was kind enough not to break my rib and puncture my lung like my DSLR would have when I landed on my chest.

      I use my smartphone camera for uses like that, which interestingly enough, the last time was also at a football game. But if I'm getting paid for the pictures......

      But using a smartphone cam or a Diana can be creative because it creates limitations that feed the creative process.

      I could almost get behind this comment but to be honest a smartphone isn't suitable. It tries too hard to be a quality camera to permit "creative processes". The result is often just an average looking picture. Quite unlike say loading a 35mm spool into the Diana. If you're going to go creative, go creative, don't just go sub par.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:WooooHooo? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yes. If I make imagery, I certainly wouldn't preview them on a smartphone

      I know a 2" screen on the back of a camera is much better.

      nor would I ever re-hire someone who did

      I also apply stupid criteria to my hiring decisions! Like I don't hire photographers who don't own a backpack with compartments. Because let's face it, their method is far more important than the work they would produce.

      Hell man - travel and scene setup is expensive, and especially if you are going for print medium, you simply are not going to see it on a smartphone.

      Really? Personally my own most expensive commissioned work cost me $4.30 (two metro fares) and 20min. But yay let's generalise.

      I lug around whatever equipment I have to to do a proper job.

      Yeah so does everyone.

      Editing is performed on a desktop with a good calibrated monitor.

      Of course it is. You'd be mad not to. However last time I returned from vacation I already had the initial cull and basic exposure adjustments completed on all my photos. Editing became much shorter, and my flight seemed shorter too. Unless you have a fixed studio you don't do your initial checking on your calibrated monitor.

    10. Re:WooooHooo? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Yes. If I make imagery, I certainly wouldn't preview them on a smartphone

      I know a 2" screen on the back of a camera is much better.

      That's one of the reasons to have the laptop along. As I said, it's marginal, but especially for location work, the best compromise.

      nor would I ever re-hire someone who did

      I also apply stupid criteria to my hiring decisions! Like I don't hire photographers who don't own a backpack with compartments. Because let's face it, their method is far more important than the work they would produce.

      There are some yet to be broken laws of physics that smartphones have not surmounted yet. Like depth of field precise control, and the inherent characteristics of the shutters which on rotating things like tires or propellers is a dead giveaway. All of those scream "I shot this on a smartphone! I suppose if for some reason the work was supposed to look amateurish, then you want a smartphone photographer.

      Hell man - travel and scene setup is expensive, and especially if you are going for print medium, you simply are not going to see it on a smartphone.

      Really? Personally my own most expensive commissioned work cost me $4.30 (two metro fares) and 20min. But yay let's generalise.

      Speaking of generalizing. Yeah, I didn't travel cheap or light. Professional video camera, main and backup DSLRs Lenses, Lighting. Tripods. My assistant, her luggage, my luggage. In most cases, from the east to the west coast - I paid heavy charges, and on the commuter plane part of the itinerary, seating arrangements had to be arranged to keep the plane trimmed. I was horrified one time when an extremely obese man was on the flight, and they moved him to a seat that he didn't quite fit in to accommodate my equipment weight. Since I knew why they were making him move, I tried to discretely suggest it might be more comfortable to move my equipment than him, but they were already loaded. Then there were paid models if I needed them.....

      In reality, I think we are talking about two entirely different workflows and types of photo shoots. $4.30 versus thousands in flights, payroll, and that's before a photo was taken. We're arguing past each other. 8^)

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:WooooHooo? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There are some yet to be broken laws of physics that smartphones have not surmounted yet.

      I think before we continue this all needs to be re-read. I'm not sure why you think I said anyone was using a smartphone camera....

      We're arguing past each other. 8^)

      That much is now plainly clear :-)

      But just to provide context on my last use: Photoshoot with a quality camera with the WiFi module. Galaxy Note used as a larger display, at least I thought it worked really well last time I did it like this. Galaxy Note used in airport lobby to cull initial 1000 photos down to something reasonable. Using the Lightroom mobile I did some minor changes to images. And then I put my toys away when I got home and let the threadripper rip. :-)

      But back to my original point. The Note really REALLY struggles with 50mpxl images. It would help if it were much faster.

  4. The catch with all previous Apple processors by Utopia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    has been is that they are thermally constrained and achieve these remarkable results when its starts cold. As soon it heats up the processors starts throttling and doesn't do well compared to Qualcomm, Exynos etc.
    This is why it does well on Geekbench benchmarks but not so well in some of the other benchmarks.

    1. Re:The catch with all previous Apple processors by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      has been is that they are thermally constrained and achieve these remarkable results when its starts cold. As soon it heats up the processors starts throttling and doesn't do well compared to Qualcomm, Exynos etc.
      This is why it does well on Geekbench benchmarks but not so well in some of the other benchmarks.

      Prove it, or STFU

    2. Re:The catch with all previous Apple processors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BRB, spending $1200 to appease a slashdot commenter.

    3. Re:The catch with all previous Apple processors by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it seems like thermal throttling is a real thing https://imgur.com/OThPVWb pretty much across the board. Probably because without they would never achieve warranty as the devices would basically cook themselves to death.

      Need new power test, how long do the devices run at full output before slowing done and then beyond that dying, simply overheating to death or shutdown (probably shutdown, again to preserve warranty but wait why should warranty be protected if the device is shutting down and not working or even when powering down, when they are selling maximum cpu output).

      These test also should be conducted a higher room temperatures, something like 30 degrees C.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:The catch with all previous Apple processors by Megol · · Score: 1

      STFU, or disprove it

    5. Re:The catch with all previous Apple processors by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I suggested that Geekbench add a pre-heating function, but no sign of it yet.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:The catch with all previous Apple processors by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      STFU, or disprove it

      I didn't make the original "allegation", dumbass.

    7. Re:The catch with all previous Apple processors by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      STFU, or disprove it

      I didn't make the original "allegation", dumbass.

      And you did nothing to refute it, dumberass. You can go around questioning everything in the world, but when people get annoyed at you because you have no evidence that doesn't make you right.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    8. Re:The catch with all previous Apple processors by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      STFU, or disprove it

      I didn't make the original "allegation", dumbass.

      And you did nothing to refute it, dumberass. You can go around questioning everything in the world, but when people get annoyed at you because you have no evidence that doesn't make you right.

      Sorry. It doesn't work that way.

    9. Re:The catch with all previous Apple processors by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

      It is the person making the claim that has to provide the evidence.
      Expressing skepticism about someone's claim is not a claim itself, and requires no evidence.

  5. Re:geekbench by omnichad · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think someone needs to transcode your comment. It doesn't appear to be in a parseable format.

  6. Re:Ol Olsoc = fake name massive human fail by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Did someone just fart?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  7. Faster "phone" by Misagon · · Score: 1

    It would be an even faster phone if the voice of the person you were talking to was less garbled.

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
  8. And battery life by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    What's more impressive than speed is having that speed without much difference in battery life and having a larger screen size to boot.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  9. Re:Queen for a day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The year-old iPhone X is second fastest. Maybe Android will catch it next year.

  10. Re:Doesn't have to be the fastest. by Stormwatch · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    A matter of opinion here, but I've always liked Android's stock UI better. Besides, if you want something different, you can just install a launcher. This sort of flexibility is a big plus for Android.

    --
    Circumcision is child abuse.
  11. Re:Queen for a day by Tough+Love · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Qualcomm 845 hammers iPhone X in GPU which means Qualcomm is faster for games. Probably beats the XS too, and the Qualcomm is almost a year older. Apple spent a bunch of transistors in the wrong place.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  12. "Real world performance" by HumanEmulator · · Score: 1

    Benchmarks for iPhones always talk about "real world performance", but rarely factor in that software can't run at full-speed on an iPhone for very long before thermal management kicks in and throttles the speeds down. This fact alone makes comparisons to laptop and desktop CPUs virtually worthless.

    1. Re:"Real world performance" by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Benchmarks for iPhones always talk about "real world performance", but rarely factor in that software can't run at full-speed on an iPhone for very long before thermal management kicks in and throttles the speeds down. This fact alone makes comparisons to laptop and desktop CPUs virtually worthless.

      Prove it.

      And, while you're at it; prove that Android phones don't do the same thing. Considering the voracious appetite for battery that the Qualcomm SoC crap demonstrates, I would imagine that thermal issues would be MUCH worse in those phones...

  13. The real question is now by guacamole · · Score: 1

    When will Apple switch OSX desktops and laptops to its ARM chips? I think they could give Intel a serious competition.

    1. Re:The real question is now by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      When will Apple switch OSX desktops and laptops to its ARM chips? I think they could give Intel a serious competition.

      Forget the laptops. I wanna see OSX on the phone with some sort of dock so I can drop a phone into it and use it as my main PC. Its honestly not that far off, these days, its just iOS would not be an ideal desktop os. But OSX with an iOS mode that could drop in and out of depending on docked, that'd be pretty awesome. I know ubuntu did some experiments to this effect, I'm just not sure anyone actually used the damn thing because who the heck owns a "ubuntu" phone anyway.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  14. Re:geekbench by Iwastheone · · Score: 1

    I just met a 23 year old guy who's happy with his iPhone4. It does what he wants, texts & phone calls, I told him stay with it, just get a new battery for it, cheap and so easy to do that he could do the swapout himself with a soldering iron. Some people just want what works.

  15. Re:Queen for a day by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

    Qualcomm 845 hammers iPhone X in GPU which means Qualcomm is faster for games. Probably beats the XS too, and the Qualcomm is almost a year older. Apple spent a bunch of transistors in the wrong place.

    Well next time I plug my iphone into the tv set and drop a game disk into the slot I'll keep that in mind.

    Meanwhile I'll keep using my phone for things that aren't games...

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  16. Re:Queen for a day by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    OK, so you know that iPhone is inferior for games. And maybe you also know that Mobile Gaming Is Now Bigger than Console and PC Gaming Combined.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  17. Re:Here they come by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    Why refute it? When the phone's this overpriced, I expect that level of performance. And maybe plated in silver too.

    But Samsung makes phones that are even PRICIER than the iPhone, and yet their performance is Pants.

    Qualcomm should stick to their core competence: RF.

    Now what?

  18. Re:Doesn't have to be the fastest. by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 2

    A matter of opinion here, but I've always liked Android's stock UI better. Besides, if you want something different, you can just install a launcher. This sort of flexibility is a big plus for Android.

    ...I hope that it makes up for the 700,000 Malware-filled Apps that Google found on the Play Store...

  19. Re:Technically Inferior by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    As the phone does not include a headphone jack it is restricted to low quality wireless audio.

    Really? Did someone remove the Lightning port while I wasn't looking?

    Idiot.

  20. Re:Technically Inferior by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Because it's true? What Bluetooth CODEC supports bandwidth, SNR, and dynamic range of a CD, let alone high-res audio? There are two that come close: AptX HD and LDAC. AptX HD (in fact, the entire AptX family) is not available on iOS because CSR is not supported on iOS. And Sony created LDAC and it's only been ported to a few CSR chips and Microchip options - so no iOS support there, either.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  21. Re:geekbench by e432776 · · Score: 2

    I'd agree with this advice except for one thing: no OS updates for iPhone 4 in some years. I don't know how likely a security issue is in the real world, but certainly interoperability will be compromised with old OS/apps..

  22. Nice how about price/performance by mykro76 · · Score: 1

    iPhone XS Max 256GB is $2049 AUD. Oneplus 6 256GB is $1049 AUD.

  23. Re: Technically Inferior by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    iOS does not support high-res audio files. Sorry!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  24. Phones are fast enough already, aren't they? by Goonie · · Score: 1
    Perhaps I'm just getting old but I've currently got a comparatively ancient iPhone 6S and I've never found it anything other than acceptably snappy in use.

    What applications are people putting their phones to where the extra speed of the newer iPhones (and Androids, for that matter) actually matters?

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:Phones are fast enough already, aren't they? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Web cruft, mostly... my 5S mostly performs adequately, but feels slow when browsing the internet and loading applications with advertisements, like Weather Channel (although that one has improved as of the most recent update). Installing an adblocker helped but ad heavy pages sometimes still load slowly from all the scripts even if the ads themselves don't load. For Netflix and email, yeah just about any phone will probably perform the same as a $50 Kindle. My wife has the 6S and it seems to be hanging in there just fine.

    2. Re:Phones are fast enough already, aren't they? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Same here. My 6s is as snappy as the day I bought it. That's the main attraction to iOS for me, it's responsive like a device should be. I can count on it.

      It does what I want a smartphone to do: handle calls and texts, maybe run the odd game when I'm at the doctor's waiting room, and provide away-from-home Internet access once in a while; I don't need a toy pocket computer, I have a desktop and a laptop for serious computing at home.
      That said, I hate iTunes, and I think the iPhone is, ironically, a lousy music player (the music player interface is awful, Android's is better) but at least it doesn't freeze, hang, or reboot on me like my two Android tablets do.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  25. Pressing buttons in a mobile game by tepples · · Score: 1

    Not all video game genres are amenable to the sort of point-and-click play commonly associated with the input device that ships with every smartphone. Pressing one of more than two different virtual buttons at the side of the screen is an exercise in frustration, as if I'm focusing on the real-time action in the middle of the screen, I have no cues with which to align my thumbs over the buttons. I'm aware that physical controllers for phones exist, but let me know when a manufacturer of such controllers publishes sales figures so that developers of mobile games know how many users they can reach.

    1. Re:Pressing buttons in a mobile game by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, I hate gaming on a phone just as much as you. But that doesn't change the fact, most games today are played on phones, and increasingly those are GPU intensive 3D games, not just plants vs zombies crap.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  26. Re:geekbench by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Benchmarking comes into play when you are comparing like devices.
    But where were these posts when Sun Microsystems was still around and their slower clock speed 64bit risc chips. Were called slow to Intels 32bit high clock chips. While one chip was made for handling high loads for long times while the other was for burst of speed.

    That said. Being that high end mobile device are competing against modern mid-tier systems is saying a lot. Back in late 1990s. Your palm pilot would be about as powerful as an 8 year old pc.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  27. Re:geekbench by seinman · · Score: 1

    When thots post Instagram videos, they are transcoded before being uploaded. So yeah, that's a real-world performance example.

  28. Re:Doesn't have to be the fastest. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, there is plenty of malware in the Apple App Store as well.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  29. Re: Technically Inferior by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    iOS supports MP3, AAC, ALAC, WAV, and AIFF. WAV tops out at 24 bit/48 kHz. No DSD, FLAC, or high resolution WAV files for iOS without a lot of work and effort. Android, meanwhile, supports all those right out of the box!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  30. Re: Technically Inferior by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    ALAC. It's Apple's perversion of FLAC - and it's limited to CD resolution (16 bit/44.1 kHz). FLAC would have supported resolution to 32 bit/384 kHz, but ALAC doesn't do that. With a WIFI system, it seems a no-brainer to do FLAC or a higher-than-CD resolution, where lossless compression gets you around 700 kbps. No need for saving a Mbps of bandwidth when you have a WIFI system.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  31. Re:Here they come by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    Overpriced? They're all in the same ballpark, whether they're top of the line iPhones or top of the line Samsungs. Not sure about LG.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  32. Re:Here they come by omnichad · · Score: 1

    I never said other top of the line phones weren't overpriced. Apple does try to represent top of the line as the only viable option, but they're not that different from the rest.

  33. Does This Matter? by organgtool · · Score: 1

    According to Apple fans, people don't buy phones based on specs or benchmarks. Or is that point only relevant when Apple isn't at the top of the list?

  34. Re:Technically Inferior by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    The Lightning port is not removed but is currently in use for charging.

    All the time?

    And have you noticed they have THESE?

    https://www.amazon.com/CaseyPo...

    Or, if you want really nice support, this one has a 3.5mm jack (with I think microphone support) AND a Lightning Headset Jack (although only one of the audio-interfaces can be used at a time), AND a Lightning Charging Port: Yes, it has a little "enclosure"; but I assume that you won't be charging while walking around with your phone; so it hardly fucking matters:

    https://www.amazon.com/Compati...

  35. Re:Doesn't have to be the fastest. by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, there is plenty of malware in the Apple App Store as well.

    Prove it. And define "Plenty".

  36. Re:Technically Inferior by tepples · · Score: 1

    Or, if you want really nice support

    Thanks. I'll try to remember to mention the Zerkar splitter for when haters ask the same question. Now if only there were the same thing for Game Boy Advance SP...

  37. Re:Doesn't have to be the fastest. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Did you try googling it?

    First result: https://us.norton.com/internet...

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  38. How bout that glass? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen anything reported yet, so I'll ask: do the new Iphones come pre-cracked, or do you still have to wait two weeks until you have a broken screen? Faster is nice, we haven't seen any real progress from apple in a while.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  39. Re:Technically Inferior by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    Or, if you want really nice support

    Thanks. I'll try to remember to mention the Zerkar splitter for when haters ask the same question. Now if only there were the same thing for Game Boy Advance SP...

    Sorry, can't help you there.

    I did notice that some people reported getting the dreaded "Unsupported Device" Error; but since that didn't happen to EVERYONE... ?

  40. Re:Doesn't have to be the fastest. by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    Did you try googling it?

    First result: https://us.norton.com/internet...

    Try again.

    That was over 2 years ago, affected pretty much only people who didn't want to bother downloading the FREE XCode from the App Store (for WHATEVER inexplicable reason!), and was actually never PROVEN to contain Malware, IIRC).

    And even if it WAS infected, that's STILL 699,999 : 1

    Hardly "Plenty" by ANY definition.

  41. Re:Technically Inferior by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

    AptX HD and LDAC. AptX HD (in fact, the entire AptX family) is not available on iOS because CSR is not supported on iOS

    No, it's because QUALCOMM is not licensing AptX to Apple. CSR was purchased by Qualcomm years ago, and AptX went along with it. (The logo is AptX by Qualcomm now)

    Of course, it doesn't help that Qualcomm and Apple are trading lawsuits with each other, causing the removal of AptX support from everything else as well.

    LDAC support is a possibility, because Sony is basically giving LDAC away (it's included in Android 8), given Sony is the only one making LDAC receivers.

  42. Re: Technically Inferior by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Now I know why Android is the choice of dogs buying smartphones.

    Weird how you pivoted from a lengthy discussion on Bluetooth into a discussion on iOS APIs.

    Why not? iOS does not support any high quality Bluetooth stack, flat out. And then it was brought up about how iOS doesn't support high res audio - which I've given information to support. Don't see where things were pivoted by me.

    Almost seems like you forgot that you can still plug headphones into an iPhone.

    You can? Oh, you mean with an extra little dongle? The one you have to buy now? And still be limited to low-res/standard-res audio files digitally?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  43. Stats and percentages... by torkus · · Score: 1

    ... are all they're selling because there's nothing new otherwise.

    Remember when Apple would launch a cool new feature (like MMS ... lol) with each phone generation? Now they launch percentages and benchmarks.

    Other than the necessity to keep reasonably current for support and updates, there's just no significant benefit to upgrading your phone these days. Apples presentation makes that crystal clear if you compare it to one for a few years back.

    --
    You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  44. Re: Technically Inferior by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    No, it is correct. The iPhone does not include a headphone jack. You can buy an external jack/adapter for it, but it does not have a jack. And it does not support any Bluetooth other than SBC and AAC - neither of which is more than 320 kbps, and are decidedly NOT high quality wireless audio. The comment is perfectly valid.

    Unless your contention is that there IS a headphone jack on the iPhone, or that 320 kbps audio is high quality?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  45. Re: Technically Inferior by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Yes, read the statement again carefully. Does the phone include a headphone jack? No? Then your only other way to get audio out is low quality wireless audio. Oh, you can always BUY an additional equipment to get higher quality (not high resolution) audio from it - but that's not the phone, is it? That is the phone and some other device as well.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  46. Re: Technically Inferior by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Where is the audio jack on the iPhone?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  47. Re:geekbench by Tsolias · · Score: 1

    He'd better get an iPhone then.