Anyone else eager to LAUGH at what apple has to offer Sept 12th?

[crackberrytraitor]

My S3 U.S. edition scores 1698 clocked at 1.5 GHz with AOKP. This is probably because of the extra RAM

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

What's your memory score?

 

[crackberrytraitor]

Now slow it down to 1.2ghz and see what the result is. Make it fair. Heck, go to 1.3, because for some reason you think RAM is making a huge difference here (it's not, because some of the RAM that isn't being reported is already being used by the GPU).

That's not making it fair, we're comparing which is a more powerful overall CPU, not which is more powerful at the same clock speed.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

 

[crackberrytraitor]

What's your memory score?

The S3 or the One X?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

That's not making it fair, we're comparing which is a more powerful overall CPU, not which is more powerful at the same clock speed.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

Ok. So clocked 300mhz faster it's .3% slower? Got it. Remember that we know the instruction set is the same, but the architecture is not. This means that Apple could have optimized things in a different way than Qualcomm.

The S3 or the One X?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

Both if you have them handy, but I was asking for it from the S3.

 

[crackberrytraitor]

Yes, but the A6 probably can't even go up to 1500 MHz. Clock speed isn't relevant. That's like saying a single core cpu is more powerful than a quad core cpu if the single core is 15% more efficient per mhz, which is incorrect, just try running some advanced computations through both CPUs, the single core that's 15% more efficient is going to perform poorer overall. We're comparing which device performs better overall, with the CPU at native speed.

The One X got a 1729 memory score with 673 mb ram recognised. The S3 got a 1986 with 1744 mb recognised. The iPhone 5 got an 1811 with 1015 mb recognised.

The fact is, with jellybean the S3, both U.S. and international editions, beat the iPhone 5 in overall performance. It's very, very clear.

 

[JHBThree]

Yes, but the A6 probably can't even go up to 1500 MHz. Clock speed isn't relevant. We're comparing which device performs better overall, with the CPU at native speed.

The One X got a 1729 memory score with 673 mb ram recognised. The S3 got a 1986 with 1744 mb recognised. The iPhone 5 got an 1811 with 1015 mb recognised.

The fact is, with jellybean the S3, both U.S. and international editions, beat the iPhone 5 in overall performance. It's very, very clear.

You cannot fairly compare two chips when one is clocked at 1ghz and one is 1.5.

Also, given the A6s pedigree, I would not be shocked if it could be clocked above 1.5 without breaking a sweat.

 

[crackberrytraitor]

You cannot fairly compare two chips when one is clocked at 1ghz and one is 1.5.

Also, given the A6s pedigree, I would not be shocked if it could be clocked above 1.5 without breaking a sweat.

Read the edit to my above post to see why what you're saying is not accurate.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

 

[crackberrytraitor]

You cannot fairly compare two chips when one is clocked at 1ghz and one is 1.5.

Also, given the A6s pedigree, I would not be shocked if it could be clocked above 1.5 without breaking a sweat.

Yeah, no. They wouldn't spend the extra cash manufacturing chips that can be stably clocked 50 percent faster than their native speed. That's beyond unlikely.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

 

[JHBThree]

Yeah, no. They wouldn't spend the extra cash manufacturing chips that can be stably clocked 50 percent faster than their native speed. That's beyond unlikely.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

In your judgement, which doesn't mean anything. Given that Apple designed this chip, that means it will be found in some capacity in Apple products for at least a year, but probably longer. Apple never designs something without some flexibility in its design, and they never skimp on spending on components.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[JHBThree]

Read the edit to my above post to see why what you're saying is not accurate.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

It is entirely accurate when you're comparing the S4 and A6.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[crackberrytraitor]

It is entirely accurate when you're comparing the S4 and A6.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

No, it really isn't. CPU efficiency isn't the same thing as CPU power. If you want to say the A6 is more efficient, go ahead. If you want to say it's more powerful, well, quite simply, you're wrong.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

 

[crackberrytraitor]

In your judgement, which doesn't mean anything. Given that Apple designed this chip, that means it will be found in some capacity in Apple products for at least a year, but probably longer. Apple never designs something without some flexibility in its design, and they never skimp on spending on components.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

The iPhone 4s could run at a max 1ghz but was clocked stock at 800mhz. If you think the A6 can run at 1.5 GHz when they clock it a 1.02, I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. 1.2, maybe 1.3 if we're highballing.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

 

[JHBThree]

The iPhone could run at a max 1ghz but was clocked stock at 800mhz. If you think the A6 can run at 1.5 GHz when they clock it a 1.02, I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. 1.2, maybe 1.3 if we're highballing.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

You clearly don't know anything about the architecture apple used.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[JHBThree]

No, it really isn't. CPU efficiency isn't the same thing as CPU power. If you want to say the A6 is more efficient, go ahead. If you want to say it's more powerful, well, quite simply, you're wrong.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

They are comparable. The A6 architecture is equivalent to the S4.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Yeah, no. They wouldn't spend the extra cash manufacturing chips that can be stably clocked 50 percent faster than their native speed. That's beyond unlikely.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

Not really. We know nothing of how they're binning these chips. Look at all the different models of Tegra 3 due to binning. It's entirely realistic to think there is some OC potential with the A6.

No, it really isn't. CPU efficiency isn't the same thing as CPU power. If you want to say the A6 is more efficient, go ahead. If you want to say it's more powerful, well, quite simply, you're wrong.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

Proof? Anandtech PROVES that the CPU and GPU are more powerful. Geekbench, which you seem to quote and go by so often, don't specify enough.

The iPhone could run at a max 1ghz but was clocked stock at 800mhz. If you think the A6 can run at 1.5 GHz when they clock it a 1.02, I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. 1.2, maybe 1.3 if we're highballing.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

Geekbench shows that it'll go up to 1.2ghz stock.

You clearly don't know anything about the architecture apple used.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Nobody does really. We know about the instruction set, but not the architecture. Even with the pic of the die all we have are educated guesses.



My memory score was a 1671. See how that particular score doesn't scale with quantity? That's my problem with saying extra RAM alone is why the score is higher. It has more to do with the efficiency of the pipeline than anything else in that particular case. Anyway, I'm not going to trust Geekbench to tell me that a particular device is more powerful than any other device, when I can clearly see evidence that one device is MUCH more powerful.

Any idea how Geekbench goes about getting those numbers? It seems to run awful quickly as opposed to something like Vellamo, which takes much longer to run, and breaks down in great detail what it tested to arrive at those results. I'm not saying we should use Vellamo, was just citing as an example.

---------- Post Merged at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 10:22 PM ----------

Also, clockspeed is ALWAYS relevant when talking about benchmarks, since the easiest way to improve benchmark scores is to increase clockspeed.

 

[crackberrytraitor]

Not really. We know nothing of how they're binning these chips. Look at all the different models of Tegra 3 due to binning. It's entirely realistic to think there is some OC potential with the A6.



Proof? Anandtech PROVES that the CPU and GPU are more powerful. Geekbench, which you seem to quote and go by so often, don't specify enough.



Geekbench shows that it'll go up to 1.2ghz stock.



Nobody does really. We know about the instruction set, but not the architecture. Even with the pic of the die all we have are educated guesses.



My memory score was a 1671. See how that particular score doesn't scale with quantity? That's my problem with saying extra RAM alone is why the score is higher. It has more to do with the efficiency of the pipeline than anything else in that particular case. Anyway, I'm not going to trust Geekbench to tell me that a particular device is more powerful than any other device, when I can clearly see evidence that one device is MUCH more powerful.

Any idea how Geekbench goes about getting those numbers? It seems to run awful quickly as opposed to something like Vellamo, which takes much longer to run, and breaks down in great detail what it tested to arrive at those results. I'm not saying we should use Vellamo, was just citing as an example.

---------- Post Merged at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 10:22 PM ----------

Also, clockspeed is ALWAYS relevant when talking about benchmarks, since the easiest way to improve benchmark scores is to increase clockspeed.

You can't overclock the tegra 3 by 50% of it's overall clock speed. Come on now, seriously guys. If we want to look at Apple's history, the iPhone 4 could be overclocked 200mhz.

efficiency per mhz IS NOT what we're comparing here. We're comparing which is the most powerful overall. Underpowering a CPU isn't fair for an overall comparison. That's like saying if you're having a big guy fight a little guy that the big guy should wear weights to make it fair. But if you're trying to see who is the better overall fighter making it "fair" is no what's important.

The fact is, in a test of overall system performance with no CPU hackery, the S3 with the latest android handily beats the i5 with the latest iOS, and the One X ties with it (okay, it technically loses with a 0.3 percent lower score).

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

 

[JHBThree]

Except its actually 30% on the A6 since it can go up to 1.2 with no overclocking.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[crackberrytraitor]

Except its actually 30% on the A6 since it can go up to 1.2 with no overclocking.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Didn't know that. If it goes to 1.2 natively I could see it going to 1.5 maybe 1.6 tops OC. However my point still stands. Geekbench pushes the CPU to it's max clocked speed. The S3 beat it handily. That means that with no CPU hackery involved the GS3 with the latest Android triumphs over the i5 with the latest iOS in overall performance. Not to mention the GS3 can over clock to around 2.1 GHz (the One X around 1.9 with current software, but capable of 2.1 as well). If you increase the clock speed of the A6 from 1.2 to 1.5 and the S4 from 1.5 to 2.1 the S4 is still going to stomp it.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

No, it really isn't. CPU efficiency isn't the same thing as CPU power. If you want to say the A6 is more efficient, go ahead. If you want to say it's more powerful, well, quite simply, you're wrong.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

Didn't know that. If it goes to 1.2 natively I could see it going to 1.5 maybe 1.6 tops OC. However my point still stands. Geekbench pushes the CPU to it's max clocked speed. The S3 beat it handily. That means that with no CPU hackery involved the GS3 with the latest Android triumphs over the i5 with the latest iOS in overall performance. Not to mention the GS3 can over clock to around 2.1 GHz (the One X around 1.9 with current software, but capable of 2.1 as well). If you increase the clock speed of the A6 from 1.2 to 1.5 and the S4 from 1.5 to 2.1 the S4 is still going to stomp it.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

Not entirely accurate. It took a little bit of trickery just to get the iPhone to clock up to 1.2ghz (and they used Geekbench to determine it) because Apple is so aggressive with the gating.


Most powerful still comes down to which one has the fastest hardware (since that's the power). Testing strictly the hardware, and going based off strictly the hardware, the iPhone 5 has everything else beat. You're talking about what Apple talks about, which is what that does for the end user. Which is fine, because ultimately that's what matters.

The GPU in the IPhone 5 is fast. Really fast. The CPU is equivalent to the S4 (let's just assume for arguments sake). The GPU is the difference maker. And I'm not sure, but I would bet that Apple offloads a lot of the UI drawing to the GPU to save on power. Android can do this, too (I think CM has a hack that allows it on some devices/kernels), and it's supposed to make the UI smoother, save power, and leave the CPU for doing other types of things. This is where the S4 and Tegra 3 have a significant disadvantage. The GPU's aren't as fast as what Apple uses (the Mali in the Exynos is slower, too).


It just seems like we're talking about raw power, but you're talking about what the software does with it. I also wonder how Geekbench is coded and running its tests on each device. Different OS's, completely different coding languages. Safe bet they don't behave exactly the same because of that.