Snapdragon 800 Vs Apple A7

[anon5664829]

I'm purely interested in the performance aspect of it. I still use Chrome and Google Maps. The ancient Maps app from iOS 1.0 is smoother than the current Google garbage.

Haha bs. Don't believe that. And you can ask anyone here I support apple. But that's as I said BS.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[anon(5780458)]

Haha bs. Don't believe that. And you can ask anyone here I support apple. But that's as I said BS.

Posted via Android Central App

Just take some iOS 5 device and compare the pre-Apple Maps Maps app to the current Google Maps. Take even the current Apple Maps and compare the pinch to zoom and scrolling fluidity to Google Maps.

 

[Haalcyon]

Just take some iOS 5 device and compare the pre-Apple Maps Maps app to the current Google Maps. Take even the current Apple Maps and compare the pinch to zoom and scrolling fluidity to Google Maps.

Funny. I use these Maps apps so rarely I might as well say I don't use them at all. The only thing I really compare between iphones and Android phones is those intsy teensy pinhole screens to the Android canvasses I've grown accustomed to.



Having owned so many idevices I'm so irrevocably and keenly aware of what I'm not missing.

Optimus G Pro

 

[mrsmumbles]

Funny. I use these Maps apps so rarely I might as well say I don't use them at all. The only thing I really compare between iphones and Android phones is those intsy teensy pinhole screens to the Android canvasses I've grown accustomed to.

View attachment 96515

Having owned so many idevices I'm so irrevocably and keenly aware of what I'm not missing.

Optimus G Pro

This looks really cool, Haalcyon! I've never seen those widgets before. :thumbup: For the adventurous among us, care to share?

Sent from my LG870 via Tapatalk 2

 

[Almeuit]

Yeah I still haven't seen any evidence to prove a real world difference so... Yeah.

This is like carriers saying "well in lab tests we pulled 80 Mbit".... When out of the" lab" you pull 30 Mbit. So someone says a phone is 50 ms faster.. Show me the difference. Sure a lab test may prove it being that specific but if you can't see a boost in real world performance...

Sent from my T-Mobile Note 3 using AC Forums.

 

[Haalcyon]

This looks really cool, Haalcyon! I've never seen those widgets before. :thumbup: For the adventurous among us, care to share?

Sent from my LG870 via Tapatalk 2

The weather is provided by WeatherBug Elite. The clock is SimpleDigitalClock. Icons by GlaskArt. WallPaper stolen from the iOS version of PimpMyScreen.

 

[mrsmumbles]

The weather is provided by WeatherBug Elite. The clock is SimpleDigitalClock. Icons by GlaskArt. WallPaper stolen from the iOS version of PimpMyScreen.

Oh, thank you much for letting us know! Very nice designing. :thumbup:

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Haalcyon]

Thanks. I get bored and like to tinker.

gp8.3

 

[power5]

How did you get the circle battery icon? How did you remove the clock from the task bar?

 

[Haalcyon]

How did you get the circle battery icon? How did you remove the clock from the task bar?

The circle battery icon is a feature of CyanogenMod. CM and Nova let you remove the clock (you have to be rooted to do it with Nova).

gp8.3

 

[Weaser999]

I was looking at the benchmark tests for the nexus 5 phones, and even intensive tasks like 3d gaming use 2 cores max. Even basic multitasking tasks like streaming music while surfing the web wouldn't need that many cores either.

Even for laptops, Apple still ships their MacBook Air laptops with dual-core processors, and they are no less capable for the majority of tasks their customers use them for anyways. The stuff which may need more cores, like video editing, aren't stuff you would typically do on your phone anyways.

Since we are in the topic of cores, can anyone tell me what you do on your android phones that actually make use of all 4 cores?

Now that I think about it. Why is Samsung being penalized for using all 4 cores of the phone to it's disposal, while the 5s has 2 cores that are probably both used during benchmarking? Is it fair to cry foul to Samsung or LG for making them use only 2 of the 4 cores? What if Samsung were to include a software switch that allows 4 cores to be used in games automatically? Then would it be considered the fastest phone?

 

[pappy53]

Now that I think about it. Why is Samsung being penalized for using all 4 cores of the phone to it's disposal, while the 5s has 2 cores that are probably both used during benchmarking? Is it fair to cry foul to Samsung or LG for making them use only 2 of the 4 cores? What if Samsung were to include a software switch that allows 4 cores to be used in games automatically? Then would it be considered the fastest phone?

I don't think that they bested Apple much, even with cheating included.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[abazigal]

Now that I think about it. Why is Samsung being penalized for using all 4 cores of the phone to it's disposal, while the 5s has 2 cores that are probably both used during benchmarking? Is it fair to cry foul to Samsung or LG for making them use only 2 of the 4 cores? What if Samsung were to include a software switch that allows 4 cores to be used in games automatically? Then would it be considered the fastest phone?

It depends. Would 4 cores in gaming bring about any noticeable improvement in performance? Would there be any debilitating drawbacks (such as faster battery drain or more heat generated) which outweigh any performance gains?

Same thing in typical everyday usage. What are the user scenarios where a person would actually tap on all 4 cores? As it appears now, the use of quad-core processors seems little more than a marketing gimmick designed more to wow customers than to genuinely provide a better user experience. People argue about how Android can do more, but how many people do actually tax the Note3's capabilities this way? Nor do I see "power apps" being released that take advantage of all those high-end specs either (likely because the majority of Android phones actually sport rather anaemic specs).

The crux of the issue here is not about which phone tops a benchmarking test, but about whether those engineering decisions which go into a phone are really in the consumer's best interests. What Apple does is first decide on the user experience they want consumers to have, then work backwards to see how best to deliver that experience. That's why they dare to continue using dual-core processors in a time when everyone else has moved on to quad-core (or even octa-core) processors. The user experience here is being emphasised more than winning some meaningless spec test.

 

[Farish]

What if Samsung were to include a software switch that allows 4 cores to be used in games automatically? Then would it be considered the fastest phone?

Even if you were to turn on all 4 cores, Android in itself would have to support that during the gaming environment. Meaning that just because you have 4/8/16 cores, if the program or game doesn't take advantage of it, there is no point.

That and you will see the complaints skyrocket about battery life.

 

[alexlam24]

Even if you were to turn on all 4 cores, Android in itself would have to support that during the gaming environment. Meaning that just because you have 4/8/16 cores, if the program or game doesn't take advantage of it, there is no point.

That and you will see the complaints skyrocket about battery life.

Even though in gaming it wouldn't matter in your case, simple multi tasking (floating YouTube popup) and switching apps would make 4 cores better. I have a HTC Amaze with a snapdragon S3 processor. Dual core is not enough to maintain a smooth 60fps on duty driver bus. I should note it is clocked at 1.5 GHz.

Sent from my HTC Xperia S4

 

[JHBThree]

Even though in gaming it wouldn't matter in your case, simple multi tasking (floating YouTube popup) and switching apps would make 4 cores better. I have a HTC Amaze with a snapdragon S3 processor. Dual core is not enough to maintain a smooth 60fps on duty driver bus. I should note it is clocked at 1.5 GHz.

Sent from my HTC Xperia S4

I don't believe any quad core android phones use all four cores except for heavy duty tasks. Simple multitasking isn't one of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[alexlam24]

I don't believe any quad core android phones use all four cores except for heavy duty tasks. Simple multitasking isn't one of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you ever tried watching a YouTube video while browsing Facebook? It needs more than 2 cores, especially if its a 1080p screen. Real racing 3 also uses more than 2 cores when there's a lot of graphics being processed (background, AI)

Sent from my HTC Xperia S4

 

[AndroidNote3]

Well in benchmarks like 3d mark and geekbench the 800 out performs the A7 (except in single core). For gfx bench the iphone only slightly out paces the 800 but only on on-screen tests due to the low pixel count on the iPhone. But for offscreen tests the 800 again wins, for me id guess in real world performance they would be merely identical.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[Haalcyon]

I still don't comprehend why it matters enough to discuss. They're both blindingly fast. Is one really fast enough to overcome the other cons that are associated with the device/platform? Then again I'm not into drag-racing my phones. In this case I'm doubtful that the A7 vs The Beast leaves enough performance difference to be subjectively felt in gaming and usage. Can someone please specifically, explicitly, and precisely describe why such is NOT the case?

g2

 

[pappy53]

I still don't comprehend why it matters enough to discuss. They're both blindingly fast. Is one really fast enough to overcome the other cons that are associated with the device/platform?

g2

+1
If it's fast enough for the user, then it's fast enough IMO.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk