Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Sep 2017 16:40 UTC
Apple

With the iPhone X revealed, we really have to start talking about its processor and SoC - the A11 Bionic. It's a six-core chip with two high-power cores, four low-power cores, and this year, for the first time, includes an Apple-designed custom GPU. It also has what Apple calls a Neural Engine, designed to speed up tasks such as face recognition.

Apple already had a sizeable performance lead over competing chips from Qualcomm (what Android phones use) in single-core performance, and the A11 blasts past those in multicore performance, as well. Moreover, the A11 also performs better than quite a number of recent desktop Intel chips from the Core i5 and i7 range, which is a big deal.

For quite a few people it's really hard to grasp just how powerful these chips are - and to a certain extent, it feels like much of that power is wasted in an iPhone, which is mostly doing relatively mundane tasks anyway. Now that Apple is also buildings its own GPUs, it's not a stretch to imagine a number of mobile GPU makers feeling a bit... Uneasy.

At some point, these Apple Ax chips will find their way to something more sizable than phones and tablets.

Thread beginning with comment 648796
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Performance
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 13th Sep 2017 17:22 UTC in reply to "Performance"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Nothing suspect about it. That's Jeff Atwood, and those are GeekBench numbers. you can look them up yourself.

https://browser.geekbench.com

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Performance
by leech on Wed 13th Sep 2017 17:47 in reply to "RE: Performance"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

I always thought the problem when benchmarking hardware is that for fair comparisons you would also need to be running the same software. I mean you could have a hardware platform that could seduce women for you, but if the software running it would only work in polygamous communities, it wouldn't be very useful....

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Performance
by Kochise on Wed 13th Sep 2017 18:39 in reply to "RE: Performance"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

edit : (same as above)

Edited 2017-09-13 18:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Performance
by Licaon_Kter on Wed 13th Sep 2017 18:53 in reply to "RE: Performance"
Licaon_Kter Member since:
2010-03-19

Better link: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%...

Now, if these are true, Qualcomm CEOs will flip some tables. ;) ;) ;)

I love competition, better tech for Android in the end. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

v RE[3]: Performance
by darknexus on Wed 13th Sep 2017 20:06 in reply to "RE[2]: Performance"
RE[3]: Performance
by JLF65 on Thu 14th Sep 2017 02:28 in reply to "RE[2]: Performance"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

ARM @ 24 MHz


Yeaaaaaah. Something tells me that the software isn't handling the new iPhone correctly, making ANY figures suspect.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Performance
by Alfman on Thu 14th Sep 2017 00:55 in reply to "RE: Performance"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Thom Holwerda,

Nothing suspect about it. That's Jeff Atwood, and those are GeekBench numbers. you can look them up yourself.


You can't always take benchmarks for granted, it takes time for independent benchmarks to confirm the results. I was browsing geekbench results and I was surprised at how inconsistent the results were even for different runs on the exact same CPU.

For example:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3988183
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3988073

These huge discrepancies could mean there's a problem with the benchmark, or they're being bottlenecked by components other than the CPU, in which case it's not a good benchmark to use to strictly compare CPU performance.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Performance
by Drumhellar on Thu 14th Sep 2017 05:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Performance"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Exact same CPU, but different OS (OS X 10.12 vs 10.10) In this, every single sub-benchmark is faster on the newer version of OSX, without exception.

That probably has more to do with it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Performance
by bert64 on Sat 16th Sep 2017 03:06 in reply to "RE[2]: Performance"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Thermal throttling...
Power throttlijng...
Background tasks...

Many factors could affect benchmark results.

Reply Parent Score: 3