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

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 648826
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Apple to "apple"?
by QandA on Thu 14th Sep 2017 01:57 UTC
Member since:

I am not sure if it is an Apple to Apple comparison. Are we trying to compare RISC(ARM) and CISC(x86) architecture, isn't it?

Edited 2017-09-14 01:58 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: Apple to "apple"?
by Ford Prefect on Thu 14th Sep 2017 10:02 in reply to "Apple to "apple"?"
Ford Prefect Member since:

These chips all still compute the same numbers for us. You can run GNU/Linux on ARM and use most of the same software as on x86. Also the ARM processors are 64bit now, just like x86.

So it is fair to compare the performance of these chips. Maybe there are some technicialities in the Geekbench score computation that make the comparison unfair? Also I would like to mention that performance/watt is probably the more interesting score these days than raw performance. Which should be even more advantageous for the ARM processors. In theory an apple to apple comparison is possible.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Apple to "apple"?
by JLF65 on Thu 14th Sep 2017 15:29 in reply to "RE: Apple to "apple"?"
JLF65 Member since:

Pure benchmarks have always had a problem with working better on some architectures than others, making some CPUs look better than they are. The best benchmarks are a large group of actual tasks: how long to encode this video; how long to compress this file; how long to crunch this block of data; how long to reformat this document; how fast does this game run. Most sites have gotten much better about this.

Reply Parent Score: 3