Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 24th Sep 2017 00:09 UTC
Benchmarks

The "Bionic" part in the name of Apple's A11 Bionic chip isn't just marketing speak. It's the most powerful processor ever put in a mobile phone. We've put this chip to the test in both synthetic benchmarks and some real-world speed trials, and it obliterates every Android phone we tested.

As far as SoCs go, Apple is incredibly far ahead of Qualcomm and Samsung. These companies have some serious soul-searching to do.

I can't wait for AnandTech to dive into the A11 Bionic, so we can get some more details than just people comparing GeekBench scores.

Thread beginning with comment 649201
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: So....
by shotsman on Sun 24th Sep 2017 09:57 UTC in reply to "So...."
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

It seems that all this extra power is for 4K video.
Can your iPhone 3 do real time 4K@60fps encoding/decoding/rendering? probably not.

Obviously if you don't do that stuff then you don't need a device with this power especially if all you do is make phone calls.

I do shoot 4K video on my DSLR and I know how much CPU power rendering takes even on a 12Core XEON system.

Apple is investing a lot of money in the guts of their devices. I'm sure that there is a lot more to come.
It seems fairly obvious that they are trying to reduce their dependency on 3rd parties (eg Qualcomm) for their products.
The work they are doing will spur other SOC vendors to up their game so it will in time benefit Android users.
So, even if you really loathe Apple you should at least tip your hat to the work they are doing on their SOC's.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: So....
by tylerdurden on Sun 24th Sep 2017 18:48 in reply to "RE: So...."
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

There's also a heavy push for VR and AR on mobile platforms. Lots of AI (image/shape identification, etc) is being done at the device level. Which requires a lot of heavy lifting.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: So....
by grat on Mon 25th Sep 2017 19:28 in reply to "RE[2]: So...."
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

There's also a heavy push for VR and AR on mobile platforms. Lots of AI (image/shape identification, etc) is being done at the device level. Which requires a lot of heavy lifting.


Ok, that's a valid reason. Although I think that might be better served by custom hardware rather than ramping up a general purpose CPU to achieve the same effect (much as hardware encoding is superior to software encoding), I understand the standards, and therefore the HW processing units aren't ready for prime time.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: So....
by grat on Mon 25th Sep 2017 19:39 in reply to "RE: So...."
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

It seems that all this extra power is for 4K video.
Can your iPhone 3 do real time 4K@60fps encoding/decoding/rendering? probably not.


No (and I don't have an iPhone 3, either, I have a Pixel), but using a smart phone to replace either a DSLR or a 4K video camera seems a bit goofy. Unless the "liquid lens" technology that was touted a few years ago happens, I don't see smartphones competing with any of the standard DSLR lens... The F1.8/50mm, my F2.0 100mm macro, or a 70-200mm.

As for 4k video, my Pixel can already shoot / play at 30fps, but if you're serious about 4K video, you won't be doing it on a smartphone.

Ultimately, that's best served by dedicated hardware encoders that can handle 60 frames-per-second at 8.3 million pixels each-- with the right HW decoder, a Raspberry Pi can play back 1080P with no frames dropped.

Doing that with a general purpose CPU again, seems inefficient.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: So....
by tylerdurden on Mon 25th Sep 2017 22:50 in reply to "RE[2]: So...."
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

A DSL can't fit in your pocket.

A phone camera is not a replacement for a professional video solution, but this is for consumer applications. The phone is basically a good enough camera for 99% of the population.

Reply Parent Score: 3