• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Oct 28, 2017
5,210
Yet the OnePlus 6, a phone that came out nearly 6 months ago for HALF the price of an iPhone XS, goes neck-and-neck with Apple's latest in real world use.



Y'all Apple fanatics are insufferable sometimes.

These comparisons are always so silly. Loading apps is such a small part of a phone's performance. And if both phones are able to load apps fast enough that it is practically instantaneous for a human, then it's a bad test. Hell, half of the apps he tested were apps that clearly do network calls to load in assets/data. You know those placeholder looking filler elements? Those are there in place of content that is being loaded in. And it's not like you can argue one phone is downloading faster. There is an inherent and variable amount of latency when working over a network.
 

rezuth

Member
Nov 5, 2017
297
Apple doesn't manufacture their own chips so whatever tech they are using is out there for others to use. And even if it's as good as they say it is, you can get a rooted Android phone and overclock the CPU to get a comparable performance.

Real world use trounces benchmarks and there is no way to be certain due to the closed nature of iOS that Apple isn't doing something fishy to inflate their benchmark scores like Samsung and other manufacturers have done before.

I think you have this the wrong way. It's true that they don't manufacture their own chips but they design them themselves. Unlike other ARM companies which pay for a finished design Apple just pays for the instruction set and designs their own cores that no one else can use. Why do you think Apple is always ahead?

Apple buying PA Semi to design their own silicon has been the best investment ever. They're also designing their own GPUs.
 

Deleted member 46103

User requested account closure
Banned
Jul 22, 2018
822
Why is anyone talking about Apple making a gaming console? That's all we really need is their walled gardens in more industries.

Apple with a successful gaming console would do everything in their power to eliminate the other platforms. You think Nintendo's stubbornness and Sony's greed not allowing cross platform fortnite and rocket league is bad? Imagine Apple in this industry.

iConsole for $3000 USD, $20 per game sold developer license fee and cross platform games with only other Apple devices. But hey its the fastest hardware and "just works." Woot!
 
Last edited:

Shogmaster

Banned
Dec 12, 2017
2,598
I would say that A12 would have been more than ready to be the first MacOS processor if they wanted to. They will make further improvements and probably make A13 the first home grown processor to replace Intel processors for their new ARM Macs.

Mac users will have to live through another painful transition in the next couple of years, but hey, it's the price you pay for a walled garden lifestyle...
 

senatom

Member
Oct 25, 2017
102
What I find puzzling is that even with the last iPhone X, Apple were touting it as faster than some of their laptops, and all that power for the most part is wasted. Why don't we see an iDock where you can drop your phone in and get OSX lite or something, even just basic apps like a browser, some productivity apps even xcode lite?. Of all the times I have had an Apple device it never made me want an OSX based computer but if I had some form of desktop OS running off the phone it would be something I would probably use.
 
Last edited:

Zulith

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,776
West Coast, USA
Apple's A series of chips are so impressive it's no wonder people want to see these being used in consoles or a Switch-like device (or even better, some future Switch successor from Nintendo themselves.)

All Apple would have to do is give us a new higher tier Apple TV with a little more horsepower and a gamepad, developers would do the rest. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo should be thanking their lucky stars that Apple doesn't want to move in on their turf in that fashion. It's easy to make the argument that they already destroyed the 3DS and Vita, so we know how this would likely go down.
 

Westbahnhof

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
10,108
Austria
The iPad is the future of mainstream computing, and the video and music production work you can already do on one is incredible. If I wasn't an old fart with 20 years of habits from making music on a Mac all that time, I could see using the iPad as my primary production tool.
Eeeeeh, I just don't see it happening. Everyone I know prefers full sized screens and physical keyboards. Maybe I'm naive, but I just don't see it.
 

Shogmaster

Banned
Dec 12, 2017
2,598
Macs switching to A chips is the end game here. Full ecosystem integration, from hardware to OS and software.
I think Apple and Intel parted ways philosophically in design goals years ago when Intel decided to go for clock speed and wattage over transistor count for performance. When did Intel stop announcing transistor count? Like back in 5 or 6th gen? By then Apple's A series were already a much denser SoC than Intel's mobile SoCs, making such comparison embarrassing for Intel. With A 12 being over 7 Billion trans big, it's easy to see why iPhones are just crushing the Android phones and even some ULV Intel SoCs on performance.

Apple's been pretty much telling Intel their intentions for years with their mobile device designs. Apple doesn't want to waste space and weight on cooling. They want thin and light devices with good enough performance. A series gives them that right now while Intel SoC makes a very bad match for their devices (see i9 Macbook Pro 15 debacle for example). They might keep Intel for their high end professional desktop Macs for a while, but I think all of their consumer and mobile stuff will switch over to A series much much faster than many are predicting.

The only question I have is whether Apple will start making bigger distinction in performance between MacOS and iOS devices with another tier or A series variants. Will the same A13 merely being clocked faster on a Macbook Pro good enough vs downclocked version on the iPhone? Or will they make 3rd tier versions for MacOS devices with more CPU and GPU cores?
 

Vuze

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,186
Why is anyone talking about Apple making a gaming console? That's all we really need is their walled gardens in more industries.

Apple with a successful gaming console would do everything in their power to eliminate the other platforms. You think Nintendo's stubbornness and Sony's greed not allowing cross platform fortnite and rocket league is bad? Imagine Apple in this industry.

iConsole for $3000 USD, $20 per game sold developer license fee and cross platform games with only other Apple devices. But hey its the fastest hardware and "just works." Woot!
Paying good money for minute visual upgrades and monthly subscription fees for worthless services is super popular with MS, Sony and Nintendo consoles. And news for you: they all are taking a considerable cut from developers and vet every new game submission and patch. Almost as if consoles were a completely controlled walled garden but without any considerable benefits lol. Not that they need to get in the console space to begin with since they are already one of the top players in gaming. Get your head out of the sand, such a delusional post.

Apple's A series of chips are so impressive it's no wonder people want to see these being used in consoles or a Switch-like device (or even better, some future Switch successor from Nintendo themselves.)

All Apple would have to do is give us a new higher tier Apple TV with a little more horsepower and a gamepad, developers would do the rest. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo should be thanking their lucky stars that Apple doesn't want to move in on their turf in that fashion. It's easy to make the argument that they already destroyed the 3DS and Vita, so we know how this would likely go down.
I think the A11X in the current ATV 4K is already quite capable. They just absolutely dropped the ball on making the ATV a good platform for casual gamers. Shouldn't have had the remote restriction in the beginning, things might have looked different.
 

Shadow

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,142
Damn, nice. Should be good for the future of laptop CPUs. My iPad Pro with an A10X is the first device I had that's still perfect performance wise after a year, so it'll just be icing from here on out for them I think.
 

Sony

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
565
Same article every year.
The chips are supposedly more efficient, yet even with lower screen resolutions, iPhones don't beat their competitors in battery life by a lot.
The chips are supposedly generations ahead, yet they don't offer significant real world advantages over competitors.

I don't care how close their SoC's get to desktop CPU's in ST performance if all I can do with the devices it powers is mobile apps in a walled garden.

If they have balls, release a Mac device that's using this cpu. Say about Windows RT what you want, but functionality wise it was leagues ahead of iOS today and that ran on a measly ARM CPU.
 

Shogmaster

Banned
Dec 12, 2017
2,598
Apple's A series of chips are so impressive it's no wonder people want to see these being used in consoles or a Switch-like device (or even better, some future Switch successor from Nintendo themselves.)

All Apple would have to do is give us a new higher tier Apple TV with a little more horsepower and a gamepad, developers would do the rest. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo should be thanking their lucky stars that Apple doesn't want to move in on their turf in that fashion. It's easy to make the argument that they already destroyed the 3DS and Vita, so we know how this would likely go down.

A series are not cheap SoCs you can throw into a $400~500 console, especially when you have to increase the die size for more capable GPU. The A12 is already 7 Billion transistors, and that's with much less capable GPU than XBox One X. X. XBO X SoC is only like 6 Billion transistors.

The cheapest device with A12 is the iPhone Xr, and that sucker is like what, $800+ even on 7nm node? Sure the LCD and Touch screen ain't cheap, but even with them gone, it's gonna be near what something like XBO X sells, with much less capable GPU and memory count/bandwidth.

A series was built as desktop/laptop replacement chips, and is priced accordingly. As is, the SoC will compete well with something like nVidia Shield TV, but even then at quite a price disadvantage. But for console space, it lacks code compatibility with PC games and powerful enough GPU and memory bandwidth to compete with current consoles. You can't build a console to satisfy core gamers with mostly mobile gaming code base to rely upon.
 

behOemoth

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,644
Why is anyone talking about Apple making a gaming console? That's all we really need is their walled gardens in more industries.

Apple with a successful gaming console would do everything in their power to eliminate the other platforms. You think Nintendo's stubbornness and Sony's greed not allowing cross platform fortnite and rocket league is bad? Imagine Apple in this industry.

iConsole for $3000 USD, $20 per game sold developer license fee and cross platform games with only other Apple devices. But hey its the fastest hardware and "just works." Woot!
Apples 4KTV costs 200$ and it possesses the A10X. The box is already more powerful than the switch and it costs less.
 

Shogmaster

Banned
Dec 12, 2017
2,598
Apples 4KTV costs 200$ and it possesses the A10X. The box is already more powerful than the switch and it costs less.
Switch has LCD, touch screen and battery. Those are expansive. SoC cost isn't comparable to those by itself. Add LCD and touchscreen to ATV and it will be basically the same cost as iPads or iPhones.
 

Ada

Member
Nov 28, 2017
3,739
I read the whole review yesterday, you can call Apples other hardware overpriced and under-specced but not their phones. They're in a class of their own now.
 

NameUser

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,070
Awesome, but seems like overkill. I stop buying new iPhones because that speed doesn't really enhance anything (for me). "Wow, apps open 2 seconds faster!" "You can edit 4k videos on your phone!"

IDK.
 

Deleted member 46103

User requested account closure
Banned
Jul 22, 2018
822
Paying good money for minute visual upgrades and monthly subscription fees for worthless services is super popular with MS, Sony and Nintendo consoles. And news for you: they all are taking a considerable cut from developers and vet every new game submission and patch. Almost as if consoles were a completely controlled walled garden but without any considerable benefits lol. Not that they need to get in the console space to begin with since they are already one of the top players in gaming. Get your head out of the sand, such a delusional post.

Since when did I say preexisting consoles weren't walled gardens and when did I say they don't already have Dev licensing fees?

I'm not saying Apple will be the first to bring this to consoles. I'm saying theirs would be worse.


Apples 4KTV costs 200$ and it possesses the A10X. The box is already more powerful than the switch and it costs less.

Yes because the chip is more powerful so it automatically costs more to manufacturer. Apple devices are like 2/3rds profit. Game consoles break even.

Lets just forget the switch comes with a hybrid setup, touch display and has an off the shelf SOC from Nvidia.

Nintendo's manufacturering costs are way higher. Period.

Apple is also competing against $30 streaming devices. Not $300-500 game consoles.
 
Last edited:

GeoNeo

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,455
Apples been in a class of their own for long while in mobile chip space.

Happy to see Spec2006 used to test which gives much better comparison than shitty ass geek bench.

Very impressed with them using 16 or 8 bits AX+b silicon essentially low precision tensor cores for neural engine.

Laying the groundwork for their own desktop chips in the future. :)
 

behOemoth

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,644
Switch has LCD, touch screen and battery. Those are expansive. SoC cost isn't comparable to those by itself. Add LCD and touchscreen to ATV and it will be basically the same cost as iPads or iPhones.
The strategy for Apple with there box is to make games also available for the TV. That game company was showcasing their new game initially for the Apple TV and iPhone.
So, it's more in line with the PSvita and PStv concept.
 

DonMigs85

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
2,770
I've been wondering for a while actually - if Apple does adopt their own processor designs in Macs, could it mean the beginning of the end for x86? There's an ARM build of Windows too after all, and Arm-based servers. Legacy software can probably just be emulated like when Macs abandoned PowerPC
 

Ninjadom

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,202
London, UK
Same article every year.
The chips are supposedly more efficient, yet even with lower screen resolutions, iPhones don't beat their competitors in battery life by a lot.
The chips are supposedly generations ahead, yet they don't offer significant real world advantages over competitors.

I don't care how close their SoC's get to desktop CPU's in ST performance if all I can do with the devices it powers is mobile apps in a walled garden.

If they have balls, release a Mac device that's using this cpu. Say about Windows RT what you want, but functionality wise it was leagues ahead of iOS today and that ran on a measly ARM CPU.

Once they do release a Mac running on one of their A series chips will you be impressed then?
 

Shogmaster

Banned
Dec 12, 2017
2,598
I've been wondering for a while actually - if Apple does adopt their own processor designs in Macs, could it mean the beginning of the end for x86? There's an ARM build of Windows too after all, and Arm-based servers. Legacy software can probably just be emulated like when Macs abandoned PowerPC
Unfortunately when you emulate X86 with ARM, the results are really SLLLOOOOWWW. See Win 32 apps on Windows on ARM devices. It's unbearably slow. And MS doesn't even attempt X64 emulation.

I think X86 will be fine on Windows/Linux side for a while. Also A series ultimately won't be competing on 90+W desktop class processors on performance. Intel can simply crank the wattage and clock on those for better performance vs anything ARM based.

My prediction is all of mobile MacOS devices will move to A series very quickly, including Macbook Pros. Mac Pro and possibly iMac Pros should stay Intel for a while, even if Mac Mini and none pro iMacs move on to A series SoC.
 
Oct 27, 2017
13,464
Why is anyone talking about Apple making a gaming console? That's all we really need is their walled gardens in more industries.

Apple with a successful gaming console would do everything in their power to eliminate the other platforms. You think Nintendo's stubbornness and Sony's greed not allowing cross platform fortnite and rocket league is bad? Imagine Apple in this industry.

iConsole for $3000 USD, $20 per game sold developer license fee and cross platform games with only other Apple devices. But hey its the fastest hardware and "just works." Woot!
Is this a copypasta?
 

Atraveller

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,308
Paying good money for minute visual upgrades and monthly subscription fees for worthless services is super popular with MS, Sony and Nintendo consoles. And news for you: they all are taking a considerable cut from developers and vet every new game submission and patch. Almost as if consoles were a completely controlled walled garden but without any considerable benefits lol. Not that they need to get in the console space to begin with since they are already one of the top players in gaming. Get your head out of the sand, such a delusional post.


I think the A11X in the current ATV 4K is already quite capable. They just absolutely dropped the ball on making the ATV a good platform for casual gamers. Shouldn't have had the remote restriction in the beginning, things might have looked different.
ATV 4K is still sporting A10X.
 

rezuth

Member
Nov 5, 2017
297
Unfortunately when you emulate X86 with ARM, the results are really SLLLOOOOWWW. See Win 32 apps on Windows on ARM devices. It's unbearably slow. And MS doesn't even attempt X64 emulation.

I think X86 will be fine on Windows/Linux side for a while. Also A series ultimately won't be competing on 90+W desktop class processors on performance. Intel can simply crank the wattage and clock on those for better performance vs anything ARM based.

My prediction is all of mobile MacOS devices will move to A series very quickly, including Macbook Pros. Mac Pro and possibly iMac Pros should stay Intel for a while, even if Mac Mini and none pro iMacs move on to A series SoC.

There is no way that Apple does not move its whole line to ARM. It will not segment its product line having developers create two different versions of their software.
 

Shogmaster

Banned
Dec 12, 2017
2,598
There is no way that Apple does not move its whole line to ARM. It will not segment its product line having developers create two different versions of their software.
They kinda already do. Most developers have MacOS and iOS apps, no? Sure, they are not the same exact apps but most developers don't mind developing for both. Celsys for instance now has Clip Studio Paint for both MacOS and iOS, and they function almost exactly the same.

X86 can run ARM code without too much trouble so maybe only those high end professional apps will need to have X86-64 version anyways.
 

Shogmaster

Banned
Dec 12, 2017
2,598
This is far more indicative of the power of 7nm than of Apple's prowess.


Apple's intention with A series was never to compete with other ARM phone/tablet SoCs anyways. It was always meant to replace Intel SoCs in their Macs eventually, so they were packing these things with transistors to the gill. it's just that eventually came faster than most thought. It's only maybe a year or 18 months away now.
 

rezuth

Member
Nov 5, 2017
297
They kinda already do. Most developers have MacOS and iOS apps, no? Sure, they are not the same exact apps but most developers don't mind developing for both. Celsys for instance now has Clip Studio Paint for both MacOS and iOS, and they function almost exactly the same.

X86 can run ARM code without too much trouble so maybe only those high end professional apps will need to have X86-64 version anyways.
They're not going to sell you a MacBook Pro that can't run regular Photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere and so on. They're not going to sell you a MacBook Pro that can't run the same software that a Mac Pro/iMac Pro can run. That is just pure madness.
At best they might sell you a super slim lowcost "netbook" like Macbook as a trial product but even that I doubt. If they're going to introduct ARM its going to be as a new product category or in every Mac at once. They're is no half-doing it.
 

Sony

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
565
Once they do release a Mac running on one of their A series chips will you be impressed then?

Of course I will, I'm enthousiastic about the performance of these chips as much as the next person and praised it back on GAF, but Apple should use them to their full potential.
 

No_Style

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,795
Ottawa, Canada
I was fascinated by how the article detailed OS scheduler improvements made the iOS 12 performance gains possible. Author also claims Android can see gains if they make similar investments in that space.

The iPhone 6S had a significantly different scaling behaviour on iOS11, and the A9 chip's DVFS was insanely slow. Here it took a total of 435ms for the CPU to reach its maximum frequency. With the iOS12 update, this time has been massively slashed down to 80ms, giving a great boost to performance in shorter interactive workloads.

I was quite astonished to see just how slow the scheduler was before – this is currently the very same issue that is handicapping Samsung's Exynos chipsets and maybe other Android SoCs who don't optimise their schedulers. While the hardware performance might be there, it just doesn't manifest itself in short interactive workloads because the scheduler load tracking algorithm is just too slow.
 

Sir Hound

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,208
The question is,
Why do I need all this speed on my cell phone when it seems mostly unnecessary?

IMO they're trying to drive the price performance ratio while developing, openly, technologies really intended for their XR program. For instance those Animoji's, I don't personally believe that was inspired by the face camera or conceived of for the iPhone.

With this approach they'll have an advantage in both software and hardware and might end up with another piece of hardware like the iPhone that felt way ahead of its time.
 

Fhtagn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,615
Eeeeeh, I just don't see it happening. Everyone I know prefers full sized screens and physical keyboards. Maybe I'm naive, but I just don't see it.

I use a physical keyboard with my ipad most of the time, other than watching movies and reading comics.

The $329 iPad is one of the best price/performance systems you can buy in 2018 and it fills most of all of the needs of most of the market. Enthusiasts and pros will still want massive screens and more horsepower, but just as most people buy laptops and never attach an external monitor, the iPad is "good enough", especially for people younger or older than those of us who grew up on mouse/keyboard.