Rumor: iPhone 5 Prototype Points to 1GB of RAM, Faster CPU

[tmshdw]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]I wonder if the A5X will post better performance on the iPhone5 than in the iPad3, since there's less pixels for it to drive in the iPhone display. Which means we might see the handheld outperform the tablet brother.[/citation]

The new iPad has a 4 core graphics processor for it high resolution display. There is no need for 4 cores since I can assume the resolution of the iPhone will be less due to the smaller screen size. They will drop it down to a dual core graphics or just a faster version of the current graphics. They will likely increase the processor speed and leave it dual core.

 

[tmshdw]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Most of the Android manufacturers that make CPUs are going to be releasing their new CPUs this year, so that won't stay that way for long. Also, when was the last time that an iPhone had the CPU power that the top Androids have? GPU isn't everything. Androids tend to have more memory capacity and a faster CPU than the competing iPhones.[/citation]

Yes but becasue the Android OS is a hog the CPU needs to run faster to match the user experience of an iPhone. Tech heads can remain locked in ghz numbers as providing meaning in their life (they won't by a phone because it doesn't have the highest ghz). But intelligent consumers are more interested in the user experience.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]tmshdw[/nom]Yes but becasue the Android OS is a hog the CPU needs to run faster to match the user experience of an iPhone. Tech heads can remain locked in ghz numbers as providing meaning in their life (they won't by a phone because it doesn't have the highest ghz). But intelligent consumers are more interested in the user experience.[/citation]

Real-world, unbiased benchmarks show that many of the Android devices are usually faster regardless of how much of a hog Android is. Besides that, it's mostly old versions of Android that are really hogs. ICS is far better than them and Android gets faster with each version (on the same phones I mean, IE the OS is constantly becoming less of a performance hog).

I won't say for certain that the newest iPhones are better or that the newest Androids are better because I don't have the money to afford either and don't know many people who do that I talk with often, but overall, the benchmarks speak in Android's favor for CPU performance.

Also, keep in mind that almost all smart phone comparisons that involve benchmarks are biased (love how most Android ones have either some or all Android phones in the comparison using the oldest supported version of Android for those phones, so they seem to be much slower than they really are), so you often need to really look to find good bases for arguments and opinions in this market. It's not like PCs where at least several reputable sources almost always have excellent and unbiased reviews of something.

The iPhone 4S has an undeniable lead in graphics, but that will be addressed. Whether or not the next iPhone will be beating the 2012 Androids in either CPU performance (unlikely) or GPU performance (more likely) is the question that should be asked. The problem with that question is that the answer won't be seen for some time yet

There are also more factors besides CPU and GPU capabilities to consider. The Androids, like I said earlier, tend to have more memory and storage (at least for the price) and their storage is upgradable. Androids also seem to have more free apps than the iPhones do. For example, even my old Samsung Transform lets me use stuff such as emulators for some older game systems like the Nintendo Gameboys and that's something that I like to do occasionally. For example, my phone has a Gameboy Advance emulator and I play some games that way. It also has plenty of free native Android games and I can get internet tethering for free. I don't know if the iPhone offers free tethering so I can't say for sure that it doesn't, but it seems unlikely.

There is simply more that I can do on my Android than I could on an iPhone and I can do it all for free (money spent on getting the device and it's data/service plan not counted, but that's a factor for ALL phones, not just Androids). Would the average users care about most of what I do? Not at all, so they could go either way and the iPhones aren't as overpriced as other Apple products (at least, not as overpriced when compared to the competition), so it's really not wasteful to get an iPhone. However, most intelligent tech heads that want huge versatility prefer Android.

I don't play any particularly GPU heavy things anyway, so even if the Androids don't meet or beat the next iPhone in GPU performance, I'll be happy with them so long as they can play 1080p video and regular games that don't get much more intensive than something such as Angry Birds. I use my phone more for CPU heavy work anyway.

 

[stevelord]

Android boys. All they talk about is every new OS and new CPUs. Yet they are still slow and crash regularly. At least Apple doesn't need a new major OS every 6-12 months to save itself. Benchmarks mean nothing for 99% of people who do nothing, but text, twitter, facebook and take pictures.

Oh yeah, cameras on Android phones are crap too for the most part.

 

[coreym72]

Well... One day I hope to ram drive a 4 GB DVD-Audio (24/96) Flac file. You can thank Apple for killing HD audio with mainstream lossy MP3s. Just give me a phone that has amazing multimedia capabilities. Not so called innovating. Next!

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]stevelord[/nom]Android boys. All they talk about is every new OS and new CPUs. Yet they are still slow and crash regularly. At least Apple doesn't need a new major OS every 6-12 months to save itself. Benchmarks mean nothing for 99% of people who do nothing, but text, twitter, facebook and take pictures.Oh yeah, cameras on Android phones are crap too for the most part.[/citation]

Cameras on Androids are almost always superior to iPhone cameras, I've never hear of Androids crashing (my Android doesn't crash, my father's Android doesn't crash, my boss's android doesn't crash, my family member's androids don't crash, my coworker's androids don't crash... I think that the list is long enough), and benchmarks mean a lot to anyone who actually uses the smart phones to be more than glorified toys and communication devices (especially web browsing benchmarks).

Android doesn't need to save itself from anything in regards to making a new OS, but I suppose that when a competitor to your favorite company improves, it must be because their current products are junk and not because they simply want to improve, right? Your logic there could be applied to a wide variety of situations. There is a new version of OSX every year or two. Since there is a new version every so often, it must be because Apple's previous OSs were junk and Apple needs to save themselves, not because they simply want to improve their OS?

That also makes me wonder why there's a new version of iOS every year or so. Surely, it's not because Apple wants iOS to improve and evolve, is it?

Although my Android is a little slow, that is only because it has an old version of Android running on an old, also out-dated CPU (800MHz Cortex A8 or something like that, it's an old Samsung Transform and was practically free). Even then, it is still fairly fast. I've used some of the newer Androids and they are NOT slow.

Truly, your post is that of an ignorant fanboy. I'll probably never say that iPhones are crap just because I prefer Androids. Anyone smart enough to know that an Android is good or that an iPhone is good should be smart enough to know that the other is also good. The difference is that the best Androids are usually better than he lower Androids and the iPhones for people who do a lot of non-standard things on them. They have more CPU performance and a wider variety of apps to work with.

The iPhone has excellent graphics and the iPad 3 is supposed to have gaming performance quality similar to that of the PS3 and Xbox 360. They are more for general media consumption than anything else.

 

[stevelord]

I've had Blackberry, Android and iPhone. As well as Playbook, Tab, Xoom and iPads thank you. Androids are better than Blackberry, but their speed is exaggerated. The cpus and ghz only seem to drain battery faster.

As for the cameras, they take 3 seconds to snap a picture if you manage to hold it perfectly still without generating a pulse.

Let's not forget the bloatware in all Android phones. Oh wait.....just jailbreak/root it right? So are they not good enough out the box?

I never said Android was crap, just the cameras. Thanks for the nerdrage though.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]stevelord[/nom]I've had Blackberry, Android and iPhone. As well as Playbook, Tab, Xoom and iPads thank you. Androids are better than Blackberry, but their speed is exaggerated. The cpus and ghz only seem to drain battery faster. As for the cameras, they take 3 seconds to snap a picture if you manage to hold it perfectly still without generating a pulse.Let's not forget the bloatware in all Android phones. Oh wait.....just jailbreak/root it right? So are they not good enough out the box? I never said Android was crap, just the cameras. Thanks for the nerdrage though.[/citation]

Sure, the cameras take 3 seconds, but I was referring to picture quality, not how long it takes to take a picture.

Bloatware? Well, my Transform doesn't really have any bloatware and the other Androids from family members don't. Excluding carrier IQ (which is present on almost all mobile devices including iPhones and iPads, not just Androids), nothing really runs on my phone that I don't want to. I have Yahoo mail, Gmail, an alarm clock, and more. I even look through the task manager and more to make sure that I don't have something running that I don't want.

Your jailbreak/root argument is just as valid with iPhones. In fact, that is part of why I didn't even mention it. So, that I need to jailbreak an iPhone to do many things how I want to mean that it's also not good enough right out of the box?

You devoted an entire post to bashing Android with several inaccurate arguments and I responded back. You said that Google needs to come out with a new Android version every 6 to 12 months to save itself (considering that most phones don't run new Android versions and are fine, this is already incorrect, so I don't even need to bring up the several other reasons I did to prove this wrong, they were just extra evidence). You said that Androids crash often (mine never has and I don't know anyone who had their Androids crash).

What did you expect someone else to get out of your inaccurate, misleading, and outright false post? Did you honestly think that no one would reply back and call you out on your baseless lies?

 

[stevelord]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Sure, the cameras take 3 seconds, but I was referring to picture quality, not how long it takes to take a picture.Bloatware? Well, my Transform doesn't really have any bloatware and the other Androids from family members don't. Excluding carrier IQ (which is present on almost all mobile devices including iPhones and iPads, not just Androids), nothing really runs on my phone that I don't want to. I have Yahoo mail, Gmail, an alarm clock, and more. I even look through the task manager and more to make sure that I don't have something running that I don't want.Your jailbreak/root argument is just as valid with iPhones. In fact, that is part of why I didn't even mention it. So, that I need to jailbreak an iPhone to do many things how I want to mean that it's also not good enough right out of the box?You devoted an entire post to bashing Android with several inaccurate arguments and I responded back. You said that Google needs to come out with a new Android version every 6 to 12 months to save itself (considering that most phones don't run new Android versions and are fine, this is already incorrect, so I don't even need to bring up the several other reasons I did to prove this wrong, they were just extra evidence). You said that Androids crash often (mine never has and I don't know anyone who had their Androids crash).What did you expect someone else to get out of your inaccurate, misleading, and outright false post? Did you honestly think that no one would reply back and call you out on your baseless lies?[/citation]

My post isn't false at all. You can easily find proof of the key points I made. The point is, (again) Android isn't all it's cracked up to be. About the only thing I really miss is the keyboard.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]stevelord[/nom]My post isn't false at all. You can easily find proof of the key points I made. The point is, (again) Android isn't all it's cracked up to be. About the only thing I really miss is the keyboard.[/citation]

You can also easily find proof for what I said too. In fact, you can go online and easily find proof for the Earth to be flat or for Jews to cause people to become goths (no joke about either of those), but that doesn't make it true. I've had a Samsung Transform for almost a year now and it has never crashed on me. It uses Android 2.2.2 and it is not too slow, especially considering it's crap processor. My HTC Evo 4G has a single core 1GHz Snapdragon ( a FAR faster processor), runs ICS, and it is not slow at all, but is actually very fast (and it's not even close to being the fastest Android anymore!). It also doesn't crash.

As of right now, my Transform has an up time of almost 300 hours (closer to 294, but you get the point) and it was only shut off because I was in a meeting. Tell me, about how many hours of up-time should I expect to go by before a crash? I've had much longer up-time periods than this (several months) and it's NEVER crashed.

Back to Android needing a new version every 6 to 12 months to save itself. Tell me, what OS doesn't need updates? I have challenged each of your points and given solid evidence and/or reasoning for them to be wrong and all you have done is say that I'm wrong and not even provide personal experience as evidence to back up your claims.

I'll say it again. My only slow android phone (and even then, it's not very slow) is my aging Transform that has some of the worst smart phone hardware imaginable today, none of my droids and none of the Droids owned by anyone else who I'm in regular contact with has had their Android crash (in fact, no one who I know has mentioned their Android crashing), Google updates Android at least annually because that is how a software/OS company should act (Apple does the exact same thing with iOS, they make a new update roughly annually), no Android that I've used is brought down by bloatware, and CPU performance is very important to plenty of people (myself included) who actually use it all.

If you reply to me again, how about you actually prove me wrong?

 

[dragonsqrrl]

[citation][nom]joytech22[/nom]So.. Somehow they want to fit a chip that requires a 40W/h battery for long battery life into a phone? Does anybody else see a problem here?Unless they downclock that puppy quite a bit or employ some serious power saving technology, they won't be getting close to the battery life of their last iPhone.[/citation]
http/www.anandtech.com/show/5740/apple-tv-a5-soc-is-32nm-harvested-dualcore-a5

"Either way, it's clear that Apple is testing Samsung's 32nm process and this is likely the node we'll see debut in the next iPhone."

The new iphone will probably use a 32nm version of the A5X. And like someone said earlier, the biggest power hog on in the new ipad is probably the display, not the A5X.

 

[bigbaconeater]

[citation][nom]some internet dude[/nom]Its not evem out yet and its already outdated, always the case with iPhones. By the time this comes out Androids will be on quad-cores with 2gig ram.[/citation]

i'm not even an Apple user. But WHY IN GOD's name do you need that much power? Why does anyone.? Do you do protein folding on your phone? Or graphics rendering? Perhaps weather prediction?

Majority of people check facebook, email, text, and play absolutely stupid games to waste time. No games even exceed the current hardware already available.

It's just a numbers game, The game is all about good UI.

 

[Guest]

If Samsung stop making processors for Apple, then there won't be iPhone 5, 6, 4G or LTE.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]bigbaconeater[/nom]i'm not even an Apple user. But WHY IN GOD's name do you need that much power? Why does anyone.? Do you do protein folding on your phone? Or graphics rendering? Perhaps weather prediction? Majority of people check facebook, email, text, and play absolutely stupid games to waste time. No games even exceed the current hardware already available.It's just a numbers game, The game is all about good UI.[/citation]

Yeah, because four cores make it a super computer/folding beast... Seriously, even four Ivy Bridge cores don't have the kind of performance that you seem to think that these little quad core ARM and ARM competitors would have.

No games exceed the current hardware because unlike for PCs, it's stupid to release something that a current phone can't handle well. Given a faster phone, more intensive games WILL be released for it. A lot of people play games on their phones. Being able to play better and better games will entice plenty of people to have the faster phones. So no, UI is not everything. Nothing about a device is everything. UI i important, perhaps the most important, but not everything.

Four ARM cores with 2GB of RAM is not huge performance unless the ARM cores somehow outperform desktop processors that have several dozen times more electricity to burn through to get their performance. Not even quad core Cortex A15s (about 5-6 times faster than current top dual core Cortex A9s) would beat low end notebook processors, although at that point it might start to come close. ARM and it's competitors (Medfield comes to mind) have huge performance per watt.

Something that is just starting to touch on low end notebook CPUs is not a performance powerhouse. These are not the kinds of CPUs that would be used for professional work such as what you mentioned unless they were used in very large numbers.

Besides that, having a lot of performance in a phone like that would be very useful. At that point, it could be used for MUCH more than just a facebook toy and communication device. For example, it could have console quality graphics (the iPad 3 supposedly does and it wouldn't surprise me, consoles are old and outdated) comparable to the xBox 360 and PS3. At that point, it could have some much more demanding games if it had a sufficient memory system (such as the 2GB of RAM mentioned in the post that you replied to).

It could also be used for fairly professional media editing and much more that would be able to make it a more general purpose machine. You can bet that if I could, I would use a 5" phone with a large battery and an overclocked Cortex A15 quad core and do much more than facebook. We could see such a CPU with even greater graphics than the iPad 3's already excellent A5X's graphics. It would be better than most netbooks and more useful too. Make a Medfield version with similar performance and it could run desktop Windows with full compatibility, just on a small screen

That would be great.