My Nexus 5 offered smoother browsing than my 6600K, both on FHD screens, do you reckon 2Ghz Snapdragon 800 was faster than 4Ghz Skylake? Or could it be that a number of other factors have such influence on this "test" that they make it a moot comparison to begin with?Safari on the iPhone 7 Plus is the smoothest browsing experience in my entire house. It's not absolutely perfect, but in terms of buttery smoothness it gets close. Note that my fastest desktop is a quad-core Core i7 870 2.93 GHz iMac, which according to the Geekbench results search gets 2810/8574, and it's definitely not as smooth as the iPhone 7 Plus. Granted the iMac has to contend with a 27" 2560x1440 screen and a lot more OS overhead, but then again the iMac has 12 GB RAM.
As I said in my post, there are a number factors, which include the OS overhead.My Nexus 5 offered smoother browsing than my 6600K, both on FHD screens, do you reckon 2Ghz Snapdragon 800 was faster than 4Ghz Skylake? Or could it be that a number of other factors have such influence on this "test" that they make it a moot comparison to begin with?
What happens with the frequency of the cores during long load?
What you did not say in your post is that those factors which influence perceived performance make any comparison purely subjective.As I said in my post, there are a number factors, which include the OS overhead.
No iPhone is lag free, or else iOS would drop loading screens and redundant animations altogether.As for your Nexus 5, I don't have one, but it wasn't reported as being lag-free. (Actually, I did have one, as it came free with my cell phone service, but I sold it immediately so I didn't really test it out.)
Given your ice water comment, I wasn't sure if you were pulling our collective legs or not, but I gave this a whirl. I ran Geekbench 5 times in a row and every time the run time was about 2'40" to 2'42", and the scores were all in the ball park of about 3400/5500 to 3500/5650 or so.Drops hard. I tested it. Let the phone heat up and the Geekbench results are one third of the maximum. Then drop the phone in ice water and run again. They go right back up.
I think you need to actually try these phones out in person. Scroll speed is way faster than any iOS device I have ever tried. If the scroll speed is limited, then it's definitely sufficient for my usage. To put it another way, I don't care if the scroll speed is limited or not, since now the user (me) is the bottleneck not the hardware/software.What you did not say in your post is that those factors which influence perceived performance make any comparison purely subjective.
I hope you really enjoy your new iPhone, every fact I learned about it points towards an excellent product, probably has the best mobile CPU created to date, but let's not indulge ourselves into inventing new metrics for performance. Even watching the same animation, rendered from the same system, on different 5" and respectively 25" screens will be perceived as different in "smoothness" even if pixel count is similar.
How fast can you scroll a page on the new iPhone? Let me guess: Safari still limits scroll speed.
Of course no OS or iPhone has instantaneous loading of everything. But it's noticeably smoother on the iPhone 7 Plus. Next to an iPhone 6 Plus or a Note 5 for that matter, the difference in lag would be obvious. I can even see it with a 6s vs a 7 Plus. However, it doesn't really bother me on a 6s, but did on a 6 Plus. And I'm not alone:No iPhone is lag free, or else iOS would drop loading screens and redundant animations altogether.
Oh I see. To give the A10 credit though, that heat mostly isn't being generated by the SoC then. It seems accessing the storage (which is comparatively a low compute requirement for A10 generates a lot more heat than the CPU itself running benches.My comparison was when it was downloading music. Have to use that 256GB. It's gets so hot that the Geekbench result is close to 1200. Then I dropped in ice water and ran again. I got 3600.
The AnandTech forums have an up/down arrow icon in the bottom right corner. If you tap the down arrow it scrolls to the bottom. If you tap the up arrow it scrolls to the top (much like when you tap the space above the URL in Safari). No pauses.Also yes I think iOS scroll speed is limited but in a useable way. Some phones will let you flick right to the bottom or top. You can't get any real movement with a flick in iOS. You have to almost drag it all the way.
Woah, that Intel modem is 34 bucks? Where do they get the number from? If that were the case, if Apple sells just 50M Intel modems, Intel would get $1.7B in revenues. Surely such a number would be too big to go unnoticed in their earnings forecasts.
The foundry will have volume production of its 10nm process before the end of the year and be ready to take orders for its 7nm process by April, said Sun.
Yields for 256 Mbit SRAMs at 7nm are two months ahead of plan with risk production starting in the first quarter of 2017, said Sun.
TSMC's 10nm node is completely unclear to me. Here he says 0.5x scaling, before we heard 0.52x and we've also heard 2.1x already. Note that this 50% is compared to 16nm+, not 16FFC.The 10nm process provides a 50% die scaling and 50% speed gain or 40% power reduction over 16FF+ and provides “the highest density in the industry today in contact pitch,” said Sun.
Only 1.63x scaling and then they call it a full node shrink to 7nm, lol. Intel will at 10nm really gain a 1 node advantage, let alone at 7nm.Compared to 10nm, TSMC’s 7nm node delivers 15-20% more speed or 35-40% less power consumption and a 1.63x better routed gate density, said Sun. An ARM Cortex-A72 core in the 7nm process could deliver 30% more performance or 56% less power consumption than in 16FFC, said Hou.
30% ST? Then it would approach 3GHz and Intel mobile i7s.If they get 30-40% better ST than A9X (same perf advantage than A9->A9X, A9->A10)It's going to be a beast
What I don't understand though, is why Intel doesn't go with short cells for their Core m. This shows that Intel does not take ultramobile serious. Apple A10 has now 2x as much transistors, or so?
But I'm not convinced by the Fool article. New process could also mean 16FFC.
Given TSMC's timeline, A10X might still be a year away. By then, they will probably call it A11X, so that solves the naming problem. Apple has skipped Xs before.
Alright, my mistake. I misread a few things. I look forward to TSMC's 10nm and Apple's A10X or A11X or however it will be called.16FFC is not a new process. It's a subset of 16FF+.
These iPads have much more area to dissipate heat and a much larger battery. I'm sure it could boost up pretty high and stay low so they can advertise high battery life.