3 ms·

For comparison, iPhone 5's score of 1601 is better than: • 2004 Power Mac G5 - 1571 • Samsung Galaxy S III - 1560 • Asus Nexus 7 - 1591 • iPad (3rd Generati

For comparison, iPhone 5's score of 1601 is better than: • 2004 Power Mac G5 - 1571 • Samsung Galaxy S III - 1560 • Asus Nexus 7 - 1591 • iPad (3rd Generation) - 766 • iPhone 4S - 629

mtgx 14y ago
It seems a good chunk of that is not coming from the processor itself, but from other stuff like how fast is the memory, the storage, etc. So it might not have a better processor than Galaxy S3 or Nexus 7, but it may have slightly better storage and RAM memory.
- kami8845 14y ago
  If you compare the stats under "Integer Performance", things like "Blowfish" and "Text Compress" the iPhone 5 is consistently twice as fast as the 4S. http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1031824 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1031824 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1030202 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1030202
- huxley 14y ago
  Anandtech is reporting that the iPhone 5 is using dual-channel 32bit LPDDR2 running at 1066MHz, about 33% more peak memory bandwidth than the iPhone 4s. http://www.anandtech.com/show/6297/iphone-5-memory-size-and-speed-revealed-1gb-lpddr21066 http://www.anandtech.com/show/6297/iphone-5-memory-size-and-...
ewolf 14y ago
The score of 629 for the iPhone 4S and 766 for the iPad is "calibrated against a baseline score of 1,000 (which is the score of a single-processor Power Mac G5 @ 1.6GHz)" (see http://browser.primatelabs.com/ios-benchmarks http://browser.primatelabs.com/ios-benchmarks) — not that big a difference, thus.
TwoBit 14y ago
Those numbers are barely better than the SIII and Nexus. I would have expected more, given that Androids much faster than these are coming out any day now.
- napierzaza 14y ago
  You make big promises, are you in manufacturing or are you making the assumption they will? What next, you are betting there might be a new iPhone next year so why bother?
- objclxt 14y ago
  You need to remember the iPhone 5 uses a different architecture (armv7s) that Geekbench currently isn't compiled for. It's highly likely there wil be a number of optimisations to be had from moving between armv7 to armv7s, so the benchmark score for the iPhone 5 is highly likely to increase once the binaries are re-made.
- sxcurry 14y ago
  I'm always surprised how many shipping Apple products are beaten in benchmarks by about-to-be-maybe-shipped-but-don't-yet-exist products from competitors. You think they'd do better than that!
  - TwoBit 14y ago
    lol, you have a point. Except I'm talking about within four weeks, such as the Krait Snapdragon Pro phones.
    - pooriaazimi 14y ago
      How many of them are planned to be sold? Are manufactures able to make 100 million of them for iPhone 5 in the next 12 months?
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    The reason that there is only one iPhone release a year. So it better be much faster than the competition at release so as not to get totally whopped 4 to 6 months down the line. iPhone 4S sales started softening in the 3rd quarter itself instead of the usual 4th quarter before the new iPhone comes out.
kamechan 14y ago
the numbers are all over the place. would be nice if they also did an average score among all the phones with the same name. here's a Galaxy S3 score better than the iPhone5: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1026099 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1026099 and here's one showing the One X beating the iPhone 5: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/989732 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/989732 of course there are lower ones as well. probably depends a lot on the ROM you're using.
- mbell 14y ago
  > the numbers are all over the place. would be nice if they also did an average score among all the phones with the same name. They do: http://browser.primatelabs.com/android-benchmarks http://browser.primatelabs.com/android-benchmarks That said the data is pretty useless for many Android phones. For example the international S3 has a quad-core A9 based SoC while the US S3 has a dual-core krait based SoC. Also consider that both overclocking and underclocking is quite common amongst the android crowd that bother running geekbench. The average across a product name is actually a really poor metic to use here. Well, geekbench scores in general are a really poor metric to use...
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - jfpoole 14y ago
    The results on the chart aren't averaged by name; they're averaged by name, by processor, and by processor frequency. We're aware that many Android devices with the same name use different processors, and of the fact that many Android devices are both over- and under-clocked by enthusiasts. Sorry if this wasn't clear from the preamble on the chart; I'll have to update it.
    - mbell 14y ago
      I'm confused then. The US S3 with the dual-core krait SoC doesn't appear on the list at all but searching for the S3 shows results for a 2 core version, strangely a 3 core version, and the dual-core version doesn't have the expected clock speed of the krait cpu (1.5ghz). Are these just the quad-core model with cores disabled or something? If so are they included in the average? They appear to be based on a cursory look through the data as 4 core @ 1.4 seems to mostly score 1700-1900 but the displayed average is obviously much lower. I also don't get the One X results. Its like a 50/50 split of scores of ~1500 or ~600 and the difference seems to be android 4.0.4 vs 4.0.3. No idea what the difference was but almost tripling the score on a minor OS version seems odd. Sorry but I'm still saying the results here aren't very useful, there is far too much variation in these tests to assign any significance to them.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

For comparison, iPhone 5's score of 1601 is better than: • 2004 Power Mac G5 - 1571 • Samsung Galaxy S III - 1560 • Asus Nexus 7 - 1591 • iPad (3rd Generation) - 766 • iPhone 4S - 629

mtgx 14y ago

It seems a good chunk of that is not coming from the processor itself, but from other stuff like how fast is the memory, the storage, etc. So it might not have a better processor than Galaxy S3 or Nexus 7, but it may have slightly better storage and RAM memory.

kami8845 14y ago
If you compare the stats under "Integer Performance", things like "Blowfish" and "Text Compress" the iPhone 5 is consistently twice as fast as the 4S. http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1031824 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1031824 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1030202 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1030202
huxley 14y ago
Anandtech is reporting that the iPhone 5 is using dual-channel 32bit LPDDR2 running at 1066MHz, about 33% more peak memory bandwidth than the iPhone 4s. http://www.anandtech.com/show/6297/iphone-5-memory-size-and-speed-revealed-1gb-lpddr21066 http://www.anandtech.com/show/6297/iphone-5-memory-size-and-...

ewolf 14y ago

The score of 629 for the iPhone 4S and 766 for the iPad is "calibrated against a baseline score of 1,000 (which is the score of a single-processor Power Mac G5 @ 1.6GHz)" (see http://browser.primatelabs.com/ios-benchmarks http://browser.primatelabs.com/ios-benchmarks) — not that big a difference, thus.

TwoBit 14y ago

Those numbers are barely better than the SIII and Nexus. I would have expected more, given that Androids much faster than these are coming out any day now.

napierzaza 14y ago
You make big promises, are you in manufacturing or are you making the assumption they will? What next, you are betting there might be a new iPhone next year so why bother?
objclxt 14y ago
You need to remember the iPhone 5 uses a different architecture (armv7s) that Geekbench currently isn't compiled for. It's highly likely there wil be a number of optimisations to be had from moving between armv7 to armv7s, so the benchmark score for the iPhone 5 is highly likely to increase once the binaries are re-made.
sxcurry 14y ago
I'm always surprised how many shipping Apple products are beaten in benchmarks by about-to-be-maybe-shipped-but-don't-yet-exist products from competitors. You think they'd do better than that!
- TwoBit 14y ago
  lol, you have a point. Except I'm talking about within four weeks, such as the Krait Snapdragon Pro phones.
  - pooriaazimi 14y ago
    How many of them are planned to be sold? Are manufactures able to make 100 million of them for iPhone 5 in the next 12 months?
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  The reason that there is only one iPhone release a year. So it better be much faster than the competition at release so as not to get totally whopped 4 to 6 months down the line. iPhone 4S sales started softening in the 3rd quarter itself instead of the usual 4th quarter before the new iPhone comes out.

kamechan 14y ago

the numbers are all over the place. would be nice if they also did an average score among all the phones with the same name. here's a Galaxy S3 score better than the iPhone5: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1026099 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1026099 and here's one showing the One X beating the iPhone 5: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/989732 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/989732 of course there are lower ones as well. probably depends a lot on the ROM you're using.

mbell 14y ago
> the numbers are all over the place. would be nice if they also did an average score among all the phones with the same name. They do: http://browser.primatelabs.com/android-benchmarks http://browser.primatelabs.com/android-benchmarks That said the data is pretty useless for many Android phones. For example the international S3 has a quad-core A9 based SoC while the US S3 has a dual-core krait based SoC. Also consider that both overclocking and underclocking is quite common amongst the android crowd that bother running geekbench. The average across a product name is actually a really poor metic to use here. Well, geekbench scores in general are a really poor metric to use...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jfpoole 14y ago
  The results on the chart aren't averaged by name; they're averaged by name, by processor, and by processor frequency. We're aware that many Android devices with the same name use different processors, and of the fact that many Android devices are both over- and under-clocked by enthusiasts. Sorry if this wasn't clear from the preamble on the chart; I'll have to update it.
  - mbell 14y ago
    I'm confused then. The US S3 with the dual-core krait SoC doesn't appear on the list at all but searching for the S3 shows results for a 2 core version, strangely a 3 core version, and the dual-core version doesn't have the expected clock speed of the krait cpu (1.5ghz). Are these just the quad-core model with cores disabled or something? If so are they included in the average? They appear to be based on a cursory look through the data as 4 core @ 1.4 seems to mostly score 1700-1900 but the displayed average is obviously much lower. I also don't get the One X results. Its like a 50/50 split of scores of ~1500 or ~600 and the difference seems to be android 4.0.4 vs 4.0.3. No idea what the difference was but almost tripling the score on a minor OS version seems odd. Sorry but I'm still saying the results here aren't very useful, there is far too much variation in these tests to assign any significance to them.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]