Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Master KChief on September 12, 2012, 04:13:56 PM

Title: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 12, 2012, 04:13:56 PM
Out on September 21st! Thinnest and lightest iPhone ever. 4 inch Retina display. LTE. Processor double the speed of the previous model. So beautiful. Brings a tear to my eye. :'(

http://www.apple.com/iphone/#video (http://www.apple.com/iphone/#video)
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on September 12, 2012, 04:39:29 PM
While that iPhone doesn't look bad, I'm still quite fond of my Galaxy S3.

It'll be interesting to see which phone comes out on top this time.

For a comparison:   (note, the US version of the S3 runs a 1.5 Ghz dual core, vs the 1 Ghz Quad they put in the iPhone 5)

(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.digitaltrends.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2Fiphone-spec-comparison-samsung-galaxy-s31.jpg&hash=ce266f97b859e45c7a7f7077df846513f1abd698)
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 12, 2012, 05:01:02 PM
For a comparison:   (note, the US version of the S3 runs a 1.5 Ghz dual core, vs the 1 Ghz Quad they put in the iPhone 5)

The A6 specs actually haven't been revealed yet.

There is less than zero percent chance the iPhone won't come out on top again. Apple could tape a ham sandwich to this

(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMgpLV55FiXrD-SBsibOGj7Sv4qMFOSYKq33Lsleb1lFYYh_wvkg)

and people will still buy it.

Samsung also owes Apple a billion dollars. Because Samsung doesn't do much besides imitate and steal patents. :P
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on September 12, 2012, 05:08:15 PM
One major point for the S3 over the iPhone.... SD card memory. I was able to swap out the 16GB card from my old droid when I upgraded.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 12, 2012, 05:19:41 PM
Lol, SD? Wasn't that so last millennium? I can't even remember the last time I have ever needed an SD slot. Who needs SD (portable storage more importantly) when you have 64 GB monster storage built in coupled with iTunes and iCloud? ::)
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on September 12, 2012, 05:25:27 PM
Lol, SD? Wasn't that so last millennium? I can't even remember the last time I have ever needed an SD slot. Who needs SD (portable storage more importantly) when you have 64 GB monster storage built in coupled with iTunes and iCloud? ::)

Galaxy S3 can do 64 GB built in and up to 64 GB on the micro SD cards.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 12, 2012, 05:38:03 PM
The 64 GB version isn't even out yet (hard not to see as another move copying Apple since Samsung creates the processor and memory chips for Apple).

You could have support for a googolplex GB SD card and it still wouldn't matter. Portable storage is on its way out, it's completely obsolete in this day and age.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: STAMP on September 12, 2012, 05:54:36 PM
Exactly.  Here's the interface of the near future:

(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffusionanomaly.net%2Fmatrixcnsunplugged.jpg&hash=fa4b2311f53cdc548eb382b81ef778da4818b34c)

Also, impatiently waiting for my iPhone 5 here at work.   ;)
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: lp670sv on September 12, 2012, 07:25:46 PM
A few things to note here.

Samsung also owes Apple a billion dollars. Because Samsung doesn't do much besides imitate and steal patents. :P

Apple is not only a company that has a documented history of copying others work, but used to be very open and even PROUD of that fact. Apple has stolen hundreds of design and software features of Android, the jailbreaking community, and yes even some from Microsoft. Some of the "innovations" that Apple claimed Samsung stole from it's iPhones are present on earlier devices by other companies that just didn't patent them because HOW CAN YOU PATENT A RECTANGLE WITH ROUNDED EDGES.

Lol, SD? Wasn't that so last millennium? I can't even remember the last time I have ever needed an SD slot. Who needs SD (portable storage more importantly) when you have 64 GB monster storage built in coupled with iTunes and iCloud? ::)

Yeah go ahead, you pay for the extra $200 to get an iphone with 64 gb storage. I'll buy a Galaxy SIII for $200 less than your iphone, buy a 64 GB SD card for $60, and have 86 GB of total storage for 140 bucks less. Android also has Google Drive for their cloud sharing.

The 64 GB version isn't even out yet (hard not to see as another move copying Apple since Samsung creates the processor and memory chips for Apple).

You could have support for a googolplex GB SD card and it still wouldn't matter. Portable storage is on its way out, it's completely obsolete in this day and age.

Wait, what? Read that back to yourself. Samsung is copying apple by using 64 GB when SAMSUNG IS THE ONE THAT MAKES THE 64 MB CHIPS? That doesn't make any logical sense and apple is far from the first company to make a device with 64 GB of flash storage, and they certainly don't own any patents on flash storage technology. How can you say portable storage is on it's way out when your iphone IS a portable storage device? How could portable storage be on it's way out at all? Cloud streaming? not everything in the world has the ability to connect to cellular networks or availability of wifi, cellular networks dont cover every inch of the globe, and why would ANYONE choose streaming something over cellular, and act that costs you money, over having it to use whenever they want extra fee free.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Gabe on September 12, 2012, 07:45:27 PM
Both Apple and Samsung make quality hardware. Whether you use internal, SD or cloud storage is up to your personal preference. The big deal breaker here is the OS.

Android works well at first but it doesn't take long to get buggy, sometimes extremely buggy to the point of completely unusable. I've owned multiple Android devices and all ended up the same - junk.

iOS may have it's built in limitations but it works just as good after months of use as it did when I first got it.

Bottom line - I'll never waste my money on a product running Android again. I'd gladly pay extra to purchase an Apple product that doesn't cause tons of frustration and need replaced after a year or less.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 12, 2012, 09:10:33 PM
Apple is not only a company that has a documented history of copying others work, but used to be very open and even PROUD of that fact. Apple has stolen hundreds of design and software features of Android, the jailbreaking community, and yes even some from Microsoft. Some of the "innovations" that Apple claimed Samsung stole from it's iPhones are present on earlier devices by other companies that just didn't patent them because HOW CAN YOU PATENT A RECTANGLE WITH ROUNDED EDGES.

My statement was more tongue in cheek than anything. And whether it's been proven or not that Apple has stolen ideas from predecessors is neither here or there; at least Apple has the common sense to patent its property and make a free billion bucks off it. ::)

Quote
Yeah go ahead, you pay for the extra $200 to get an iphone with 64 gb storage. I'll buy a Galaxy SIII for $200 less than your iphone, buy a 64 GB SD card for $60, and have 86 GB of total storage for 140 bucks less. Android also has Google Drive for their cloud sharing.

I prefer having more internal storage than messing around with extra accessories for my device that are absolutely useless in 99% of most cases. What's the point when you can just buy more on-board memory if you need it? Save a few extra dollars? Not worth the inconvenience. The iPhone 5 also has a $200 and $300 model.

And let's be realistic, does anyone ever need 86 GB of memory on their phone? I have a 32GB iPhone 4s and barely use over 17GB of it.

Quote
Wait, what? Read that back to yourself. Samsung is copying apple by using 64 GB when SAMSUNG IS THE ONE THAT MAKES THE 64 MB CHIPS? That doesn't make any logical sense and apple is far from the first company to make a device with 64 GB of flash storage, and they certainly don't own any patents on flash storage technology.

I'm not sure how you're making any correlation at all between the fact Samsung makes the 64 GB memory chips and the actual practice of implementing 64 GB of storage in a phone before a competitor. Apple is the first to do it. Samsung follows suit. Samsung salty much?

Quote
How can you say portable storage is on it's way out when your iphone IS a portable storage device?

Lulz no, it's a phone and multi-media device first and foremost. Seriously, who uses their phone as portable storage? Samsung apparently, with their portable storage...uh, for a portable storage device? ::)

Quote
How could portable storage be on it's way out at all? Cloud streaming?

You answered your own question. It's a technology that completely makes portable storage obsolete, and frankly it's quite irrelevant how many people have access to it when we're talking about cellular devices here.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: lp670sv on September 12, 2012, 09:43:29 PM

My statement was more tongue in cheek than anything. And whether it's been proven or not that Apple has stolen ideas from predecessors is neither here or there; at least Apple has the common sense to patent its property and make a free billion bucks off it. ::)


In the world of technology we tend to call patenting other peoples innovations, that they willingly left unpatented so as not to impede progress, being a dork. <-- although that was not a swear word, it did not say dork when i typed it.

I prefer having more internal storage than messing around with extra accessories for my device that are absolutely useless in 99% of most cases. What's the point when you can just buy more on-board memory if you need it? Save a few extra dollars? Not worth the inconvenience. The iPhone 5 also has a $200 and $300 model.

And let's be realistic, does anyone ever need 86 GB of memory on their phone? I have a 32GB iPhone 4s and barely use over 17GB of it.
Yes and the 200 and 300 dolllar models only have 16 and 32 gigs of none upgradable storage respectively. I would hardly call over a hundred dollars "a few extra dollars" How exactly is expanding a phones memory "completely useless"? Should you ever exceed the storage on your phone (which some people do) I don't think you'll find it useless anymore. There is no possible situation in which upgrading your storage size can be a negative, only a positive and one that the iphone lacks.

I'm not sure how you're making any correlation at all between the fact Samsung makes the 64 GB memory chips and the actual practice of implementing 64 GB of storage in a phone before a competitor. Apple is the first to do it. Samsung follows suit. Samsung salty much?

Being the first to implement 64 gbs of memory in a phone is an irrelevant topic to discuss, they didnt invent that technology and they werent the first to implement it. I was the first person in my house to get a laptop, that doesnt mean that everyone else getting one is just copying me by getting one, they had their own driving factors in purchasing one.


Lulz no, it's a phone and multi-media device first and foremost. Seriously, who uses their phone as portable storage? Samsung apparently, with their portable storage...uh, for a portable storage device? ::)
You store 17 gbs of stuff on your iphone by your own admission, your argument is invalid.

You answered your own question. It's a technology that completely makes portable storage obsolete, and frankly it's quite irrelevant how many people have access to it when we're talking about cellular devices here.

its not irrelevant when you are still charged extra money and a lot of it if you go over your monthly data limit. One high definition movie streamed on netflix, by their own estimation, represents one gig of data per hour. Thats half of most major carriers data plans for one hour of a movie. there is no situation in which having that same movie on your phones memory and playing it from there could be anything but a huge benefit.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 12, 2012, 10:11:27 PM
How exactly is expanding a phones memory "completely useless"?

Because it's not necessary in most cases.

Quote
Should you ever exceed the storage on your phone (which some people do) I don't think you'll find it useless anymore.

A limited and rare scenario. Should you exceed, use Cloud. Problem solved.

Quote
There is no possible situation in which upgrading your storage size can be a negative, only a positive and one that the iphone lacks.

There are many bells and whistles you could attach to a phone, but are truly unnecessary in the grand scheme of things. Sure, its a positive to have access to these things, but the practicality of including such a feature is almost null. I will gladly sacrifice minutely 'positive' aspects that can possibly be included in a mobile device for other features that add much more value to the phone.

Quote
Being the first to implement 64 gbs of memory in a phone is an irrelevant topic to discuss,

But it completely is, one of my points has been addressing how Samsung rides on the coattails of Apple. One billion dollars worth of rides.

Quote
they didnt invent that technology and they werent the first to implement it.

Never said Apple invented it. And my point was more specifically addressing who implemented it first between Samsung and Apple, the worlds 2 biggest mobile device companies, if I have to clarify it further for you.

Quote
I was the first person in my house to get a laptop, that doesnt mean that everyone else getting one is just copying me by getting one, they had their own driving factors in purchasing one.

If everyone else in your house were as big a competitor as Apple and Samsung, then maybe your point would have some validity.

Quote
You store 17 gbs of stuff on your iphone by your own admission, your argument is invalid.

That certainly doesn't make it by any means a device built solely for portable storage. All of my content is backed up on iTunes and iCloud, much more appropriate areas for sole storage. You actually haven't addressed my point at all.

Quote
its not irrelevant when you are still charged extra money and a lot of it if you go over your monthly data limit. One high definition movie streamed on netflix, by their own estimation, represents one gig of data per hour. Thats half of most major carriers data plans for one hour of a movie. there is no situation in which having that same movie on your phones memory and playing it from there could be anything but a huge benefit.

So find a carrier that offers unlimited data if you're that much of a dataphile. Problem solved, external storage devices still obsolete.

Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on September 12, 2012, 10:26:34 PM
So find a carrier that offers unlimited data if you're that much of a dataphile. Problem solved, external storage devices still obsolete.

Unlimited Data is vanishing QUICKLY.

Verizon no longer offers it (though I got grandfathered in, woohoo!)

Also, mobile gaming is growing pretty quickly. I bought that NOVA 3 game, and it takes up almost 2GB by itself.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 12, 2012, 10:39:27 PM
So find a carrier that offers unlimited data if you're that much of a dataphile. Problem solved, external storage devices still obsolete.

Unlimited Data is vanishing QUICKLY.

Verizon no longer offers it (though I got grandfathered in, woohoo!)

Both T-Mobile and Sprint still offer unlimited data plans.

Quote
Also, mobile gaming is growing pretty quickly. I bought that NOVA 3 game, and it takes up almost 2GB by itself.

Cloud gaming is also on the rise. OnLive, Agawi, and even the near future Ouya are embracing the future of cloud gaming.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: lp670sv on September 12, 2012, 11:43:33 PM
I dont have time right now for a full response but ill just leave this here

(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net%2Fphoto%2F5349672_460s.jpg&hash=b3eb9052b9a58f7c9c4348eb7d8becfbcb3854bf)
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 13, 2012, 12:32:29 AM
Found a more expansive side-by-side comparison chart:

(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.laptopmag.com%2Fwpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2Fiphone-5-chart-again.jpg&hash=ae38689a66a89cc2e2a06e127bb6d50e9911096f)

NOKIA AND MOTOROLA FANBOYS JOIN THE FIGHT! :D
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: STAMP on September 13, 2012, 11:44:44 AM
Unlimited Data is vanishing QUICKLY.

:rollin:

Do y'all realize how much data is cr@p?!?  LOL!  I'm pretty sure that if I go back and re-read Megatrends, the author did not foresee that the greatest accomplishment of the technological revolution is the selling of a gajillion useless bytes for an exhorbitant price.  ;D
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on September 15, 2012, 12:49:59 PM
Want to know which will come out on top?
Spoiler (hover to show)

Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: STAMP on September 15, 2012, 01:07:34 PM
I just weally hope they fix Siwi.  The voice wecognition was cwappy.  ;)
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Professoralstad on September 15, 2012, 01:32:13 PM
Jimmy Kimmel did a "man on the street" experiment where he had a cameraman and interviewer go out with an iPhone 4s and tell people it was an advance release of the iPhone 5 to see how much it had improved. I can't post it here, as it unfortunately includes an offensive word, but he got a bunch of people, even some iPhone 4s owners, to say how much the iPhone 5 had improved over the previous model.

Not really making a point about anything, I've been just fine with my Android, but I just thought it was funny.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 17, 2012, 03:29:31 AM
Benchmark results (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1030202) are in...iPhone 5's A6 dual-core processor puts it ahead of the Samsung Galaxy S3 quad-core, and all Android-based devices for that matter. Come at me bro.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on September 17, 2012, 09:05:59 AM
Benchmark results (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1030202) are in...iPhone 5's A6 dual-core processor puts it ahead of the Samsung Galaxy S3 quad-core, and all Android-based devices for that matter. Come at me bro.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1038647 (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1038647)

Orly?
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: lp670sv on September 17, 2012, 01:09:09 PM
lol nice try dude.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 17, 2012, 05:27:26 PM
Benchmark results (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1030202) are in...iPhone 5's A6 dual-core processor puts it ahead of the Samsung Galaxy S3 quad-core, and all Android-based devices for that matter. Come at me bro.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1038647 (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1038647)

Orly?

Orly. That is clearly an S3 running Android 4.1, which isn't available for the S3. Nice try, dude. -_-
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on September 17, 2012, 05:49:51 PM
Benchmark results (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1030202) are in...iPhone 5's A6 dual-core processor puts it ahead of the Samsung Galaxy S3 quad-core, and all Android-based devices for that matter. Come at me bro.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1038647 (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1038647)

Orly?

Orly. That is clearly an S3 running Android 4.1, which isn't available for the S3. Nice try, dude. -_-

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/09/android-4-1-jelly-bean-ota-update-leaked-for-t-mobiles-samsung-galaxy-s3-sgh-t999/ (http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/09/android-4-1-jelly-bean-ota-update-leaked-for-t-mobiles-samsung-galaxy-s3-sgh-t999/)

Orly?
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 17, 2012, 05:56:10 PM
I'm really starting to wonder if you even read the link you provided. Some of the keywords and phrases that jumped out to me were:

'leak'

'It’s hard to say if this is the final build that will be released officially, or if this build is unfinished...'

'As always we caution you to proceed with care and make sure you know what you’re doing, lest you end up with a bricked handset and money down the drain.'

Lulz. ::)
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on September 17, 2012, 06:05:03 PM
Quote
'leak'
This means people have it installed on their phones early.

Quote
'It’s hard to say if this is the final build that will be released officially, or if this build is unfinished...'
Simply means it is not officially released, and the version of 4.1 people have access to may not be finished.

Quote
'As always we caution you to proceed with care and make sure you know what you’re doing, lest you end up with a bricked handset and money down the drain.'
Simply a good precaution whenever dealing with early software leaks.

Does the fact that it released early mean it isn't 4.1?


However, i'll play your game:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1043068 (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1043068)

pre-4.1, and still a higher score. Come at me bro.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 17, 2012, 06:28:59 PM
Quote
This means people have it installed on their phones early.
'It' being an unofficial OS? Oh, ok.

Quote
Simply means it is not officially released, and the version of 4.1 people have access to may not be finished.
I'm sorry, but 'unofficial' and 'unfinished' certainly does not make a complete and official Android 4.1 Jellybean.

Quote
Simply a good precaution whenever dealing with early software leaks.
A precaution that warns against an action that can be severely detrimental towards the mobile device. Yes, I TOTALLY want to install unofficial OS's to my mobile device. ::)

Quote
Does the fact that it released early mean it isn't 4.1?
There is no 'it' because it is not an official release. You're dealing with unknown variables and risk.

Quote
However, i'll play your game:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1043068 (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1043068)

pre-4.1, and still a higher score. Come at me bro.
Geekbench individual scores are averaged to produce an actual device score. It's common knowledge the current Samsung Galaxy S III has a benchmark of 1560 (http://www.subarusvx.com/Android-Benchmarks.gif). Let's not try to delude ourselves with isolated incidents. ::)
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on September 17, 2012, 06:34:31 PM
Geekbench individual scores are averaged to produce an actual device score. It's common knowledge the current Samsung Galaxy S III has a benchmark of 1560 (http://www.subarusvx.com/Android-Benchmarks.gif). Let's not try to delude ourselves with isolated incidents. ::)

Okay, lets compare ALL the results at once.  :)

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/chart?q=model%3A%22Samsung+Galaxy+S+III%22+platform%3A%22Android%22+architecture%3AARM+bits%3A32+ (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/chart?q=model%3A%22Samsung+Galaxy+S+III%22+platform%3A%22Android%22+architecture%3AARM+bits%3A32+)

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/chart?q=model%3A%22iPhone5%2C2%22+platform%3A%22iOS%22+architecture%3AARM+bits%3A32+ (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/chart?q=model%3A%22iPhone5%2C2%22+platform%3A%22iOS%22+architecture%3AARM+bits%3A32+)

Man, that's a huge pool of data for the iPhone 5 so far.  ;)
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 17, 2012, 06:52:08 PM
Not exactly sure what you're trying to demonstrate here? ???
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on September 17, 2012, 06:53:14 PM
There's a considerable number of test results for the S3 that are better than the iPhone 5 score.

Also, there are not enough iPhone 5 tests to determine a true average yet. We'll see once more results come in.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 17, 2012, 06:56:24 PM
I hope you -do- realize the S3 chart is also factoring in all the devices that are purportedly using Android 4.1, right? -_-
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on September 17, 2012, 06:59:59 PM
I know, but the top two scores for each column are using 4.0.4

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1040035 (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1040035)
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1037491 (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1037491)

So, it's possible to hit a score that high without 4.1.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 17, 2012, 07:07:45 PM
And as I have already said before, it is a strictly isolated incident and certainly nowhere near indicative of the norm.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Minister Polarius on September 18, 2012, 08:37:57 AM
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fu9CAo.gif&hash=9cf3d69531aa51ef0a800810e01b4ba9a30daeec)
/thread
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: lp670sv on September 18, 2012, 01:16:13 PM
Let's use some common sense here guys, the processor in the iPhone and Galaxy SIII are both ARMv7 processors rather Apple wants to admit that or not. The Samsung version is clocked higher than the iphone version and has 2 more cores. In what ways could the iPhone model beat a processor with the same architecture that had a higher clock speed and more cores?
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 18, 2012, 11:55:05 PM
Because clock speed ultimately doesn't matter, but rather the combination of clock frequency and instructions executed per clock cycle that define single threaded performance. If the chip is more efficient at processing instructions, it adds performance irrespective of clock speed.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: lp670sv on September 19, 2012, 10:27:39 AM
Same architecture = same calculations per cycle.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: STAMP on September 19, 2012, 11:08:00 AM
Tastes great!

Less filling!

Tastes great!

Less filling!
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 19, 2012, 12:00:13 PM
Same architecture = same calculations per cycle.

Clearly not the same architecture, custom core.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: lp670sv on September 19, 2012, 12:18:51 PM
Same architecture = same calculations per cycle.

Clearly not the same architecture, custom core.

It's an ARMv7 processor. Apple can call it whatever they want, it doesn't change the fact it's an ARMv7. Same architecture. Clearly the same architecture.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 19, 2012, 12:28:25 PM
Apple along with the plethora of experts that have identified it as being a custom core. You're just deluding yourself at this point.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: lp670sv on September 19, 2012, 12:43:19 PM
Yes I am the one deluding myself for realizing that an ARMv7 architecture is an ARMv7 architecture, not to mention by taking all of those Galaxy results that are higher than the iphone 5's and actually acknowledging them instead of taking only the lowest score to compare to the iPhone 5's processor.
Title: Re: iPhone 5
Post by: Master KChief on September 19, 2012, 01:08:21 PM
There is no denying both devices use Armv7's. What you are failing to realize and accept is one obviously uses a custom core. Apple knows it (and who wouldn't, they created it), experts know it. There is no use engaging in further conversation with someone that refuses to accept the facts (hmm, they both use Armv7 processors, but one can process instructions better than the other, gee I wonder why? ::)).

not to mention by taking all of those Galaxy results that are higher than the iphone 5's and actually acknowledging them instead of taking only the lowest score to compare to the iPhone 5's processor.

Lolwut? I'm sorry, but who in this thread has deliberately taken the 'lowest scores' of the S3 and compared them against the iPhone 5? The only comparisons that have been made thus far are against the average benchmark of the S3 with the current OS. If you want to go off on another irrelevant tangent, sure, we can possibly acknowledge that the S3 with Jellybean may have higher benchmarks than the iPhone 5. But frankly little if any credit can be given to OS's that aren't even official and commercially available to everyone that can also brick your device.



SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal