Why are Android benchmarks so much higher than iPhone benchmarks?

[Kgor93]

I'm hoping this doesn't turn into an iPhone bashing thread as I'm honestly curious. I like iPhone and Android (albeit in different ways) and am hoping for honest answers.

Anyway, I was looking at phone benchmarks of Android and iPhone on Geekbench (Link1) (Link2) and one thing that I noticed was how significantly higher Android benchmarks were VS their iPhone competitor. Many were even double the 4S, which is surprising because while they might surpass the performance of the 4S, I don't think the Galaxy S3 for example has double the performance. Does anyone know what to make of these benchmarks?

I mean, the Ax processors are Qualcomm S3 based, so shouldn't they be more comparable to Android processors, or are processors like the S4 really that far ahead in performance? Just wondering if maybe the OS has something to do with it...

 

[b_randon14]

Well the iPhone 4s has a dual core clocked at 800mhz while the s3 has a quadcore clocked at almost double the frequency. Plus the technology is better in the s3 processor as I believe they use 28nm technology, meaning more transistors per CPU chip meaning faster throughput. So with more cores clocked at higher frequencies with more transistors per core, you get much more operations per second.

However CPU benchmarks are not the best indicator of real phone performance. You have things like input/output speed, ram speed and amount of ram to consider. Also how effecient the operating system is at processing code matters alot. I would not say an iPhone is more efficient as far as processing power is concerned, but they do tend to work quite well. But they are also less capable in terms of features, simpler if you will. But as far as raw number crunching processing power, yes I would say the s3 is double what the iPhone 4s does!

 

[350X]

IVe lost faith in benchmarks, real test is download a nice hi end game and run it. you'll know quick.

 

[Kgor93]

Interesting.

I believe that Android spec are indeed higher than their iPhone counter parts. iOS devices are much more efficient than Android, and hence it doesn't require as much CPU power to keep up with its performance.

Keep in mind that iPhone 4s is an 'old' product in consumer electronics terms. So their performance is actually on par with the last generation of Android devices, such as SII, Sensation, etc.

Is Google working at all to make their devices more efficient? I know Jelly Bean helped some with that but it seems like they still have a ways to go to catch up with iOS.

Should they catch with iOS in terms of efficiency, they could potentially overtake the OS and/or force both themselves and Apple to be more competitive.

 

[chanchan05]

Benchmarks measure raw hardware performance, and well, a 4S has a dual core A5 800mhz, an S3 has a quadcore 1.2ghz A9. That basically answers the question. Doesn't always translate to real life difference though.

 

[jerofld]

This is basically like the PC vs Mac comparisons. If you look at raw computing power, PCs simply outpace the Mac versions. However, most PCs run Windows. Love it or hate it, Windows has to be big enough to support various forms of hardware in various configurations. It makes it bulky. Where OS X is streamlined to work with just a few different configurations. Which, pretty much, levels the playing field.

It's why when the Xbox 360 and PS3 came out, PC gamers scoffed at their specs. Because the specs on a 360 or PS3 is rather low (smartphones are now more powerful than a 360/PS3). However, when games are coded specifically for their hardware setup, you can make some really good looking games that are silky smooth.

 

[chanchan05]

This is basically like the PC vs Mac comparisons. If you look at raw computing power, PCs simply outpace the Mac versions. However, most PCs run Windows. Love it or hate it, Windows has to be big enough to support various forms of hardware in various configurations. It makes it bulky. Where OS X is streamlined to work with just a few different configurations. Which, pretty much, levels the playing field.

It's why when the Xbox 360 and PS3 came out, PC gamers scoffed at their specs. Because the specs on a 360 or PS3 is rather low (smartphones are now more powerful than a 360/PS3). However, when games are coded specifically for their hardware setup, you can make some really good looking games that are silky smooth.

I think saying smartphones are more powerful than a PS3 is a bit of a mistake here, as a dual core A9 chipset can't even beat a single core Atom chipset, and AFAIK, the chipset of a PS3 has greater graphics rendering ability than the standard single core Atom chipset. At least this is based on my current knowledge and I am far from being an expert.

 

[jerofld]

I think saying smartphones are more powerful than a PS3 is a bit of a mistake here, as a dual core A9 chipset can't even beat a single core Atom chipset, and AFAIK, the chipset of a PS3 has greater graphics rendering ability than the standard single core Atom chipset. At least this is based on my current knowledge and I am far from being an expert.

You may be correct and I may have overstated it. My apologies, I was going off of stats I remembered when deciding between the 360 and PS3 and what phones have now. Throughput isn't necessarily MHz dependent.