Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

comparedial.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 509 posts

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#241

Post by bee_rider »

konart wrote: post #25
gbil wrote: post #15

I like my slower android in which I can run my browser engine of choice, install any program I want in an easy way without time limitations and customize it in general as I want. Did I mention that it has a USB-C connector too? Disclaimer: I have an old iphone, used iphone 11 for weeks then went back to Android and I daily drive a M1 Pro Macbook

> in which I can run my browser engine of choice Soon on iOS too, to be fair. USB-C to follow most likely.

Hopefully they’ll at least keep a couple models around with lightning, I don’t want to re-buy my dongles and parse things like USB-C 3.2 Gen 1x2 vs USB-C 3.2 Gen 2 (and does it have thunderbolt).

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#242

Post by oriolid »

jcelerier wrote: post #163
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #10

I guess my question is - why do I care about geekbench? When was the last time someone who doesn't play games on their phone thought "man, I wish this was faster"? Because it's been years for me. The good news I hear is that Samsung is finally improving their battery life. That is a score that I actually care about.

> When was the last time someone who doesn't play games on their phone thought "man, I wish this was faster"? Because it's been years for me. for me it's literally every day. frames missed, jittery animations everywhere on top-of-the line phones, this drives me completely mad. On devices with gigahertz multicore CPUs, gigabytes of RAM and fast flash memory, absolutely everything local should be 100% instant

It's not about CPU power, it's about software. Just putting a mutex in the wrong place or doing serious computation in UI thread will get you jitters, no matter how fast your CPU is. People do smooth screen updates on Commodore 64s and real time audio on things that are basically microcontrollers.

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#243

Post by causi »

yumraj wrote: post #19

The one, and only benchmark, I care about is battery longevity. Not how long battery lasts before needing charge, but how many years it lasts before dropping to say 80% of original capacity that it needs to be replaced or the phone needs to be updated. Most, if not all, modern phones are performant enough that I won’t need to update for a long time, if not for the battery issues. At least for my use case.

Battery longevity is much less a concern for me these days with fast charging. My phone dropping from being 70% when I plug it in to 30% would only increase my time on the charger by a few minutes since it charges so much faster at low percentages.

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#244

Post by CharlesW »

t8sr wrote: post #162

Everyone in this thread is arguing about operating systems and their mobile OS preference... why? The interesting point here, which is corroborated by different sources than just TFA, is that Apple's silicon is 1-2 generations ahead of everyone else. Whether you like iPhone or Android, I think we should all agree that's a bad situation for the world to be in. Apple's advantage in mobile CPUs is coming at a time when…

> Whether you like iPhone or Android, I think we should all agree that's a bad situation for the world to be in.

Is it? Qualcomm is currently focused on performance in a way that they wouldn't be if Apple hadn't lit a fire under their ass.

https://hothardware.com/news/snapdragon-8-gen-3-decimates-ap...

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#245

Post by twism »

ccouzens wrote: post #33
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #10

I guess my question is - why do I care about geekbench? When was the last time someone who doesn't play games on their phone thought "man, I wish this was faster"? Because it's been years for me. The good news I hear is that Samsung is finally improving their battery life. That is a score that I actually care about.

It's worth caring about, but only as one data point amongst many. For example I might consider: 1. Does it run Android? 2. Physically size- does it come in not obnoxiously large? 3. Does it support NFC payments? (surprisingly this still isn't a given) 4. Adequate performance 5. Camera quality 6. Screen quality 7. Battery life 8. Price 9. Community ROM support 10. Community Linux distro support 11. Can it run a deskto…

sounds like a pixel 5 is in your future

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#246

Post by wheats »

luxuryballs wrote: post #236
t8sr wrote: post #162

Everyone in this thread is arguing about operating systems and their mobile OS preference... why? The interesting point here, which is corroborated by different sources than just TFA, is that Apple's silicon is 1-2 generations ahead of everyone else. Whether you like iPhone or Android, I think we should all agree that's a bad situation for the world to be in. Apple's advantage in mobile CPUs is coming at a time when…

I know we are typically against monopolies (pls don’t flame me) but why should we care if it’s not something that’s actually important like food/water/medicine? I don’t see the sense when the government tries to break up a monopoly like Google for being too good at selling online ads, or likewise worrying about some company dominating augmented reality chips. I’d be more interested in making sure that such technology…

>I’d be more interested in making sure that such technology is never required for basic living

Cell phones are a requirement for basic living. That's a large part of why it matters.

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#247

Post by lotsofpulp »

WWLink wrote: post #153
lotsofpulp wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only use an XS, and I cannot notice any slowdown either.

I have an XS and a Galaxy Fold 4. The XS is a LOT slower at some things. But that might reflect more on the app developers than the phone.

It is also me not doing anything other than messaging, safari browsing, reading, watching, and taking pictures/video.

I am sure I would notice something if I were to play games or do something graphical.

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#248

Post by armadsen »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #10

I guess my question is - why do I care about geekbench? When was the last time someone who doesn't play games on their phone thought "man, I wish this was faster"? Because it's been years for me. The good news I hear is that Samsung is finally improving their battery life. That is a score that I actually care about.

I care about it. I work on a video editing app for iOS (we also target Android). Raw CPU and GPU performance has a significant impact on our ability to ship features, not to mention user experience with things like number of simultaneous streams of video, rendering/export time, etc.

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#249

Post by bhc »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #90
rakoo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a big deal if you don't care about the environment. It's about time we forget this wasteful mindset

lithium batteries are easy and profitable to recycle. Yes, something is lost (recycling isn't free), but it isn't going to into a landfill.

Less than 1 percent of Lithium-ion batteries get recycled in the US and EU.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/lithium-costs-a-lot-...

Re: Apple’s 2½ year old iPhone 12 is 6% faster than the new Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

#250

Post by KennyBlanken »

herpderperator wrote: post #51

> However, single-core performance is generally considered more important when it comes to overall speed for everyday usage, as most tasks are unable to scale efficiently across multiple cores. Thank you for acknowledging this. I think few people actually appreciate the need for better single-core performance. It's, in comparison, easy to just add more cores and use more power, but what is hard is making one core fas…

"Few people appreciate it" because it's no longer relevant with modern operating systems and programs for the vast majority of users and applications, which is why in almost every market imaginable, CPUs and SoCs have migrated toward higher core counts.

It takes a special sort of arrogance to look at literally the entire industry and go "psssst, savages don't know what they're doing. Single core performance is where it's at."

Post reply on HN