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

441–450 of 509 posts

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

#441

Post by kaba0 »

rakoo wrote: post #384
warkdarrior wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So getting the battery replaced is not environmentally friendly?? What is the environmental option then?

Shopping for a phone with a better battery life out of the box, before you need to change it. I think that's what the GP wanted to say.

Show me any lithium battery-powered device that would last longer. They are all in the same ballpark and this is simply inherent in the way this tech works. Once another battery type surfaces in mobiles this might change, but still then you won’t get any meaningful differences as there is no order of magnitude difference between even the best and worst phones in power consumption and battery capacity.

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

#442

Post by kaba0 »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #250
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…

No longer relevant, wtf?

It’s just that not much improvement can be done in single thread performance anymore and it is much more easier to design and market “n times as many cores” then “we bumped single threaded performance by 0.2%”. Mind you, almost every single application you have will ultimately depend on single threaded performance, relatively few problems can even theoretically make use of multiple cores, let alone are programmed to do so. Sure, multiple single-threaded process will like more available cores, but it is more limited on mobile devices, where few very fast cores and more slower ones are the norm.

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

#443

Post by kaba0 »

dzikimarian wrote: post #168
metalliqaz wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why buy a Pixel only to replace the OS? Pixels are basically minimum viable hardware to deliver Google software. Without the Google software, its just a mid-range phone at high-end prices.

That's just plain not true. It's at least $100 below market average and performance is great. Not mentioning camera which is easily one of the best on the market, if not the best one.

Do you get the same camera experience with Graphene installed as with vanilla software?

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

#444

Post by kaba0 »

metalliqaz wrote: post #92
jacooper wrote: post #30

At this point I really don't care about what is the latest and greatest in phones They are all the same at this point, we are way past when Specs actually mattered(outside of JS performance on mobile, thank you Snapdragon!), they are just too small for anything useful, at least for me personally. I just buy a pixel and install GrapheneOS/CalyxOS on it, and call it a day. Its a phone that works, and I can relatively t…

Why buy a Pixel only to replace the OS? Pixels are basically minimum viable hardware to deliver Google software. Without the Google software, its just a mid-range phone at high-end prices.

Pixels are one of the few Android phones that actually have some decent security features in hardware (that’s why they are the only supported grapheneOS targets).

Nonetheless, iPhones are also great from a security perspective out of the box, and the hardware is superior so I just couldn’t switch to a pixel, even though I wanted to at every version. They are unfortunately simply riddled with some stupid mistakes, like that emergency call one.

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

#445

Post by kaba0 »

yamtaddle wrote: post #20
picture wrote: post #13

Does benchmark results really matter that much for phones? I don't see myself compiling code, playing graphics intensive video games, multitasking with many engineering software running simultaneously, on a phone. Although Apple most definitely still leads on these factors, I think battery life, general latency/responsiveness of doing daily tasks, reliability, etc, are more important than some random coremark.

Battery life (especially idle battery life) and feeling responsive are all I care about. iOS devices have usually done far better on those fronts while having smaller batteries and weaker hardware compared with Android devices, so, yeah, super don't care about it benchmarking as faster than an Android device. Can I still put it on my nightstand at 10pm with 15% battery and have my alarm go off at 8AM with 8-9% charge…

Since when does ios devices have weaker hardware (besides lower RAM)? Even as per the article, years old, low-end iphones easily beat out flagship android devices CPU-wise, to the point it is not even funny. Apple is just generations ahead in CPU design.

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

#446

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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…

Another tangential but related one is core architectural decisions made early on.

Apple wanted to build apps using web technology, but realized it was nowhere near fast enough. So they reused parts of the OSX toolkit, including the programming language which compiles down to optimized assembly. (and it wasn't even that great in performance due to obj-c's way of doing things, it had more runtime overhead due to the message passing system).

Meanwhile, Android always was on Java and the JVM, which, while pretty fast, isn't as fast or energy-efficient as a lower level language. If I recall correctly it took something like five years - and quadcore CPUs - before Android started to get close to iOS in terms of perceived performance and speed, and the iPhone still beat Android phones in terms of energy efficiency. It took even longer than that (again, if I recall correctly) for the iphone to even start having a dual-core CPU.

And Apple is doing it again with their own CPUs now, the energy efficiency of their new macbooks with no compromise on performance is really impressive.

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

#447

Post by Cthulhu_ »

picture wrote: post #13

Does benchmark results really matter that much for phones? I don't see myself compiling code, playing graphics intensive video games, multitasking with many engineering software running simultaneously, on a phone. Although Apple most definitely still leads on these factors, I think battery life, general latency/responsiveness of doing daily tasks, reliability, etc, are more important than some random coremark.

> Does benchmark results really matter that much for phones?

I would say no, but they are a means to compare raw performance between phones.

Which isn't the best metric, but it's one of them. I mean at some point, Samsung was caught fudging the numbers, overclocking or disabling thermal / power saving options when it detected a benchmark app running.

So for their customers, or customers comparing phones, benchmark results do matter, to the point where it became a marketing tool. I don't think that's the case anymore though.

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

#448

Post by Cthulhu_ »

epolanski wrote: post #367
satvikpendem wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people (especially in the third world) use their phone as their primary computer and gaming device.

Yes, and they're better off spending 200€ for a phone and whatever remains for a gaming device and computer rather than caring what 1200$ phone do.

Today's $1200 phone is tomorrow's $200 phone, both in terms of the secondhand market and advancements / price reductions over time.

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

#449

Post by sdflhasjd »

slaw wrote: post #436
sdflhasjd wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Update the AirTag firmware. What if it's not my AirTag?

If not your AirTag follows you, you'll get message informing you that someone is tracking you.

I was mostly thinking about my neighbours having airbags in their own homes.

There's an iPhone that I only use for dev, and it surprises me at how bad it keeps charge when it's basically not in use, whereas my old S8 has far better standby time.

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

#450

Post by pharmakom »

kaba0 wrote: post #421
powersnail wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You care about single-core performance when you use the web: Theoretically, I would care. But in practice, I just took out an old budget android phone, gave it a go at browsing the web (news, images, and videos), and it seemed not to be noticeably slower than my much newer and pricier iPhone. Benchmarks would probably show a great difference between the two, but my eyes can't tell.

Let’s check back a few years later, how will that phone stand up. More powerful hardware is also future-proofing the devices, which apple actually care about. Hopefully this will change as now even Samsung promises some 5 years of software updates, but previously you could almost throw out a perfectly fine android phone 2 years later..

Why do phones get slower at the same tasks over time? Maybe our perceptions change?
Post reply on HN