Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPhone 11 iPhone 11/Pro/Max 2.66 GHz, 4 GB RAM - Geekbench 4 >14000, Geekbench 5 >3500

MrAperture said:
“But it still has a 720p screen!” 🤷‍♂️😂
Click to expand...
Apple has left me with three options:
  • Get an iPhone with a 720p screen and PPI that is lower than my 4-year-old iPhone 6s Plus.
  • Get an iPhone with a smaller screen and less room for content than my 4-year-old iPhone 6s Plus.
  • $1,250
CPU performance is all well and good, but to this list of choices I still say nope, nope, and nope. On any new Apple device, screen size and quality is of great importance to me.
 
redheeler said:
Apple has left me with three options:
  • Get an iPhone with a 720p screen and PPI that is lower than my 4-year-old iPhone 6s Plus.
  • Get an iPhone with a smaller screen and less room for content than my 4-year-old iPhone 6s Plus.
  • $1,250
CPU performance is all well and good, but to this list of choices I still say nope, nope, and nope. Screen size and quality is of importance to me.
Click to expand...
That's why I didn't get anything for myself last year.

Didn't want to get the XR for myself because of the lower pixel density. I notice it and it sometimes bugs me. The 128 GB XR was a good upgrade for my wife though, as she was coming from the 6s.

Didn't want the XS which is not only smaller with less room, but also doesn't support Zoomed Display mode in case I needed it.

Didn't want to pay 56% more than the XR to get an XS Max that was over 64 GB.

I'm hoping the 2020 6.7" model starts at 128 GB. I'm hanging onto my 7 Plus until then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blackberrycubed and redheeler
Let’s hope next year Apple upgrades the Xr/11 to a higher res display. But I get the feeling that Apple is now on a 3-4 year body cycle for phones now so who knows how long they will keep using that body.
 
MrAperture said:
Let’s hope next year Apple upgrades the Xr/11 to a higher res display. But I get the feeling that Apple is now on a 3-4 year body cycle for phones now so who knows how long they will keep using that body.
Click to expand...
New bodies next year is what the supply chain analysts are saying, and that includes OLED for all three models.
 
Everyone wants more ram and don't know why. It's like someone with a 1,000HP drag racer getting taken by a 550 HP Ford GT or a 460HP Tesla. It's not just about numbers but how it's tuned and how you get that power to the ground. The iPhone isn't just a chip, it isn't just software, it isn't just ram GB numbers. It's a combination of these fine tuned for each other for the best performance. How the iPhone with iOS handles memory usage is different than others. If there was a benefit to having more then you'd have it and Apple would just throw some higher price out there for those that needed it. Believe it or not there are disadvantages to too much memory. Power draw is a big one. Think complete package and not just one stat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: First Post G, aFlockaCgulz and spooky23
FlyingTexan said:
Everyone wants more ram and don't know why. It's like someone with a 1,000HP drag racer getting taken by a 550 HP Ford GT or a 460HP Tesla. It's not just about numbers but how it's tuned and how you get that power to the ground. The iPhone isn't just a chip, it isn't just software, it isn't just ram GB numbers. It's a combination of these fine tuned for each other for the best performance. How the iPhone with iOS handles memory usage is different than others. If there was a benefit to having more then you'd have it and Apple would just throw some higher price out there for those that needed it.
Click to expand...

There are iOS games that require 3GB of RAM. If you want to game and run other apps, and not feel like using an iPhone 6, you need more RAM. No matter how well iOS manages memory, apps are growing.

FlyingTexan said:
Believe it or not there are disadvantages to too much memory. Power draw is a big one. Think complete package and not just one stat.
Click to expand...

No. Because LPDDR4 supports partial array refresh. Power gating turns off unused portions of the DRAM PHY. The power draw argument is an old wives tale that fools only the uninformed.
 
iFixit teardown:


However, they haven’t done the full chip ID yet.

327B9E19-0066-4F75-8524-12C31BFCB374.png
 
Hopefully some info about the chip will come. Still not sure how they will even detect any dedicated RAM but let’s see.
 
Tsepz said:
They really are taking their sweet time
They are going to make us wait until the very end to give the RAM details, they probably saw this thread, lol
Click to expand...

They probably have engineers studying the parts.

What makes iFixit different is they have knowledable people identifying and commenting rather than straight up raw photos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrAperture and Tsepz
JPack said:
They probably have engineers studying the parts.

What makes iFixit different is they have knowledable people identifying and commenting rather than straight up raw photos.
Click to expand...

I was just kidding

Considering how meticulous they are, I have no doubt they are experts. Pretty sure the big publications are also keeping a close eye on this to ensure they break the news first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JPack
kQdi34sDqMuUhkJl.huge


Apple APL1W85 A13 Bionic SoC layered over SK Hynix H9HKNNNCRMMVDR-NEH LPDDR4X
Apple APL1092 343S00355 N018K600AL 01930
Cirrus Logic 338S00509 audio codec
Unmarked USI package—possible candidate for the U1 ultra-wideband chip, but don't quote us on that quite yet ;)
Avago 8100 Mid/High band PAMiD
Skyworks 78221-17 low-band PAMiD
STMicrolectronics STB601A0N power management IC
USI 339S00648 80753109
Intel X927YD2Q modem
Intel 5765 P10 A15 08B13 H1925
Skyworks 78223-17 PAM
81013 - Qorvo Envelope Tracking
Skyworks 13797-19 5648169 1927 MX
Intel 6840 P10 409 H1924
Toshiba TSB 4226VE9461CMNA1 1927 flash storage
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrAperture
EugW said:
So I am crazy and skimmed through all 114 Geekbench entries (98 GB5, 16 GB4) now in the database.

1. All are 4 GB. However, iPhone 11 is 3844 MB, iPhone 11 Pro is 3759 MB, and iPhone 11 Pro Max is 3740 MB. Is this because of the RAM allocated to graphics? iPhone 11 would need the least RAM, iPhone 11 Pro would be in the middle, and iPhone 11 Pro Max would need the most.

2. Most of the entries are 2.66 GHz. However, two entries are for 1.86 GHz. I did some quick calculations and I'm wondering if the actual clock speed is not 2.65 GHz but in fact is 2.6666... GHz. If that 1.86 is actually 1.8666..., then that is EXACTLY 70% of full clockspeed. So I wonder if it's low power mode, which in this case cuts 30% off the clock speed.

3. At 1.86 GHz, the score is 783 / 1560 for Geekbench 5. That 30% number I quoted above doesn't make sense here in terms of performance, since that's only about half of expected performance. What could account for this? Is there a different mix of performance vs. efficiency cores at play here? Note that for 1.86 GHz, it still lists 1 processor with 6 cores like it does at 2.66 GHz, but at 1.86 Hz, the multi-core vs. single-core multiplier is 2:1. At 2.66 GHz, the multiplier is more like 2.6 or so.

4. There is indeed much variation in scores. Some of the worst scores include both the 11 and the Pros, and some of the best scores include both the 11 and the Pros. So, performance is not linked to model. The comparatively crappy scores we saw early on for iPhone 11 were most likely just because of variation in this benchmark, +/- throttling.

5. Most of the variation in scores has to do with multi-core. Single-core performance is mostly consistent, but the multi-core ranges much more from about 2200 to about 3550. I wonder if throttling is involved here, since presumably throttling would affect multi-core performance more than single-core, because of the higher heat generated from multi-core.
Click to expand...
I was reading this AnandTech analysis of A12. It indicates the clock speeds are 2.5 GHz and 1.587 GHz.

Similarly, it makes sense that there are two sets of clock speeds for A13 that run at 2.66 GHz and 1.86 GHz.

Also, for A12 the cache sizes are as follows:

Screen Shot 2019-09-20 at 9.46.54 PM.png


I wonder what the true cache sizes are for A13. Geekbench falls down here, since the developer says it isn't good at reporting cache sizes. Interestingly, in Geekbench 5, they just stopped reporting cache sizes altogether.

As for memory, I hope the 6 GB nonsense is FINALLY put to rest completely. I still find it strange that so many people were willing to take Vodafone's database entry for example as gospel, especially since we already know that carriers have a habit of having incorrect specifications.

BTW, I have continued to peruse some of the Geekbench scores, and it remains consistent for RAM.

iPhone12,5 is always 3740 MB.
iPhone12,3 is always 3759 MB.
iPhone12,1 is always 3844 MB.

I'm no engineer, but it does stand to reason that the differences are due to the different resolutions they're driving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back