Reduce motion on still takes more time than what S7/Android does and affects other areas of the OS negatively such as the application switcher.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone 6S Plus Destroys Galaxy S7 In Speed Test
- Thread starter willmtaylor
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Reduce motion on still takes more time than what S7/Android does and affects other areas of the OS negatively such as the application switcher.
what i got from it is they're both pretty capable phones. 
also calling "victories" in some of these videos based on network load times is suspect; there are external factors at play in those cases.
i do think the original video at least demonstrates iOS has pretty good ram management, though.
also calling "victories" in some of these videos based on network load times is suspect; there are external factors at play in those cases.i do think the original video at least demonstrates iOS has pretty good ram management, though.
A few months ago my iPhone 6 went through the washing machine. I ended up with an LG G4 (what a screen!). I returned it today due to the potential of its now infamous bootloop issue which renders the phone useless over time. I got an iPhone 6s Plus as a result through T-Mobile's Jump On Demand plan.
I find the videos listed in this thread to be somewhat useless, as most educated Android users do not use the launcher that comes with the phone. Samsung's default launcher pales in comparison to Nova Launcher, Android's most popular launcher. While it's certainly "fair" to test Samsung's launcher against an iPhone's default settings, it isn't exactly what people will experience in the real world. Installing a launcher is as easy as installing an iOS app, so once you're on Android there's no reason not to play around with different launchers. Launchers can be built for speed, security, style, or all of the above. Nova Launcher was SIGNIFICANTLY faster then LG's stock launcher, which was terrible. It completely changed the responsiveness of the phone. Animations were smooth, apps launched much more quickly, and the icon's looked fantastic. No rooting (aka jailbreaking) required.
My problem with Android is the consistency of its speed, as well as the performance of specific apps on the platform. After using the phone for a while, the system would become "hesitant" to respond. This issue certainly exists in iOS, but not to the degree I experienced on Android.
Additionally, a big issue I ran into on Android was in-app performance. Yelp loaded instantly on the G4, but was fairly sluggish in-app compared to its iOS variant. iOS doesn't have a problem with in-app performance, so app launching tests are more useful when testing an iPhone's speed from different iOS versions. More than a handful of my most used apps felt jerky compared to their iOS counterparts. This was a major issue for me (what is seen cannot be unseen!)
To wrap this up, I can say that my experience with Android was a positive one, but it's not one I'm going to experience again. I ran into too many issues on Android to have it be my daily driver. Android has a lot of great features that I will miss on my iPhone, but cannot match iOS's fit and finish. That being said, going into Best Buy and playing around with an Android phone is NOT a good representation of the platform. Android is built on the idea of customization, and that goes beyond just looks. You have the ability to change the entire experience of the phone with a few buttons. Even with these adjustments.....I still prefer iOS's speed and stability. iOS's speed is unmatched. It doesn't matter how many cores you have, Android's biggest problem is Android itself.
I find the videos listed in this thread to be somewhat useless, as most educated Android users do not use the launcher that comes with the phone. Samsung's default launcher pales in comparison to Nova Launcher, Android's most popular launcher. While it's certainly "fair" to test Samsung's launcher against an iPhone's default settings, it isn't exactly what people will experience in the real world. Installing a launcher is as easy as installing an iOS app, so once you're on Android there's no reason not to play around with different launchers. Launchers can be built for speed, security, style, or all of the above. Nova Launcher was SIGNIFICANTLY faster then LG's stock launcher, which was terrible. It completely changed the responsiveness of the phone. Animations were smooth, apps launched much more quickly, and the icon's looked fantastic. No rooting (aka jailbreaking) required.
My problem with Android is the consistency of its speed, as well as the performance of specific apps on the platform. After using the phone for a while, the system would become "hesitant" to respond. This issue certainly exists in iOS, but not to the degree I experienced on Android.
Additionally, a big issue I ran into on Android was in-app performance. Yelp loaded instantly on the G4, but was fairly sluggish in-app compared to its iOS variant. iOS doesn't have a problem with in-app performance, so app launching tests are more useful when testing an iPhone's speed from different iOS versions. More than a handful of my most used apps felt jerky compared to their iOS counterparts. This was a major issue for me (what is seen cannot be unseen!)
To wrap this up, I can say that my experience with Android was a positive one, but it's not one I'm going to experience again. I ran into too many issues on Android to have it be my daily driver. Android has a lot of great features that I will miss on my iPhone, but cannot match iOS's fit and finish. That being said, going into Best Buy and playing around with an Android phone is NOT a good representation of the platform. Android is built on the idea of customization, and that goes beyond just looks. You have the ability to change the entire experience of the phone with a few buttons. Even with these adjustments.....I still prefer iOS's speed and stability. iOS's speed is unmatched. It doesn't matter how many cores you have, Android's biggest problem is Android itself.
Last edited:
Doesn't surprise me too much, iOS is more efficient than touchwiz (as much as touchwiz has improved), the iPhone is pushing less pixels than the Galaxy, apples chips are better designed for mobile applications and they are designed to work to iOS's strengths (the hardware/software tie)
Plus the 6s also uses a faster flash solution too I believe, and iOS has better memory management as well despite the 6s having half the ram the s7 has.
Even sincel Apple started designing their chips 100%, they've been making incredibly fast chips.
Look at the A7, it came out in 2013 and still outperforms many devices today, 2.5 years later.
The A9 was the first real big leap in apple's mobile chips since then and they blew everything away.
Even the Exynos s7 variant outperforms the Snapdragon s7 variant despite the benchmarks showing otherwise....a custom designed chip, tailored to the hardware will always work better in real word use than a more "off the shelf" part as Snapdragons tend to be
Their chips are very well designed and they truly understand how cpu design need not rely on more core but rather they get the parts that make a cpu work faster and focus on enhancing those aspects. They understand the delicate art of the "balancing act"
Imo, it's hard to argue against Apple being the best at mobile chip design. I don't see that changing in the near future either.
[doublepost=1458274937][/doublepost]
Or better yet, the animation glitch!
It's incredible.
Though the s7 is a well designed and fast machine in its own right, and I am looking forward to getting one myself (I've been very impressed w, it's pretty incredible how Apple still out performs competition many months after their own flagship products are introduced to the market. It's a testament to their chip design and also the marriage of hardware + software.
Plus the 6s also uses a faster flash solution too I believe, and iOS has better memory management as well despite the 6s having half the ram the s7 has.
Even sincel Apple started designing their chips 100%, they've been making incredibly fast chips.
Look at the A7, it came out in 2013 and still outperforms many devices today, 2.5 years later.
The A9 was the first real big leap in apple's mobile chips since then and they blew everything away.
Even the Exynos s7 variant outperforms the Snapdragon s7 variant despite the benchmarks showing otherwise....a custom designed chip, tailored to the hardware will always work better in real word use than a more "off the shelf" part as Snapdragons tend to be
Their chips are very well designed and they truly understand how cpu design need not rely on more core but rather they get the parts that make a cpu work faster and focus on enhancing those aspects. They understand the delicate art of the "balancing act"
Imo, it's hard to argue against Apple being the best at mobile chip design. I don't see that changing in the near future either.
[doublepost=1458274937][/doublepost]
Or better yet, the animation glitch!
It's incredible.
Though the s7 is a well designed and fast machine in its own right, and I am looking forward to getting one myself (I've been very impressed w, it's pretty incredible how Apple still out performs competition many months after their own flagship products are introduced to the market. It's a testament to their chip design and also the marriage of hardware + software.
Biased? How so exactly? For kicks and giggles, let's assume it was though; the results were identical. The iPhone was consistently and measurably faster than the Galaxy by almost every metric.
What's your point?
[doublepost=1458243750][/doublepost]
- iPhone loaded OS faster.
- Facebook loaded faster on iPhone even though commentator wanted it to be faster on Galaxy.
- Instagram was a virtual tie, though commentator said it was "definitely faster" on Galaxy.
- Twitch a virtual tie as well.
- App Store a tie (though we all know actual app stores and apps are in large part better on Apple's App Store).
- Temple Run definitely faster (though commentator says this is due to it being optimized extremely well for iOS). Hah
- Subway Surfer faster on iPhone.
- YouTube loaded faster on iPhone, searched faster on phone, and video playing was a tie (commentator again tried to give Galaxy an "edge," but one ca clearly see he tapped the Galaxy just before he did the iPhone. At the very least it's a tie. The margin of error his is laughable.
- GTA faster on iPhone
- Camera (again with margin of error and him tapping Galaxy first).
- Oh, he's a big fan of GSMPhoneArena? (Speaking of being unbiased), this video is starting to make sense now.
- Suggestion for web browsing test: put Dhrome up against mobile Safari with content blockers enabled. See how they fair then.
- Multitasking test is also faster on iPhone as Galaxy has to repeatedly refresh previous apps.
- Fingerprint test also a tie. (No, commentator, it's not a tie--that animation can be disabled.)
Bwahaha...what? Are you being serious? You can't be serious, can you?
You do realize that the only thing you've accomplished is proving that the 6 month old iPhone is measurably and reliably faster than both variants of the Galaxy, don't you?
What video did you watch?
Booting-iPhone
Facebook-S7
Instagram-S7
Twitch-EASILY Galaxy S7.You can actually see the list lid earlier and the hamburger menu as well
App Store-LMAO.The S7 loaded it a full second before the iPhone
Temple Run-iPhone
Subway Surfer-iPhone
YouTube-iPhone
GTA-iPhone
Camera-S7
Browsing-The S7 was much faster
Fingerprint-The S7 was slightly faster
Memory Management-iPhone
The score is 7 for the S7 and 6 for the iPhone
Again you have to keep in mind that Android has much more going on in the background compared to iOS.For instance I can leave Real Racing 3 downloading additional data in the background on Android and switch to another app while on iOS the download stops as I go to home screen.And that's assuming the S7 isn't full of carrier junk
Yes the test is rigged.Notice how much faster the animations and the general feel of the S7 in my video is compared to the OP.The OP video S7 feels very very sluggish and the commenter seems to be intentionally moving his fingers slowly in addition.And I know what the guy did.
On Android you can control the speed of animations and responsiveness.The Phonebuff guy set the Transition Animation scale to 2X in developer settings which slows down the animations and the entire phone.Its hilariously obvious.The iPhone pet of the video seems to be so fast his hands are moving like a blur and the Samsung part seems too sluggish even more than the Galaxy S6 in front of me right now
You do realise that even on 2208X1242 vs 2560X1440 that's still a lot of extra pixels to render for the S7 and it seems to be only a second or two behind the iPhone.If the resolution of the iPhone was increased they would tie
So basically at worst the iPhone 6s is about on par with Galaxy S7, all while the iPhone 6s is already over half a year old technology while the Galaxy S7 just came out. Yeah, the Galaxy S7 is clearly ahead there. Was there something "rigged" in there as well? Or will there be some other spin on it all to come up with excuses about this or that?
It's intended to compete with the 6S and it does it admirably.To counter the iPhone 7,Samsung will launch the Note 6
And that's not an excuse at all.I suggest you watch the S7 in the 2 videos.The difference is stark
yes it's biased because you don't like it...
This is the ONLY test that counts:
The Galaxy S7 is just another "typical" Samsung product, performance wise.
Good for the first benchmark, but not balanced at all. After a few tests performance start dropping , unlike the iPhone , and after several minutes performance HALVES, literally.... But, hey !, it has a curved display !
[doublepost=1458290343][/doublepost]
Having more pixels to be drawn is a SAMSUNG choice. No one forced them.
Such a resolution on a 5" is a waste of pixels and this is the demonstration, since they aren't able to catch up with a 6 months old device, because of their marketing gimmicks ...
I've also demonstrated that a Galaxy S7 can't even sustain those performance, because throttling back heavily after a while.
But you are right: fanboys will never give up.
And again, to use such an high resolution (crippled by a ridiculous PenTile matrix) on a phone display is a Samsung's call....
you are perfectly right.
Samsung is all about tech specs, used as a marketing gimmick to say "I'm bigger than you".
But using a smartphone is all about user experience, and I think Apple's way is much more balanced.
What's the meaning of use an insanely high resolution (higher than your own eyes capability) if graphics performance are affected ? Easy: the wow effect to the public.
What's the meaning of use a 4 or 8 core insanely high clocked SoC if it can't thermally sustain it maximum power ? Easy: the wow effect on benchmarks.
And so on ....
Don't get me wrong: I like the Galaxy S7. But I wouldnt buy it over an iPhone.
yes it's biased because you don't like it...
This is the ONLY test that counts:
The Galaxy S7 is just another "typical" Samsung product, performance wise.
Good for the first benchmark, but not balanced at all. After a few tests performance start dropping , unlike the iPhone , and after several minutes performance HALVES, literally.... But, hey !, it has a curved display !
[doublepost=1458290343][/doublepost]
Having more pixels to be drawn is a SAMSUNG choice. No one forced them.
Such a resolution on a 5" is a waste of pixels and this is the demonstration, since they aren't able to catch up with a 6 months old device, because of their marketing gimmicks ...
I've also demonstrated that a Galaxy S7 can't even sustain those performance, because throttling back heavily after a while.
But you are right: fanboys will never give up.
And again, to use such an high resolution (crippled by a ridiculous PenTile matrix) on a phone display is a Samsung's call....
you are perfectly right.
Samsung is all about tech specs, used as a marketing gimmick to say "I'm bigger than you".
But using a smartphone is all about user experience, and I think Apple's way is much more balanced.
What's the meaning of use an insanely high resolution (higher than your own eyes capability) if graphics performance are affected ? Easy: the wow effect to the public.
What's the meaning of use a 4 or 8 core insanely high clocked SoC if it can't thermally sustain it maximum power ? Easy: the wow effect on benchmarks.
And so on ....
Don't get me wrong: I like the Galaxy S7. But I wouldnt buy it over an iPhone.
The funny thing about the throttling too is that the s7 has "liquid cooling". Yet in a few videos I've seen, it runs anywhere from a few degrees all the way up to 10 degrees hotter than an iPhone 6s or 6s+ under peak load.
Even with its fancy, gimmicky liquid cooling that was only put as in as another "spec" to attract the PC gamer crowd who liquid cool their gaming rig. Sounds cool (pun intended) on paper but in the case of the s7, it's useless and still runs hotter and throttles the SoC vs a 6a/6s+.
Last edited:
You are absolutely right.
But lately I found it's quite useless to argue with someone who's not even listening to you.
His behavior here is quite clear and I reported several time: on every single thread he's posting something negative about apple (covering with a "posted from my iPhone signature"), while introducing some concepts about how superior Samsung is, even when Samsung isn't involved at all (see the iPhone SE thread, a discussion about a smartphone in a field where Samsung isn't competing at all !), and he doesn't even read your articulated response.
It's frustrating ...
Are there possibly any more excuses or spin that could be said for that video?
Are you saying water cooling is useless?I have a Corsair H80i water cooling on my gaming rig and temps never go past 40.
Also I bet water cooling on the S7 is different from PC.There isn't any actual water used but rather some heat conductors like in Lumia 950 while on PC a radiator is used having actual liquid
It's called a trade off.You get much better image quality for a performance penalty while lowering the resolution provides highest performance.Its a common phenomenon in gaming but it's subjective.Some prefer the higher quality visuals with the performance hit while some prefer lower visuals for the highest performanceyes it's biased because you don't like it...
This is the ONLY test that counts:
The Galaxy S7 is just another "typical" Samsung product, performance wise.
Good for the first benchmark, but not balanced at all. After a few tests performance start dropping , unlike the iPhone , and after several minutes performance HALVES, literally.... But, hey !, it has a curved display !
[doublepost=1458290343][/doublepost]
Having more pixels to be drawn is a SAMSUNG choice. No one forced them.
Such a resolution on a 5" is a waste of pixels and this is the demonstration, since they aren't able to catch up with a 6 months old device, because of their marketing gimmicks ...
I've also demonstrated that a Galaxy S7 can't even sustain those performance, because throttling back heavily after a while.
But you are right: fanboys will never give up.
And again, to use such an high resolution (crippled by a ridiculous PenTile matrix) on a phone display is a Samsung's call....
you are perfectly right.
Samsung is all about tech specs, used as a marketing gimmick to say "I'm bigger than you".
But using a smartphone is all about user experience, and I think Apple's way is much more balanced.
What's the meaning of use an insanely high resolution (higher than your own eyes capability) if graphics performance are affected ? Easy: the wow effect to the public.
What's the meaning of use a 4 or 8 core insanely high clocked SoC if it can't thermally sustain it maximum power ? Easy: the wow effect on benchmarks.
And so on ....
Don't get me wrong: I like the Galaxy S7. But I wouldnt buy it over an iPhone.
Once again proving you see a word or two, get angry someone talks bad about Samsung (while typing from your iPhone on an Apple news website) and respond without reading what it is you're responding to.
I never said liquid cooling in PC's was useless.
I said "but in the case of the s7 it's useless".
[doublepost=1458298037][/doublepost]
He will never run out of deflections, spins or excuses, as long as that Samsung money keeps rolling in.
[doublepost=1458298433][/doublepost]
Hahaha. Trade off? Having the SoC throttle is a trade off now? Pretty sure that's just poor engineering.
It's funny how it's all common phenomenon and acceptable to accept a performance hit for a Samsung device, but you've gone on and on for 6 months about a few FPS drops in obscure places of iOS. Deeming it unacceptable, a total debacle, and unusable. ......dude.
Last edited:
You clearly have no idea what are you speaking of... I really hope you are very young.
That's bad engineering, not a trade off.
Btw, as I said several times before, I strongly suggest you to buy a galaxy S7: it will be perfect for your needs.
First who says I have to fanboy Apple when I am on this site.This is not a fanclub.Just a Example,Google's CEO tweeted Android is the best Christmas gift for an iPhone user ON AN iPhone
My bad.I must have misunderstood that when you said it looks cool only on paper you were referring to the concept in general
just stating what I see here.Not only is the video conveniently shot at different times,the iPhone side looks to be a sped up video while the S7 seems to be a slo mo video.Not to mention S7 taking half a minute more to catch up sounds real far fetched
Unless you are busy running strenous benchmarks all day like TRex it will never throttle in normal use.The thing common for all the phones except iPhone on that list?They are all running at 2K or some 1080P resolution.How about we run them all at 720P and see who throttles?
Throttling is NEVER a good thing. It's pretty irrelevant if the iPhone only does 750p and 1080p. They are smart enough to not over spec some areas like going overboard on resolution, or having 4-8 CPU cores. That's called good engineering.
It's straight up poor engineering when the device throttles that hard, just so the spec sheet can look nice for all the spec hungry customers. Then introduce "liquid cooling" to it and tout it as "it's an air conditioner for your phone" (they literally said that at the announcement) and it still can't keep it from throttling.
It doesn't take a benchmark to make your beloved Samsung to throttle. It just takes a game or a video editing app running for a few minutes.
And throttling is related to ALL the computing power of the SoC, not only the GPU, so your statement about the 2K vs 1080 (and a lot of people already pointed out that the iPhone 6S+ renders at about 2K and it doesn't throttle at all but you keep ignoring that to fulfill your agenda....) is purely BS.
Plus, the throttling behavior was measured on the Exynos: the cooler of the two SoCs used on the S7.
If your normal usage is messaging and making photos you are right: the S7 won't throttle.
But maybe you choose the wrong device...
[doublepost=1458303362][/doublepost]
Actually throttling is a good thing: it prevents the CPU to overheat and crash (or failing entirely).
Is a good thing as far as you don't advertise and claim your product as better than another obtaining the sam results without throttling.
Exactly, since the beginning of the thread, he seems to ignore that part because otherwise it make all his arguments invalid.
Your combination of conspiracy theories and outright denial cracks me up. You're obviously seeing what you want to see, and no facts will sway you otherwise. Enjoy your own little reality. It seems nice there.
Regardless of what phone is faster, and I've seen videos the show both is faster than the other, there are too many variables to do a complete legit test.
First with games, game launcher and Google's play game does slightly slow down the game at initial start. You would think reviewers would be smart enough to disable those to focus only on app speed.
Secondly, Majority of apps in the iPhone and Android are coded in differ languages.
Third, Apps in Android are allow much more permissions than iOS apps. iOS apps have less to search for upon start.
Fourth, Nobody knows what's going on in the background. Is the Playstore, Appstore, or any apps pulling or pushing updates? Widgets? and etc.
Does any of these apps already have cache even though the are closed out. Amount of cache makes a different. So if a reviewer already opened a game several times on iOS with 200mb cache vs opening a game just once on Android that now has only 35mb cache, guess which one starts up quicker next time?
I can go on and on about the differ variables. As far as resolution goes, I lack knowledge of how much a difference that will make. But it seems everyone is claiming it does take more of a toll.
First with games, game launcher and Google's play game does slightly slow down the game at initial start. You would think reviewers would be smart enough to disable those to focus only on app speed.
Secondly, Majority of apps in the iPhone and Android are coded in differ languages.
Third, Apps in Android are allow much more permissions than iOS apps. iOS apps have less to search for upon start.
Fourth, Nobody knows what's going on in the background. Is the Playstore, Appstore, or any apps pulling or pushing updates? Widgets? and etc.
Does any of these apps already have cache even though the are closed out. Amount of cache makes a different. So if a reviewer already opened a game several times on iOS with 200mb cache vs opening a game just once on Android that now has only 35mb cache, guess which one starts up quicker next time?
I can go on and on about the differ variables. As far as resolution goes, I lack knowledge of how much a difference that will make. But it seems everyone is claiming it does take more of a toll.
The pissing contest is fun to read - to a point. But in the real world - the most people - the miliseconds or whatnot don't matter a bit. Both devices are fast and highly functional. I don't know of anyone outside of these forums who would care a bit about the performance of one phone over the other even after watching the video.
You just pointed out yourself how the difference is basically the opposite of stark...and then you say that it's stark. There's that twisted logic yet again.