How much RAM does the iPhone 6s have?

[Ichinisan]

as long as its smooth, who cares how much ram it has. each time i've used the iphone6/6plus its always been buttery smooth.

Nope. My iPhone 5 and my mother's iPhone 5c are far smoother than my 5s, 6 Plus, and iPad mini 2...and RAM is the reason. To have APIs supporting both 32-bit and 64-bit binaries, the 64GB devices have less usable RAM from that 1GB. Sure, there are some usage scenarios where that's not a problem, but I pretty much just multitask between Safari, Facebook, and Music -- and they are constantly losing their state and reloading in my experience. I often lose what I'm working on.

 

[Eug]

AnandTech: The Apple iOS 9 Review

My test of RAM naturally involved Safari. Safari is an app that quite frankly does not work incredibly well on any iPad except for the Air 2. The reason I say this is because there’s a very rapid eviction of tabs due to the limited amount of memory on those devices.

As you can see, the Safari process and all its tabs ends up using a whopping 728.12MB of RAM. A 3D view of New York City in Maps uses another 322.73MB on top of that, for a total of 1.05GB. On top of that you’ll have something between 100 and 200MB used for general background processes and the iOS system. This makes it pretty clear why Apple has limited multitasking to only the iPad Air 2, as a use case with only two default apps can already use over 1GB before you even consider what the system needs. One could argue that Safari could evict tabs to free up memory, but there are other applications that can’t jettison memory that easily, and even then evicting tabs from memory creates a poor user experience.

 

[soccerballtux]

wow, 2GB RAM, would be reason to upgrade. You'd be able to keep it for years

 

[sm625]

As greedy as apple is, and as moronic as their buyers are, I'd still be shocked if it was only 1GB.

 

[Commodus]

As greedy as apple is, and as moronic as their buyers are, I'd still be shocked if it was only 1GB.

Can you not rely on broad, unsupported stereotypes to make your point, please? Just say that the 2GB wasn't shocking due to technical demands.

It's odd to call Apple "greedy" and its users "moronic" when Apple's virtually the only truly profitable smartphone maker, and many Android device makers have to include 3-4GB of RAM to accommodate wasteful overhead. By that token, why would you support Samsung, which clearly has troubles with running a competent phone business and developing efficient software?

That's a bit hyperbolic, of course (the Galaxy S6 and Note 5 are fine in many ways), but that's the point -- treat the 'other side' with respect and you'll get some back.

 

[poofyhairguy]

As greedy as apple is, and as moronic as their buyers are, I'd still be shocked if it was only 1GB.

I was shocked at first when the iPhone 6 was 1GB, but eventually it all made sense to everyone why they did it.

The honest truth is the smartphone form factor has plateaued. Not just Apple, but everyone selling a phone is facing market saturation. In an iOS market where the 4GS is still supported there is no reason that an iPhone 6S can't be a five year device. The 1GB of RAM made sure that the iPhone 6 wasn't such a device.

 

[sweenish]

Can you not rely on broad, unsupported stereotypes to make your point, please?

[...]many Android device makers have to include 3-4GB of RAM to accommodate wasteful overhead.

GOLD.

 

[ThisIsChrisKim]

I was shocked at first when the iPhone 6 was 1GB, but eventually it all made sense to everyone why they did it.

The honest truth is the smartphone form factor has plateaued. Not just Apple, but everyone selling a phone is facing market saturation. In an iOS market where the 4GS is still supported there is no reason that an iPhone 6S can't be a five year device. The 1GB of RAM made sure that the iPhone 6 wasn't such a device.

5 years on a battery is pretty tough on the device, though. Although I think AppleCare includes a battery exchange at some point, so cashing in on that isn't too bad to enhance longevity.

But when you have the economic factor not being much different between upgrading ever year and every 3, why not just go for every year? http://lifehacker.com/how-often-should-you-upgrade-your-iphone-an-experiment-1729328617. Maybe environmental consumerism argument?

 

[Eug]

5 years on a battery is pretty tough on the device, though. Although I think AppleCare includes a battery exchange at some point, so cashing in on that isn't too bad to enhance longevity.

But when you have the economic factor not being much different between upgrading ever year and every 3, why not just go for every year? http://lifehacker.com/how-often-should-you-upgrade-your-iphone-an-experiment-1729328617. Maybe environmental consumerism argument?

I came to this conclusion with Mac laptops in the early years, and iPhones recently. If you time your sales right, it actually doesn't cost that much to own a new iPhone every year, compared to keeping your phone for several years.

But what do I do? I keep my iPhones for at least 2 years, but sometimes 3 years. Why? Because selling on Kijiji royally sucks. IOW the above calculations only work if your time and aggravation dealing with idiots on Kijiji is worthless.

 

[poofyhairguy]

5 years on a battery is pretty tough on the device, though.

True, but we live in an age of cheap battery packs and around the corner stores that will do iPhone screen repair/battery replacement for a reasonable cost. iPhone batteries aren't easily replaceable, but it can be done.

But when you have the economic factor not being much different between upgrading ever year and every 3, why not just go for every year?

Because the only reason that math works out is the article assumes that the phone is sold when it is replaced. We know that many people don't want to/don't know how to/don't know they can sell their phones to other people, or otherwise all the trade-in upgrade deals wouldn't be so popular. I think for many on this forum that is a great solution, but for the common person who thinks an iPhone COSTS $200 and then still thinks that is a lot of money flipping phones and paying unlocked prices isn't even on the map.

I see a LOT of people with older iPhones all over. I see many spouses or kids with hand-me-down iPhones, or people who obviously just bought what was the $49 iPhone at the AT&T store without any clue they invested in a two year old device the month before it stopped being sold. We also see this when Apple has put out new iOS versions and less sophisticated iPhone owners (aka the people who still have aol.com emails) have sworn the whole point of the upgrade was to make their old phone run slower so they have to upgrade to new phones.

Apple isn't playing just with the cutting edge creatives anymore like in 2005. In 2015 the iPhone is the major computing device for a generation of people who couldn't get enough "I can't program the VCR" jokes back in the 80s. This crowd was used to replacing their computer every five years, and so they expect to get the same life out of an iPad or an iPhone. Pushing them to phone flipping as an economic "solution" would probably just lead to them being scammed en mass.

Plus quite frankly these users don't need more. The iPhone 5 had all the functionality they needed, and the iPhone 6+ finally has the screen size they want. It takes that iPhone 6+ having less effective RAM than the iPhone 5 to push these consumers into that iPhone 7s or 8 purchase they really don't want to make because all their apps at that point (which will expect 2GB) will be running slow.

 

[Eug]

2 GB confirmed of course.

The clock speed surprised me a bit though.

 

[Mopetar]

The clock speed surprised me a bit though.

At least it means that their performance claims aren't completely down to cherry-picking. Going to 1.8 GHz over 1.4 is a rather sizable bump, even if they probably have to throttle more quickly.

Can't wait for AT's usual article on the chip itself.