How do Android users feel about high-end Android phones losing performance battles against iPhones?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mikegg

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,740
406
136
There are few cross-platform benchmarks that can be taken seriously. Worse they often paint misleading pictures unless given the proper context. AT's benchmarks are one of the worst offenders sometimes.

Having said that, I am aware that iOS + A9 + 2GB RAM combination is currently the fastest performer in mobile web browsing. Apple optimization of Safari beats the crap out of Google's Chrome, and there are some clever tricks that Apple pulls to maintain the perception of smooth browsing - e.g. limiting the number of lines you can scroll with a single swipe.

I think it does not bother me because the difference is minuscule. If there is a speed difference it is usually a split second that does not make or break my browsing, and Android offers other conveniences that iOS does not outside of browsing speed. (and I personally cannot stand the limited scrolling which makes me scroll like a mad person on long pages) There are also other stuff that can be done faster on Android, such as camera operation on recent Galaxy devices.

Or I can ask a rhetorical question to answer your question: How do iPhone 6s users currently feel about it being stuck on 750p display which were standard on Android circa 2012?

Lopri, can you explain why having a higher resolution screen is important if we cannot see the individual pixels on a iPhone at a normal distance? What benefit does it have to have a higher resolution screen?
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,209
594
126
The same reason why running Sunspider faster by 100 ms is "important," I guess. And trust me you will see the individual pixels on today's iPhones in a couple of years when higher res iPhones are released.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lodix

poofyhairguy

Lifer
Nov 20, 2005
14,612
318
126
Lopri, can you explain why having a higher resolution screen is important if we cannot see the individual pixels on a iPhone at a normal distance? What benefit does it have to have a higher resolution screen?

Retina Display is a branding term not a scientific fact. Depending on the characters used in a language plus the font you can see fringing on fonts past 300 PPI with 20/20 vision. I can personally easily see the difference in fonts between the iPhone 6s and 1080p screens at the distances I hold me phone. The better screen (and less importantly OIS) is why I got a 6S Plus despite the not really wanting a phablet size. I can't stand the fonts on the regular iPhone despite the marketing claims.

Complex Chinese characters need over 400 PPI to not show obvious fringing so a higher resolution screen could help Apple in a key market even for people with so-so vision. Retina was amazing when no one did high PPI but like so many things Apple started a new product category only to fall behind in it after a few years.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,761
777
126
I honestly couldn't care less. I buy a phone for usability, not if it can run some synthetic benchmark 0.1 second faster. In the meantime, the iphone 6s has a display that is beaten by a 2012 samsung galaxy s4 and storage that is beaten by 5 year old phones. That's the stuff you notice in the real world.
 

mikegg

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,740
406
136
Retina Display is a branding term not a scientific fact. Depending on the characters used in a language plus the font you can see fringing on fonts past 300 PPI with 20/20 vision. I can personally easily see the difference in fonts between the iPhone 6s and 1080p screens at the distances I hold me phone. The better screen (and less importantly OIS) is why I got a 6S Plus despite the not really wanting a phablet size. I can't stand the fonts on the regular iPhone despite the marketing claims.

Complex Chinese characters need over 400 PPI to not show obvious fringing so a higher resolution screen could help Apple in a key market even for people with so-so vision. Retina was amazing when no one did high PPI but like so many things Apple started a new product category only to fall behind in it after a few years.
Got it. Thank you for explaining.

Personally, I cannot see individual pixels on my iPhone 6s at very close distance - let alone normal distance. I also don't read Chinese characters so I've never experienced complex Chinese characters need over 400PPI.

I'm still not convinced that the iPhone needs anything above its current resolution. I prefer that Apple optimize on weight, performance, and battery life over more pixels that I cannot see.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
Screen resolution improvements are one of those things you notice most in retrospect.

I remember being completely satisfied with the 720p screen on the Note 2. At the time I thought anything higher res than that on such a (comparatively) small screen would be a waste.

Then I saw the Note 3! 1080p was a huge difference.

Flash forward past the Note 4 to my current Note 7.... a Note 2 is a blurry mess to look at now in comparison.

But it's funny how I only feel that way in retrospect, comparing to the higher res screens now.

Eventually Apple will catch up again and I predict many iPhone users will experience the same phenomena when they compare a higher res iPhone to the current.
 

Roland00Address

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2008
2,196
260
126
Screen resolution improvements are one of those things you notice most in retrospect.

This has to do with stuff involving the eye and the brain. And how your brain uses your eyes differently with what you look at and how you look at things when you are using two different types of attention systems inside your brain. Instead of naming the systems just think of your brain as having an Active Attention System (where you are searching through lots of data with a purpose) and the more Passive / Automatic / Instinctual system.

Note the passive system is actually involved with self reflection and processing information that does not make sense at first glance.

These active and passive attention systems are correlated in an inverse fashion. You can use a lot of your active attention at once, or lots of your passive attention at once, or some of your active and some of your passive but less of your active system compared to you being really focused. Note creativity works best when you are using these systems roughly balanced.

Well since your active attention is more involved with selective processing, you do not always notice things like change of resolution when you are really focused on a goal, instead of just merely enjoying the experience. Yet when you are more calm and less driven, and more reflective your brain is more able to notice changes such as resolution and is able to enjoy such things.
 

MarkizSchnitzel

Senior member
Nov 10, 2013
399
28
91
Lopri, can you explain why having a higher resolution screen is important if we cannot see the individual pixels on a iPhone at a normal distance? What benefit does it have to have a higher resolution screen?

Iphone is so low res it's painful, by todays standards.
Of course you can see it. Try looking at some small text or rounded icons.

I'm still not convinced that the iPhone needs anything above its current resolution. I prefer that Apple optimize on weight, performance, and battery life over more pixels that I cannot see.

Problem is, battery life is atrocious on the iphone. Probably better than most phones, but still pretty bad.
 

Tams80

Junior Member
Jul 5, 2014
13
5
81
Both Apple and Android devices have disappointed me.

My brief time using a iPhone was only really marred by a lack of RAM, although a lack of a removable battery and storage wasn't enjoyable either.

For Android, I've yet to have a great experience on any device. There is differentiation, but for what there is it's lacking (a serious lack of hardware button variations for example). Android has also seemed bloated, even on Nexus devices.

At the end of the day, all the devices met my needs, so I haven't cared too much. The odd extra, such a stylus are very nice though.

To be honest, I miss my old Nokias. The OSes were lean, and variety of hardware was fantastic. Often there were no holds barred on quality (best cameras, best audio, best plastics) and plenty of features.

Sent from my SCL24 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lodix

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,918
9
81
Why would I be upset? Phone performance has pretty much not mattered all that much since 2012. Besides, I can do significantly more on my Android phone (only certain Android phones though) than an iPhone can.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,206
6,799
136
One interesting claim about the iPhone 7's A10 processor: it'll supposedly jump from 1.85GHz in the A9 to 2.4GHz in the A10. Combine that with other optimizations and you could be looking at iPhones that are dramatically faster than their Android counterparts.

Yes, performance doesn't mean as much these days (even some mid-range phones are perfectly smooth in most tasks), but it still matters for things like camera processing and games. And it's particularly relevant for Apple, since it's trying to lord on-device AI technology (such as object recognition in photos) as an advantage over Google. If you're not leaning on the cloud, like Google is, you need a beefy processor.
 

mikegg

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,740
406
136
Iphone is so low res it's painful, by todays standards.
Of course you can see it. Try looking at some small text or rounded icons.



Problem is, battery life is atrocious on the iphone. Probably better than most phones, but still pretty bad.

I compared an iPhone 6S display with a Galaxy S5 display. The Galaxy S5 has a 1080p display.

There is no comparison between the display quality in my humble opinion. The iPhone 6S' display is crisper, brighter, and the colors are far more vibrant. The S5 screen looks like there's a dirty fog filter covering the screen when I put the two phones side by side.

I also looked at smaller text and rounded icons (everything is rounded on iOS) and could not see the pixels that you claim I would see between iPhone 6s resolution and 1080p resolution. I set the max brightness on both phones.

It's possible that the newer Android phones have better displays but the 1080p on the S5 is pretty bad compared to the lower resolution iPhone 6s display.

Gj66sbH.jpg
 
Last edited:

mikegg

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,740
406
136
Problem is, battery life is atrocious on the iphone. Probably better than most phones, but still pretty bad.
According to this chart, the iPhone 6s battery life is neck and neck with the newer S7. Obviously the iPhone 6S battery life will be better after usage because iOS does a much better job controlling battery usage when you have many apps installed.

My point being that I don't want a higher resolution screen for the sake of having more pixels that I actually can't see.

83381.png
 

JeffMD

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2002
2,026
19
81
I compared an iPhone 6S display with a Galaxy S5 display. The Galaxy S5 has a 1080p display.

There is no comparison between the display quality in my humble opinion. The iPhone 6S' display is crisper, brighter, and the colors are far more vibrant. The S5 screen looks like there's a dirty fog filter covering the screen when I put the two phones side by side.

Then you have far more problems with your eyesight and should not be worrying about which phone is better. If you can't see that the 432ppi AMOLED screen is superior to the 326 ppi LCD, then only an optometrist can help you now. And don't compare the fonts or the icons, that has nothing to do with the technical aspects and is completely down to aesthetics which I think most of us can agree, jobs nailed down to an obsession. I would probably compare images of simple geometry shapes, not too fancy shading and hard edges. On the other hand vibrant photos would be a good comparison of color gamut.

According to this chart, the iPhone 6s battery life is neck and neck with the newer S7. Obviously the iPhone 6S battery life will be better after usage because iOS does a much better job controlling battery usage when you have many apps installed.

My point being that I don't want a higher resolution screen for the sake of having more pixels that I actually can't see.

And for most people, 720p and 1080p screens are perfectly fine. I like the 2k resolutions for accurate viewing of the photos I take. Also I know my lg g4 is rendering the OS at 1080p for speed and power sake and I am completely fine with that.

Also apple nailed down power usage a while ago. It is hard to beat down the rogue app but google is racing through the version numbers now trying to catch up to apple's power usage controls. At the same time however, its easier and cheaper to get power into an android, be it replacing the battery, portable chargers, and quick charge.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,583
996
126
Having used both platforms I can say my main concern is not CPU performance but overall usability and slickness. For my usage iOS has won most of the time. The integration is superior and the general slickness is just better FOR MY USAGE. Sure, high CPU performance is great but I don't really care that much if it's number one or 10% slower. I'm more concerned about the camera being easy to use and consistent, or easy and consistent backups, and other more mundane things like that. Also, not having to chase down rogue apps is something I took for granted until I used Android. As for screens, up until recently I've always preferred iPhone screens. The differences in resolution didn't bother me - diminishing returns after Retina - but what did bother me were the wonky default colour balance settings in most Android phones. This only got magnified by the wonky colour balance or exposure defaults in some of the Android phone camera apps under certain lighting conditions.

We'll see later today, but it seems likely that I'll be picking up a new iPhone 7 Plus this month.
 
Last edited:

deathBOB

Senior member
Dec 2, 2007
566
228
116
Isn't high resolution kind of a requirement for OLEDs that's not necessarily applicable to LED displays? Didn't someone on Anandtech write about that?
 

AMDisTheBEST

Senior member
Dec 17, 2015
682
90
61
My phones has 2x the battery of an iphone 6s, 2x the ram, and 3x the storage and 1/3 the price. Feel about what? That apple has immensely powerful dual core but optimized for an OS that can't even multitask?
 

hans007

Lifer
Feb 1, 2000
20,212
17
81
i dont really care personally , i mean they are all really fast. I have a S7 for work. its fast. Its probably slower on paper than an iphone 7. but realistically this is like saying my ferrari is slower than a bugatti. it doesnt really matter much.
 

yh125d

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2006
6,907
0
76
Long story short I don't need that much performance. I don't play games on my phone, it's mostly used for social media, music, youtube, and text based apps. So, I have been plenty happy with my Droid Maxx 2 which is only a snapdragon 615. It's quick enough to do everything I need, while still having a good camera, sd card slot, big battery, while being cheap (under $400 new) and customizable. I'm not sacrificing anything by not upgrading to either a flagship android or iphone, because they don't really offer anything that I don't have enough of. or at least not enough to justify a $650 cost.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,583
996
126
Isn't high resolution kind of a requirement for OLEDs that's not necessarily applicable to LED displays? Didn't someone on Anandtech write about that?
I had read before that the pentile arrangement necessitated a higher ppi to compete with traditional LCD pixel arrangements, due to the nature of the design. That said, I don't think it's wrong to want higher ppi screens on iPhones, esp. for young eyes and stuff like traditional (old style complex) Chinese characters.

And yeah, while the Geekbench scores aren't as important as other factors, A10's scores are still bloody impressive, particularly the single-core scores.

423CBE13-2DFE-4E2A-8AE6-258124F80D9E_zpsyxkvb9iq.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: WelshBloke

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,716
417
126
tbqhwy.com
I compared an iPhone 6S display with a Galaxy S5 display. The Galaxy S5 has a 1080p display.

There is no comparison between the display quality in my humble opinion. The iPhone 6S' display is crisper, brighter, and the colors are far more vibrant. The S5 screen looks like there's a dirty fog filter covering the screen when I put the two phones side by side.

I also looked at smaller text and rounded icons (everything is rounded on iOS) and could not see the pixels that you claim I would see between iPhone 6s resolution and 1080p resolution. I set the max brightness on both phones.

It's possible that the newer Android phones have better displays but the 1080p on the S5 is pretty bad compared to the lower resolution iPhone 6s display.

make the background black on the non apple phone, the contrast is playing into that
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,337
7,988
136
And yeah, while the Geekbench scores aren't as important as other factors, A10's scores are still bloody impressive, particularly the single-core scores.

Those are beefy single threaded scores to be sure!

I've not really been keeping up with how SOCs are being put together recently.

The A10 is a 2 core SOC? Is there a comparable 2 big core chip about?
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,206
6,799
136
Those are beefy single threaded scores to be sure!

I've not really been keeping up with how SOCs are being put together recently.

The A10 is a 2 core SOC? Is there a comparable 2 big core chip about?

It's a 2+2-core chip (two main and two low power cores). I don't think there's a directly comparable chip, to be honest -- Huawei, Qualcomm, Samsung and others all tend to push octa-core chips these days. Apple is frankly impressive in that it can achieve both good single- and multi-threaded performance with two main cores, and without having to compensate using clock speed.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,583
996
126
Yes 2+2 cores, but the OS and applications only ever see 2 cores. A guy in another thread said he spoke with an Apple engineer, and apparently the Apple implementation is different than other implementations which usually depend on software to allocate workload to the various cores. Apple tested this and found it inefficient, similar to other implementations which have also been criticized for being inefficient in this aspect. So, in the case of A10 Fusion, it was engineered such that all workload is directed to the appropriate cores in hardware. This is invisible to the kernel and software.

Phil said that the power utilization of the 2 lightweight cores is roughly 20% of the power utilization of the main cores, so obviously there can be a huge power savings. Phil didn't say this, but interestingly, in most implementations, stuff like 1080p h.264 video playback is considered "light" usage (since it's all GPU accelerated anyway), so there can be decent power savings there. Same with stuff like checking email, etc.

The 8-core solutions from other companies have almost as good multi-core performance according to Geekbench 4, but the cores are much less powerful individually, so for single-threaded or poorly multi-threaded applications the Apple A10 would stomp them into the ground because the single-threaded performance is so high. In fact, Apple A10 is almost twice as fast in single-threaded work as compared to the nearest Android competitor. That would be Samsung Exynos 8890 (octo-core) which gets around 1800 single-core, compared to about 3400ish or so average for A10.

https://browser.primatelabs.com/android-benchmarks

Furthermore, as mentioned, the Android-oriented chip solutions are software managed for core switching and claimed to be less efficient.

For multi-core, the Android solutions are almost as fast, but since they require four cores to do it, again the issue of poorly multi-threaded applications rears its ugly head again. Poorly multi-threaded applications may be more efficient on two fast cores than four slow ones, and we already know that Geekbench 4 which has good multi-threading support, rates the two cores of A10 cumulatively slightly faster than the fastest Android competitor in multi-core work.

In terms of numbers:
Apple A10 Fusion gets about 1.6X single-core speed with two cores. That means about 5400 multi-core vs. 3400 single.
Samsung Exynos 8890 gets about 2.9X single-core speed with four cores. That means about 5300 multi-core vs 1800 single.

I'm not sure about clock speeds, but It's interesting to see that some of the Geekbench scores cluster around 2.33 GHz and 1.05 GHz. I wonder if these could be the actual operating frequencies of the two groups of A10 cores, or if these are just by chance. (Geekbench apparently doesn't directly measure clock speed apparently, and just estimates it, but sometimes incorrectly.)

It should be noted that Apple dabbled with more than 2 cores in my iPad Air 2's A8X, which is triple core. However, A9, A9X, and A10 are all back at 2 cores again.

Now, all that being said, one of the things I like most about the iPhone 7 Plus is its supposed 3 GB RAM. The 6 was lame with its 1 GB RAM, and the 6s was adequate with its 2 GB RAM. 3 GB seems appropriate (on iOS) in 2016, so one criticism I have is that the iPhone 7 non-Plus apparently didn't also get 3 GB. It's 2 GB RAM. People are speculating though that the iPhone 7 Plus gets 3 GB more for the dual-lens camera though, rather than anything else. (Remember that even the 9.7" iPad Pro only has 2 GB RAM.)

Overall, the star of the 2016 iPhone release is the iPhone 7 Plus. The 7 is iterative, yes with a faster SoC, but only the Plus is a genuine leap forward IMO with 3 GB RAM and a dual-lens camera. So, I ordered the 7 Plus (128 GB). It's due to arrive this week. :)
 
Last edited: