Longtime iPhone user goes Android for 4 months. Result? Back to iPhone

[runawayprisoner]

Yes, but the GPU isn't anything special. It's just a PowerVR SGX543MP2. The only difference was that Apple is using the two core version of the GPU whereas other manufacturers are using the single core variant or something similar. There's nothing stopping other SoC makers from using more cores and seeing a similar level of performance. The PlayStation Vita, for example, is going to be using the 4-core version of the SGX543.

It's special because Apple still manages to squeeze 10 hours of battery life out of that GPU.

The 4-core version in the Vita drains the battery so much that the device barely lasts 5 hours.

 

[Rottie]

Most of those problems are with HTC not Android. There are plenty of other Android phones that wouldn't have any of those isues. The Nexus S in particular is smaller and has better battery life than the Inspire. The Atrix also is smaller, more powerful, and has better battery life wile being significantly more powerful.

It has nothing to do with HTC..it is all about Google Android when it comes to battery drains so quickly...My roommate have a Samsung Epic 4G he had to recharge battery..he doesn't use apps that much he is mostly use texting and email...battery sucks.

 

[Dominato3r]

Using a nexus s right now and I can squeeze a good 15 hours of battery from this thing. So is this a google thing? I don't know, I'm running stock android so I doubt it.

 

[Dulanic]

It has nothing to do with HTC..it is all about Google Android when it comes to battery drains so quickly...My roommate have a Samsung Epic 4G he had to recharge battery..he doesn't use apps that much he is mostly use texting and email...battery sucks.

I love comments that spew crap without any real knowledge. How about battery doesn't last as long because most android phones have over 50% more screen to power? When the screen is off... oh look, other things do pretty damn good.

Android's pain /w battery usually comes from no control over what gets installed, larger screens and faster CPUs. Of course an iphone is going to have longer battery life /w no widgets updating data, 50% smaller screen area and a slower CPU. A blanket statement like yours is just well... stupid.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The only difference was that Apple is using the two core version of the GPU whereas other manufacturers are using the single core variant or something similar.

Who is using the normal GX543? The main non-Apple SOC that has a PowerVR GPU is TI's OMAP, and they all have SGX540s from last year.

There is no doubt- the iPad 2 GPU is the best on the mobile market by a large margin.

 

[Mopetar]

It's special because Apple still manages to squeeze 10 hours of battery life out of that GPU.

The 4-core version in the Vita drains the battery so much that the device barely lasts 5 hours.

Apple manages to squeeze 10 hours out of their devices by using that GPU as little as possible. I imagine that the full power of the GPU isn't used unless someone is running a game.

The rest is serious software optimization, which has little to do with the exact GPU that's being used.

Who is using the normal GX543? The main non-Apple SOC that has a PowerVR GPU is TI's OMAP, and they all have SGX540s from last year.

There is no doubt- the iPad 2 GPU is the best on the mobile market by a large margin.

I'm not denying that, but there's nothing stopping anyone from using the SGX543MP2 or MP4+. Thinking that the A5 is such a monster because Apple can design SoCs better than anyone else is silly.

 

[MrX8503]

I'm not denying that, but there's nothing stopping anyone from using the SGX543MP2 or MP4+. Thinking that the A5 is such a monster because Apple can design SoCs better than anyone else is silly.

But...no one is using the MP2 currently. So I really don't get your point. It doesn't matter if other competitors can use the same GPU, the point is that they AREN'T.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Apple manages to squeeze 10 hours out of their devices by using that GPU as little as possible. I imagine that the full power of the GPU isn't used unless someone is running a game.

The rest is serious software optimization, which has little to do with the exact GPU that's being used.

The GPU does help with user interface whenever animations are involved, such as scrolling, closing and opening apps, opening the switcher, swiping down the notification bar, swiping homescreen, and so on. That's not "as little as possible".

In fact, it's very apparent how the GPU is used on the iPad 2 if you go into Safari or any browser and just scroll up/down continuously. You'll notice that the screen is suddenly split in half and one part scrolls a little bit slower than the other one. That's when each of the GPU core handles a part of the screen.

Also 3D gaming on the iPad 2 doesn't degrade battery life significantly. Most of the drain comes from having the screen at higher brightness and the speakers on. Otherwise, it can still last a good 7-8 hours.

I'm not denying that, but there's nothing stopping anyone from using the SGX543MP2 or MP4+. Thinking that the A5 is such a monster because Apple can design SoCs better than anyone else is silly.

Well, there is. Power consumption. Most other SoCs get really bad battery life with just a single SGX540 or equivalent GPU. Plus Android doesn't use the GPU as extensively as iOS so there is no point in putting a faster GPU in.

 

[Mopetar]

The GPU does help with user interface whenever animations are involved, such as scrolling, closing and opening apps, opening the switcher, swiping down the notification bar, swiping homescreen, and so on. That's not "as little as possible".

Everything about an SoC is "as little as possible." The only reason Apple uses the GPU is because it's more efficient than using the CPU. It's the same reason there's usually a lot of dedicated hardware decoders in the SoC.

Well, there is. Power consumption. Most other SoCs get really bad battery life with just a single SGX540 or equivalent GPU. Plus Android doesn't use the GPU as extensively as iOS so there is no point in putting a faster GPU in.

I fail to see how other SoCs get "worse" battery life. Unless they're fabricated on a terrible process that's incredibly leaky, the only difference between a device like the iPhone and an Android phone is software and optimization for specific hardware.

In the first case, it's been long evident that differences between the two operating systems account for differences in battery life. Android, for example, had multi-tasking before the iPhone brought similar features. That costs battery life to implement as the CPU stays more active.

In the second case, Android is available on a plethora of different hardware, making it a lot more difficult to optimize for any one piece of hardware. This leads to less efficient use of the hardware in general.

If Apple were to use almost any other chip and tune their software for it, their battery life would be similarly good.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Everything about an SoC is "as little as possible." The only reason Apple uses the GPU is because it's more efficient than using the CPU. It's the same reason there's usually a lot of dedicated hardware decoders in the SoC.

Using the GPU is more efficient than the CPU? I think Google would say otherwise. They have said otherwise all the way up until now. Unless Apple does something magical, their GPU should still be the same as other GPU, and that means they still consume power to some extent.

I fail to see how other SoCs get "worse" battery life. Unless they're fabricated on a terrible process that's incredibly leaky, the only difference between a device like the iPhone and an Android phone is software and optimization for specific hardware.

In the first case, it's been long evident that differences between the two operating systems account for differences in battery life. Android, for example, had multi-tasking before the iPhone brought similar features. That costs battery life to implement as the CPU stays more active.

In the second case, Android is available on a plethora of different hardware, making it a lot more difficult to optimize for any one piece of hardware. This leads to less efficient use of the hardware in general.

If Apple were to use almost any other chip and tune their software for it, their battery life would be similarly good.

But we don't know if that's true or not. Perhaps iOS can do better on those SoCs than Android can, but the iPad 2 wouldn't be as fast/smooth/long-lasting as it is right now without the A5.

 

[Fire&Blood]

Iphones always had great SoC's, the iphone 5 should be no different.

The A5 in tablet form is the top dog right now but it's still Q4 2010 A9 Cortex 40 nm part. I expect the iphone5's A5 to take a performance hit compared to the ipad2 but still beat the Exynos, then get beat by the upcoming 28nm parts.

Apple may say they aren't interested in the hardware spec race but the A5 proves the opposite to be true. The 12 month refresh cycle, should Apple decide to keep that pace, is simply too long for any SoC to keep the performance crown. In addition to that, Samsung and others appear to be bent on beating Apple, so any SoC running iOS will be targeted immediately upon release. Qualcomm, Nvidia, TI and soon Intel will make the job much harder for Apple.

As a consumer, I'll just sit back and reap the benefits of this spec race. Whatever your preference is, there is no denying that we have the Exynos and the A5 because of the competition between them that led to the better products we can choose from.

 

[Mopetar]

Using the GPU is more efficient than the CPU? I think Google would say otherwise. They have said otherwise all the way up until now. Unless Apple does something magical, their GPU should still be the same as other GPU, and that means they still consume power to some extent.

I should have said in the context of screen animations, etc. Performing those animations on the GPU would be more efficient than the CPU. That said, they only use the GPU in the cases where it will be more efficient than performing the same task on the CPU.

It's a beefy GPU to be sure, but most of the time it's resting.

But we don't know if that's true or not. Perhaps iOS can do better on those SoCs than Android can, but the iPad 2 wouldn't be as fast/smooth/long-lasting as it is right now without the A5.

Both are probably true, but as I've said, outside of the dedicated hardware that Apple added, the A5 isn't anything special. Both the CPU and GPU cores that it uses are the same as those available to other manufacturers. Apple may have done some small amount of tweaking, but it's unlikely that they've made drastic changes that would vastly improve performance.

Regardless, we've probably derailed this thread enough for the time being.

 

[Mopetar]

Iphones always had great SoC's, the iphone 5 should be no different.

The A5 in tablet form is the top dog right now but it's still Q4 2010 A9 Cortex 40 nm part. I expect the iphone5's A5 to take a performance hit compared to the ipad2 but still beat the Exynos, then get beat by the upcoming 28nm parts.

I believe that the A6 will be a 28 nm part. Assuming that the next iteration of the iPad continues to come out at about the same time, early 2Q, it's likely that they'll have a competitive chip out around a similar time as their competitors. NVidia will probably have the most powerful chip in the Tegra 3 until that point, but it's not a 28 nm part so will be passed up by in the near future.

Apple may say they aren't interested in the hardware spec race but the A5 proves the opposite to be true. The 12 month refresh cycle, should Apple decide to keep that pace, is simply too long for any SoC to keep the performance crown.

I've always assumed that the reason that the A5 has such a large GPU is to provide Apple's chip design team with some experience in adding powerful GPUs to the SoC and dealing with the issues and other problems that can arise from such designs. The next iPad will likely have a screen resolution twice that of the current iPad. Driving a display like that is going to require a strong GPU.

There was no real reason for Apple to include such a powerful GPU just for its own sake. It may have been a remnant of an early Apple attempt to increase the screen resolution with the iPad 2, but the production capacity for such screens did not exist at the time. This leads me to believe that they only included two powerful GPU cores was to gain the necessary experience with building the type of chip necessary to run a high resolution display.

 

[Aikouka]

Who is using the normal GX543? The main non-Apple SOC that has a PowerVR GPU is TI's OMAP, and they all have SGX540s from last year.

There is no doubt- the iPad 2 GPU is the best on the mobile market by a large margin.

The TI OMAP 4470 will have a SGX544MP2. Although, I have no idea when we'll actually see one in use.

 

[Fire&Blood]

NVidia will probably have the most powerful chip in the Tegra 3 until that point, but it's not a 28 nm part so will be passed up by in the near future.

The die shrink to 28nm, as soon as TMSC can ship in volumes, will mark the introduction of Kal-EL+, confirmed by Nvidia's CEO. The die shrink from 40nm to 28nm was important enough for a refresh and Anand hinted so in one of the articles.


A6? Let's face it, Apple has always had superior SoC. Apple's future SoC's should remain successful but the rest of the market will poke holes in Apple's comparatively long refresh cycles. Android, at least in SoC performance comparisons, didn't exist in 2008 and didn't show up for in 2009. Remember the original Tegra? Me neither lol. Some may to refuse to recall but I remember The 3GS's SoC running circles around it's Android counterparts, the A4 did as well. 2010 was the year of Android catching up to iOS, in just about any aspect. It marked the begin of first serious commitments to the platform and a step up in high end segment, both quality and quantity. 2011, right from the start, Apple rocked the boat again with the A5. By summer, Android's push for the high end yielded the Exynos, that beat up the A4, in a similar way the ipad'2s A5 beat Xoom's Tegra 2.


I'm confident future Apple's SoC's will continue to make an impact, much like it has been the case in the past. Ultimately, it's the sheer number of competing SoC's and how frequently they are launched that will prevent Apple's SoC's staying on top for long. Apple has Nvidia, Qualcomm, TI and soon Intel to fight against. Any innovations are likely to be adopted sooner by Apple's competition due to the count Android SoC's launched throughout the year, as opposed to Apple's once a year timeline they have to do with. An example: Chip stacking appears to be on the verge of a breakthrough that's big enough to challenge Moore's law. Let's assume the breakthrough in chip stacking happens tomorrow and yields a 50% performance gain, Android products are bound to implement it sooner, with their design and production cycles scattered throughout the year.

 

[Aikouka]

A6? Let's face it, Apple has always had superior SoC. Apple's future SoC's should remain successful but the rest of the market will poke holes in Apple's comparatively long refresh cycles.

Won't the next Apple SoC be the first SoC developed without Samsung?

 

[Mopetar]

The die shrink to 28nm, as soon as TMSC can ship in volumes, will mark the introduction of Kal-EL+, confirmed by Nvidia's CEO. The die shrink from 40nm to 28nm was important enough for a refresh and Anand hinted so in one of the articles.

Given how constrained TSMCs 28nm process is right now and that NVidia will want to use as much of it that's available to them for their desktop and notebook GPUs, I can't see the Kal-El+ coming out soon. Also if it's just a die shrink it will have to compete with chips based on the Cortex-A15 core, which is a significant improvement over the A9 cores in SoCs right now.

A6? Let's face it, Apple has always had superior SoC. Apple's future SoC's should remain successful but the rest of the market will poke holes in Apple's comparatively long refresh cycles.

I doubt it given how well the iPhone 4 continues to sell even though most people expected the iPhone 5 to launch in the summer. If this were going to happen, it would have by now.

Android, at least in SoC performance comparisons, didn't exist in 2008 and didn't show up for in 2009. Remember the original Tegra? Me neither lol. Some may to refuse to recall but I remember The 3GS's SoC running circles around it's Android counterparts, the A4 did as well.

The SoC used in the iPhone 3GS was an SoC designed and manufactured by Samsung. Also the ARM CPU core was underclocked by a decent amount. If anything, the 3GS had a worse SoC and by no means had any advantage over other devices. If anything, it was that Android was still relatively new and the code was still relatively crap.

I'm confident future Apple's SoC's will continue to make an impact, much like it has been the case in the past. Ultimately, it's the sheer number of competing SoC's and how frequently they are launched that will prevent Apple's SoC's staying on top for long. Apple has Nvidia, Qualcomm, TI and soon Intel to fight against. Any innovations are likely to be adopted sooner by Apple's competition due to the count Android SoC's launched throughout the year, as opposed to Apple's once a year timeline they have to do with. An example: Chip stacking appears to be on the verge of a breakthrough that's big enough to challenge Moore's law. Let's assume the breakthrough in chip stacking happens tomorrow and yields a 50% performance gain, Android products are bound to implement it sooner, with their design and production cycles scattered throughout the year.

Apple really isn't making any innovations in their SoCs. Right now their competitors have access to the same CPU and GPU cores if they want and most likely get their chips fabricated by the same company on the same process as Apple.

You're assumption that some miraculous breakthrough will occur in such a short span of time is fairly naive. Generally if someone makes some such breakthrough, it takes a long time before that breakthrough can be brought to market. Long before the new process is ready to actually fab chips, the company developing it will have let their partners know about, when it will be available, etc.

Even if the time frame for a new process doesn't match Apple's release schedule, on average they're no worse than half a year away from building a new chip. Some may even consider that preferable as Apple would get a more mature process and have a longer lead time to ramp up chip production.

Android manufacturers aren't going to be much better off. They might plan to ship a new device around the time that they can get chips based on the new process, but they still need to test these devices and work out any bugs with the new chip. Building a mobile device isn't something that happens overnight and trying to shoehorn new hardware into an existing device after the fact is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Mopetar]

Won't the next Apple SoC be the first SoC developed without Samsung?

They've been developing their own ever since the A4, but they were still using Samsung's fab. Prior to that they just used SoCs designed and fabricated by Samsung.

 

[Fire&Blood]

The SoC used in the iPhone 3GS was an SoC designed and manufactured by Samsung. Also the ARM CPU core was underclocked by a decent amount. If anything, the 3GS had a worse SoC and by no means had any advantage over other devices.

Compared to which devices? No 2009 Android SoC beat the 3GS's and not even trying to compare the OS's maturity or software at that time. Like I said, Android SoC's only started becomng competitive in 2010.

You're assumption that some miraculous breakthrough will occur in such a short span of time is fairly naive. Generally if someone makes some such breakthrough, it takes a long time before that breakthrough can be brought to market. Long before the new process is ready to actually fab chips, the company developing it will have let their partners know about, when it will be available, etc.

No breakthrough has to be miraculous, chip stacking was just a hypothetical example.

No one argued that innovation doesn't take time before it becomes implemented. That doesn't change the fact that there is a certain point in time it becomes availiable and Android handsets can take advantage of them sooner as opposed to Apple 12 month refresh cycle.


At any given time, Android has various handsets in all the different development stages and be it a die shrink or any other innovation, few of them are always in development stages where they can adopt them.

The proof of it is all around, Android immediately adapted to HSPA+ and more recently LTE.

Android manufacturers aren't going to be much better off. They might plan to ship a new device around the time that they can get chips based on the new process, but they still need to test these devices and work out any bugs with the new chip. Building a mobile device isn't something that happens overnight and trying to shoehorn new hardware into an existing device after the fact is a recipe for disaster.

That hasn't been their strategy. They can't take such risks so they continue as planned. The benefits of the new innovation is adopted in the future product that's early enough in the development stage to do so and with multiple products always being worked on, they can respond to the innovation with one of the next products from the lineup.

 

[Mopetar]

Compared to which devices? No 2009 Android SoC beat the 3GS's and not even trying to compare the OS's maturity or software at that time. Like I said, Android SoC's only started becomng competitive in 2010.

There were next to no Android phones available in 2009. The first major device was the Droid, which launched in October and had a comparable SoC. The Nexus One, which was available three months later had a vastly superior SoC.

No one argued that innovation doesn't take time before it becomes implemented. That doesn't change the fact that there is a certain point in time it becomes availiable and Android handsets can take advantage of them sooner as opposed to Apple 12 month refresh cycle.

Such an advance would have to become available shortly after Apple started to ramp up production for one of their devices and before any hypothetical Android device entered the later design stages. Depending on whether or not Apple shifts their phones to a permanent early 4Q release time, it's unlikely that they'll be completely unable to take advantage of some ground-breaking significant advance for more than three months. Anything less than that and they won't have to care. The iPhone 4 has shown that they can continue to sell hardware that's over a year old. I can't think of many other phones that have had such a long shelf life.

 

[Fire&Blood]

There were next to no Android phones available in 2009. The first major device was the Droid, which launched in October and had a comparable SoC. The Nexus One, which was available three months later had a vastly superior SoC.

Which made it a 2010 phone, sold without subsidy so poorly that Google scraped that sales model. The Droid was a VZW only phone, I only consider widespread hardware for comparisons so 2009 Apple dominated. The mass arrival of phones with SoC that could compete wasn't until Q2 2010 which then got beaten by the A4.

Such an advance would have to become available shortly after Apple started to ramp up production for one of their devices and before any hypothetical Android device entered the later design stages. Depending on whether or not Apple shifts their phones to a permanent early 4Q release time, it's unlikely that they'll be completely unable to take advantage of some ground-breaking significant advance for more than three months. Anything less than that and they won't have to care. The iPhone 4 has shown that they can continue to sell hardware that's over a year old. I can't think of many other phones that have had such a long shelf life.

Assuming they stay with the yearly refreshes, I expect Apple to deliver with each new SoC. I'm not discussing iphone's indisputable appeal or it's sales, I believe it will keep selling even after the iphone5 but I'm focused on SoC's, not on iphone sales.

I maintain that Apple's SoC's were dominant. Sure, comparable SoC's could have been had but no one even reached until recently. The emergence of Exynos, marks a shift, the era in which a an iphone SoC can remain unbeaten for a year is over.

Why? Some serious competing will start with the emergence of quad core platforms. Nvidia said that it's mobile business made $2 billion last year and they want that up to $20 by 2015. Intel is coming in too and it's only a matter of time until a giant like Intel gets it right. Qualcomm and TI may have the expertise as older players but they have to fight for survival now. With that many big players in the mobile market, it's impossible for any of them to remain on top for too long.

 

[Mopetar]

Which made it a 2010 phone, sold without subsidy so poorly that Google scraped that sales model. The Droid was a VZW only phone, I only consider widespread hardware for comparisons so 2009 Apple dominated. The mass arrival of phones with SoC that could compete wasn't until Q2 2010 which then got beaten by the A4.

If you really want to be that pedantic over a few days, I believe the original Samsung Galaxy shipped with an SoC similar to the one in the iPhone, but clocked much higher.

Also, for what it's worth, the A4 was underclocked in the iPhone, running much slower than the 1GHz Qualcomm chips available at the time, which coincidentally were available before the A4.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Yes, but the GPU isn't anything special. It's just a PowerVR SGX543MP2. The only difference was that Apple is using the two core version of the GPU whereas other manufacturers are using the single core variant or something similar. There's nothing stopping other SoC makers from using more cores and seeing a similar level of performance. The PlayStation Vita, for example, is going to be using the 4-core version of the SGX543.

It's special because Apple still manages to squeeze 10 hours of battery life out of that GPU.

The 4-core version in the Vita drains the battery so much that the device barely lasts 5 hours.

I'm confused. If we're talking about the A5 here, then it's only in the iPad 2. Comparing the iPad 2's battery life to the PS Vita or a smartphone is apples to oranges.

The iPad 2 has a 6930 mAh battery - triple the size of the Vita, and quadruple the size of a typical smartphone battery. It's not that earth shattering that it gets 10h of life!

You cannot directly compare battery life between these devices because they have completely different screen sizes & technologies and battery sizes.

 

[MrX8503]

I'm confused. If we're talking about the A5 here, then it's only in the iPad 2. Comparing the iPad 2's battery life to the PS Vita or a smartphone is apples to oranges.

The iPad 2 has a 6930 mAh battery - triple the size of the Vita, and quadruple the size of a typical smartphone battery. It's not that earth shattering that it gets 10h of life!

You cannot directly compare battery life between these devices because they have completely different screen sizes & technologies and battery sizes.

While that may be true, Apple has a great track record of having long lasting devices. Doesn't matter how they get there, they always do. The same could be said for their MBPs too. The lithium ions in the laptops are custom designed into sheets rather than the conventional cylinder, which many people aren't aware of.

Battery life has always been a top priority for Apple's iPhone, which was also the reason behind the delay of adopting 3G. I'm willing to bet Apple will be late in adopting LTE as well, but it'll probably have better battery life compared to other LTE devices.

With the amount of money Apple has, if the battery tech doesn't exist, they are the one company that can afford to drive new battery tech forward.

 

[jiffylube1024]

While that may be true, Apple has a great track record of having long lasting devices. Doesn't matter how they get there, they always do. The same could be said for their MBPs too. The lithium ions in the laptops are custom designed into sheets rather than the conventional cylinder, which many people aren't aware of.

Battery life has always been a top priority for Apple's iPhone, which was also the reason behind the delay of adopting 3G. I'm willing to bet Apple will be late in adopting LTE as well, but it'll probably have better battery life compared to other LTE devices.

With the amount of money Apple has, if the battery tech doesn't exist, they are the one company that can afford to drive new battery tech forward.

Apple does have a great track record for battery life, but that still doesn't make the comparison of the A5 (in the iPad 2) to the PS Vita or any other smartphone a completely apples to oranges comparison.

Part of Apple's "battery advantage" - in laptops anyway - is due to using Lithium Polymer vs. standard Lithium Ion batteries in most laptops. It also helps that they have a bit more space to work with in having non-removable batteries in virtually all of their laptops. They don't need to make a swappable battery that requires a plastic casing.
---------


However, the biggest advantage Apple has for battery life is Mac OS/iOS. Anand did a comparison awhile ago of OS X vs. Vista, and the results were just shocking:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2645/13

5 hours browsing on the MacBook Air on OS X vs 2.55 hours browsing on Vista!

This is not a battery advantage - it's the same hardware. Mac OS X is just a lot better for battery life than Vista.

Windows 7 has closed the gap somewhat, but Apple still has a massive advantage in mobile battery life. Similarly iOS is able to get a lot of life out of smaller batteries than Android.