
Geekbench Result for iPhone5 - chengyinliu
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1030202
======
olivercameron
For comparison, iPhone 5's score of _1601_ is better than:

• 2004 Power Mac G5 - _1571_

• Samsung Galaxy S III - _1560_

• Asus Nexus 7 - _1591_

• iPad (3rd Generation) - _766_

• iPhone 4S - _629_

~~~
TwoBit
Those numbers are barely better than the SIII and Nexus. I would have expected
more, given that Androids much faster than these are coming out any day now.

~~~
sxcurry
I'm always surprised how many shipping Apple products are beaten in benchmarks
by about-to-be-maybe-shipped-but-don't-yet-exist products from competitors.
You think they'd do better than that!

~~~
TwoBit
lol, you have a point. Except I'm talking about within four weeks, such as the
Krait Snapdragon Pro phones.

~~~
pooriaazimi
How many of them are planned to be sold? Are manufactures able to make 100
million of them for iPhone 5 in the next 12 months?

------
dan1234
It'll be interesting to see the comparison once Geekbench has been compiled to
support armv7s instructions.

~~~
jfpoole
Geekbench developer here.

Out of curiosity I built Geekbench with Xcode 4.5 (it's not available on the
App Store yet) and took a look at the code generated for the armv7 and the
armv7s architectures. Surprisingly there weren't a lot of differences between
the two. The biggest difference I saw was that Xcode uses conditional VFP
instructions (e.g., vaddeq.f64) for the armv7s but doesn't use them for the
armv7 despite the fact that these instructions are supported by the armv7. My
guess is that the A6 implementation of these instructions is much faster, but
I won't know for sure until I can run benchmarks on the iPhone 5 myself.

Also, I could only find two instructions (sdiv and udiv) that Xcode generates
for the armv7s architecture that aren't supported by the armv7 architecture.

~~~
TwoBit
I know the ARM instruction set fairly well (wrote a dissasembler) and would be
surprised if armv7s made a significant difference.

------
ck2
There has to be a memory bandwidth limit where the number of cores is rendered
moot for quad-core arm7 to be slower than dual-core arm7.

Either that or the test is somehow being fooled, I noticed that benchmark code
is updated frequently.

~~~
wmf
Tegra is known for low memory bandwidth.

~~~
zurn
Googling yields a 6.4 GB/s figure for the single channel LPDDR3 supported by
Tegra 3. It doesn't sound like the most likely bottleneck for a CPU benchmark
given that those A9 cores plod along at about 1/10 the perf of a desktop chip.

What sort of bandwidth do other mobile chips provide?

edit: Looks more like 1/3 than 1/10, looking at the tests in geekbenchscores.
I had the 1/10 figure from looking at Sunspider results
([http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?s=502c8933367f315a17f...](http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?s=502c8933367f315a17f882b45e70fb17&p=1630202&postcount=16)).

~~~
wmf
That's still less bandwidth than any other recent SoC and keep in mind that
the GPU is also sharing that bandwidth.

------
antihero
Grr, just stopped all my services and installed Geekbench to be told I have to
pay $12 for the privilege of getting a number for my system.

------
icehero
A comparison would be nice...

~~~
mdasen
<http://browser.primatelabs.com/ios-benchmarks>

That page is a chart of results for many of the previous models. As one can
see, the iPhone 5's results are 2.55x better than the iPhone 4S. However, that
should be taken with a grain of salt since we only have one iPhone 5 result.

~~~
ewolf
Those data are "calibrated against a baseline score of 1,000 (which is the
score of a single-processor Power Mac G5 @ 1.6GHz)".

