
32GB iPhone 7 significantly slower than more expensive versions, tests show - jonathansizz
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/21/32gb-iphone-7-slower-than-more-expensive-versions-tests-show
======
rayiner
My suspicion is that it has to do with the test and the SLC cache. In the
iPhone 7, most of the flash is TLC, but a portion of the flash is configured
as much faster (for writes) SLC. The cache buffers a certain amount of writes,
later transferring them to TLC. On a bigger drive this cache is bigger. So if
the test fits into SLC cache on the bigger phone but falls out of it on the
smaller phone, that (combined with lower write parallelism with fewer flash
chips) would explain the write delta.

~~~
insightful
These tests churn GBs of data (necessary given how fast flash is), rendering
the cache largely irrelevant. As I mentioned elsewhere, it is incredibly
unlikely that parallelism plays a part (and has _never_ been the case in prior
devices, nor is it the case with the vast majority of SSDs. Anyone blindly
buying larger for more parallelism is very likely to be disappointed).
Different vendors make their memory solutions, and there are huge variations
in options. We've seen this across a single model of a set size when two
different vendors provide the storage.

In the end it really won't make a difference for real world use.

------
davidf18
More troublesome than the slower SSD speeds is the lower quality Intel Modem
compared with the Qualcomm Modem -- at least in large cities where there are
large buildings that block signal. Meanwhile, the Samsung S7 has the Qualcomm
Modem (MDM 9645M) with 4 antennas that allow for 4x4 MIMO, 256 QAM DL, EVS
(Enhanced voice services). On the Samsung phone the 4x4 MIMO is now turned on
as is the EVS (Ultra HD voice), the later which provides higher quality voice
and operable at lower signal strength than current HD voice.

For those of us the own the Verizon/Sprint version, I wish that Apple would at
least match the capabilities of the Samsung S7 that shipped 6 months before
the iPhone 7. The difference is the quality of the voice and the ability to
communicate when signals are weaker.

~~~
in_cahoots
The Verizon/Sprint version has the Qualcomm modem. Are you saying that even
with Qualcomm there's a noticeable difference between the iPhone and the S7?

~~~
davidf18
Yes, the Samsung is better.

Important is not only the baseband modem, the Qualcomm MDM 9645M, but also the
RF Front End, the number of antennas, and the antenna design.

Both units have the Qualcomm X12 MDM9645M baseband modem and two transceivers,
Qualcomm WTR3925 and WTR4905.

But the iPhone has only 2 antennas and only able to support 4x2 MIMO while the
Samsung has 4 antennas does currently support the 4x4 MIMO.

The 256 QAM DL/ 64 QAM UL can be turned on with a firmware upgrade in both
phones. Neither phone has it turned on at this time.

The EVS -- Enhanced Voice Services offers significantly improved voice quality
over even the HD voice with an improved codec and a better packet
communications layer.

Samsung has EVS turned on, the iPhone does not.

The 4x4 MIMO, 256 QAM, and EVS are also contingent on the carriers
implementing these features, but these are available on T-mobile and will soon
be available on Verizon.

I am disappointed that Apple did not do at least as good of a job as Samsung
which provides the 4x4 MIMO, 256 QAM, and EVS.

The 4x4 MIMO and 256 QAM are important not only for better signal quality but
also a better use of spectrum, which in large cities is going to be an issue
in the (near) future.

One other feature to look out for is Band 66 support which covers the newly
purchased AWS-3 spectrum (US). The LG V20 phone coming out at the end of this
month will be the first phone to support band 66. In this sense, both the
Samsung phone and the iPhone are already obsolete.

~~~
milan03
We could also just link to the source:
[http://cellularinsights.com/iphone7/](http://cellularinsights.com/iphone7/)

~~~
davidf18
CellularInsights was a source. My undergrad is EE/CS and I studied digital
comms as well as meet Qualcomm people mobile health summit and other health
computer conferences.

Sources included iFixit which discussed the chips involved (but neglected to
mention whether there were 2 or 4 antennas in iPhone 7 which cellular insights
did provide), Qualcomm data sheets, Tmobile and Verizon press releases,
fiercewireless, howardforums, Enhanced Voice Services (EVS) specs and
datasheets from Ericcson, Nokia, and others.

------
RubenSandwich
A slowdown is to be expected with Solid State Disks; as smaller SSDs are
slower then larger ones. Simply because larger ones have more NAND chips and
are therefore able to write to more locations at once.

[https://superuser.com/questions/977080/does-a-large-ssd-
perf...](https://superuser.com/questions/977080/does-a-large-ssd-perform-
better-than-a-smaller-one)

~~~
tetraodonpuffer
that explains the 25-30% slower read speed, it does not explain the nearly 10
times slower write speed, there must be something else going on

~~~
RubenSandwich
You bring up a good point a 10x slowdown is quite dramatic. I have edited my
original post to make it sound like less NAND chips in the SDD isn't the only
issue.

------
Karupan
From the looks of it, my 7+ shipped with the Intel modem, and I can definitely
see a drop in network strength when compared to my wife's iPhone 6. This is
particularly worse when traveling, as the phone barely manages handoff
properly.

I also noticed strange interference noise when using my earphones during my
everyday commute. This seems to have been fixed by the recent update (10.0.3)
though.

~~~
kitsunesoba
The moment I heard that modems were different between service provider models,
I suspected that trouble like this may arise from them more band-restricted
model of the two. It's one of the reasons I waited for the SIM-
free/international model to become available before buying.

I think band/antenna differences between models should be much, much more
visible. Right now this info can only be found on the tech specs page of
Apple's iPhone site, but it really should be prominently visible on one of the
feature pages too. Otherwise you're going to have a bunch of AT&T/Sprint
subscribers being unpleasantly surprised when their $700+ "unlocked" flagship
phone is almost useless overseas.

~~~
kalleboo
> Otherwise you're going to have a bunch of AT&T/Sprint subscribers being
> unpleasantly surprised when their $700+ "unlocked" flagship phone is almost
> useless overseas

This was a dealbreaker in the dualband/quadband days, an issue in the early
UMTS days (when there were phones without 2100), but these days even the "band
restricted" models mean you're just not going to get extended range bands, far
from "useless overseas".

~~~
kitsunesoba
Granted, but it's still disappointing and less than I'd expect from a device
costing so much.

------
Tepix
title omission: "... in benchmarks".

In the real world, the flash speed difference is rather insignificant. I don't
copy around huge 4K movies on my phone very often.

~~~
itake
I think this really depends on how long you are expecting to use your phone.
Presently the iPhone 7 feels unnecessarily fast, but in 2-4 years when more
data is consumed and operating systems are more taxing, I may care more about
those difference.

~~~
teekert
How can something feel unnecessarily fast? It may _be_ unnecessarily fast but
to me tech never feels fast enough. Unless it would respond before I do
something perhaps... I'd like lag to approach zero to be honest.

~~~
stcredzero
_but to me tech never feels fast enough_

Because of programmers and Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons." Coders will
always use the computation, memory, and bandwidth resources that are there.
"If I just use a little more, it benefits my app, but it hurts everyone else
just incrementally." Everyone makes the same calculation, and voila, the
machine that's 2X faster feels just as slow. It's the same reason why building
more highways just results in more people stuck in slow traffic.

------
MBCook
Did they run these tests again AFTER the 10.0.3 patch that was supposed to
significantly improve Verizon service for many people (back to at least where
it was on a 6s)?

------
Bud
After reading both of the Guardian's sources here and seeing what their
testing methodology was, I think I'll withhold judgement until someone with a
more solid reputation does the testing.

Quite a few users in the comment thread over on GSMArena are posting testing
results for their 32GB iPhone 7 which are much faster than what GSMArena is
claiming. Judge for yourself:

[http://www.gsmarena.com/the_32gb_iphone_7_plus_uses_a_substa...](http://www.gsmarena.com/the_32gb_iphone_7_plus_uses_a_substantially_slower_storage_our_tests_show-
blog-20943.php)

Edit: one more note. GSMArena's article on this was posted on October 7; too
early for the latest iOS updates to have been used in testing.

------
yuchi
Missing from the title: «…significantly slower _on network access_ than…»

------
stcredzero
_The 128GB iPhone 7 wrote to memory at 341Mbps, but the 32GB iPhone 7 was over
eight times slower at just 42Mbps._

Slow write speeds are the hallmark of being too much of a cheapskate when
buying SSDs. 42Mbps would be miserably slow for a laptop SSD. Buying such a
slow SSD is the kind of mistake I'd expect from a non-savvy consumer.

Then again, how much data is being written to an iPhone's SSD per second on
average?

------
mankash666
Two possible reasons for shower performance:

1\. 32GB capacity comes with lower SLC cache 2\. 32 GB storage has fewer
dies/planes in NAND reducing parallelism

------
johansch
Gotta maintain that ~40% gross profit margin somehow.

------
planetjones
... but it's still more than fast enough for any process which executes on the
phone.

~~~
falcolas
Except for writing photos and videos to disk, as stated in the article.

It's not the CPU that is the problem, it's the flash storage and the cellular
modem. Two things which can definitely impact users on a day-to-day basis.

