iPhone 5 launch expected today according to the BBC

[Pottsey]

Please, share your source?

AnandTech - Dual Core Snapdragon GPU Performance Explored - 1.5 GHz MSM8660 and Adreno 220 Benchmarks

Above and the next page on that link show the SGX540 and the Adreno 220 with Vsync on as around the same speed with the Adreno being a little faster. (You cannot turn Vsync off with the SGX). Going by the SGX543 in other products and its specs we should see in games and graphic based apps the new Iphone being around double the speed over the Sensation and other phones based on a single SGX540 or Adreno 220 core.

 

If you have time look up Infinitely Blade II on youtube. I have not seen anything like that on other phones or tablets.

 

Nephilim is right in that the x7 numbers are wrong. I got confused and thought a Sensation had a SGX535 core which is wrong. I do need to revise my numbers down from x7 to x2 or x3 in graphics.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Pottsey

[mwbutler]

When it has expandable memory, bigger storage space, swappable battery, no antenna issue, a bigger screen, less expensive with a good contract tarrif, a decent camera and not so bloody locked down I'll consider buying it. But for now I'll stick with my superb Galaxy S (rooted using Darkys rom) and upgrade to the Galaxy S III when (if) it comes out early next year. The SGS3 will most likely be vasatly better than the iphone 4s in every way...

[MK-2]

When it has expandable memory, bigger storage space, swappable battery, no antenna issue, a bigger screen, less expensive with a good contract tarrif, a decent camera and not so bloody locked down I'll consider buying it. But for now I'll stick with my superb Galaxy S (rooted using Darkys rom) and upgrade to the Galaxy S III when (if) it comes out early next year. The SGS3 will most likely be vasatly better than the iphone 4s in every way...

 

this is the problem with places like tech websites, news websites etc. they will bill the SGS3 as an iphone killer. and it may well be, it may well be the best phone ever, but all these websites seem smitten with apple. the iphone5 wont be billed as "an sgs3 killer" by the bbc as to them, the iphone is god.

[laptopsandspares]

Sorry, but Apple are not normally 'ahead in techology'. They more often than not put a glossy cover on an old technology.

 

iPhone - smartphones had been out for years. Applications for phones had been out for years. Websites full of apps had been around for years. Just none of them had been marketed very well.

 

Video calling - again, had been around for years.

 

Speech recognition - Google has had this for several years in Android.

 

The actual technology in a lot of these things they produce is often out of date. 5MP camera in the iPhone 4 when their competitors were producing 8MP. No 3G in the original iPhone. The new i3/i5/i7 chips in their laptops, they were much later releasing them compared with their competitors.

 

Very occasionally, they introduce something new - like Intel's new Lightspeed ports - they are the first company to include them in their devices.

 

I'm not trying to be a hippy tree hugger bringing peace and harmony but you are both right. Apple are very good at painting over older technology and occasioanlly implement something new first, for me the game changing aspect of apple (And be clear, I'm not Jobs' et al biggeset fan AT ALL), is that they make what they use work.

 

Smart phones, yup had been around for years. Never actually worked properly though. The guy I do photography with part time has been punnishing himself with smartphones for 7 or 8 years. Constantly crashing, dreadful UI's clunky handsets etc. Lots of reasons for this, too long to debate but the fact is apple step in with the iPhone and you finally had a piece of hardware and software that work properly together. Fast forward 5 years and there's a thriving market for smart phones with Samsung, HTC, google etc all now producing credible workable devices. Would this have happened without the iPhone? Honestly it just wouldn't. No-one would have invested the huge sums needed to build this market speculatively if apple hadn't.

 

You can apply all that to the tablet market too. I cut my teeth in distribution 10+ years ago and there were touch screen "tablets" then but the market share was tiny. Fast forward 10 years, how many tablets have you got to chose from for Xmas now? And why? I think if you look at the boom in investment and product choice you'll see a startling correlation with the launch of the iPad.

 

Video calling? sure, been around for years just like web-cams have but have you used face time? It's very very good and far more impressive than any skype or msn video chat I've had. Even my mum can do it!!

 

I don't think apples hardware is particularly cutting edge, I don't think it's massively behind the game either but the key is when they release something whatever the spec, it (usually) works. (OK so sometimes you have to hold it funny to get a signal ) I'd rather pay a lot less for it though.

 

I think with Apple is very easy to be critcal and "hate the player" while forgetting that in many of the fileds they operate, they have often re-invented the "game"

[DrCheese]

^ Pretty much this.

 

I had a much higher spec phone than the iphone back in 2007. 3g, 5mpx camera, more RAM, dedicated GPU, expandable storage blah blah. Guess what? It was awful. (Nokia N95)

Most of the focus was on the pure spec's of the device rather than the whole experience and it showed. The software was just clunky and slow. Rotating the screen would cause it redraw the entire UI. Granted, the iPhone and modern smartphones do this, but they disguse it with a rotation animation. Even something simple like that goes a long way towards the users perception of the device.

 

Loading apps on the device was a massive pain in the backside. You had to download them from random websites and then sideload them on or spend hours typing out a web address on the phone keypad.

The apps usually suck anyway as each device would have it's own set of hardware buttons and developers could never assume a phone would have button X or Y, so the experience was subpar.

 

The same applies to web browsing, hours typing out a URL and then you'd get a horrible cutdown version of a website.

Even connecting to wifi would drive you crazy, you'd have to connect to wifi manually each time instead of it just roaming automatically when your wifi came back in range.

 

It had video calling but it was such bad quality it was a total waste of time. There's a reason Apple limited facetime to just wifi when it was initially released.

 

Sure this is just one smartphone from that era, but at the time it was acknowledged to be the top of the line.

So yeah, We had all of this stuff years ago. Doesn't mean it was any good tho.

[gshaw]

Basically what we've just proven is that Apple is really just a triumph of slick presentation and marketing, certainly not the tech messiahs and innovators that they're often made out to be. The company was also bright enough to jump onto the designer brand bandwagon that seems to have exploded over the past 10 years or so and sold as many phones on the logo and "cool" factor as anything inside the phone itself.

 

Think they've let themselves down with this release, are they missing the Jobs influence already?

[mac_shinobi]

Basically what we've just proven is that Apple is really just a triumph of slick presentation and marketing, certainly not the tech messiahs and innovators that they're often made out to be. The company was also bright enough to jump onto the designer brand bandwagon that seems to have exploded over the past 10 years or so and sold as many phones on the logo and "cool" factor as anything inside the phone itself.

Think they've let themselves down with this release, are they missing the Jobs influence already?

 

Yeah I think that "Tim" has cooked it right up !!!

[LosOjos]

*ahem*

 

What it's like to own an Apple product - The Oatmeal

[laptopsandspares]

*ahem*

 

What it's like to own an Apple product - The Oatmeal

 

Brilliant

[SYNACK]

Very occasionally, they introduce something new - like Intel's new Lightspeed ports - they are the first company to include them in their devices.

 

Yea, quite often the actual new stuff they release is undercooked just like Lightpeek, which is a protocol based on 10GB/s fibre from intel that is electricaly isolated, long range and could carry any other protocols inside it like USB, Firewire, DVI/HDMI, displayport, PCI-e. What Apple has released is a basterdized version (thunderbolt) as 10GB fibre modules are too expecive leading to a proprietary over copper solution with less bandwidth and support, no electrical isolation, limited range and a requirement for a really expencive decoder for each device anyway. Given what the technology is meant to be anyone who really jumps on this implementation is braindead for anything other than limited product runs.

 

They were one of the first to push USB (and only USB) - largely another intel invention - in the iMacs when USB hardware barely existed. I remember, it just was not around. At the same time they removed the floppy drive, to much scorn at the time but revisionalists have called it a great move. Why, three years later, when USB keys were cheapish and easy to get a hold of other manufacturers did the same thing because the time was right. Revisionalists were then all over the fact that Apple did it first and they did, they just forced it before they really should have.

 

Microsoft has done simmilar stuff but they were much further ahead, their first mobile computers (CE based) were easily 15 years too eairly for the market.

 

I had a smart phone before the iPhone and I liked it, I could use it fine. The iPhone dropped the skill level required down which made many happy though, I'll give them that. I'm also fond of capacitive touch screens so I'll give them that too.

[laptopsandspares]

Yea, quite often the actual new stuff they release is undercooked just like Lightpeek, which is a protocol based on 10GB/s fibre from intel that is electricaly isolated, long range and could carry any other protocols inside it like USB, Firewire, DVI/HDMI, displayport, PCI-e. What Apple has released is a basterdized version (thunderbolt) as 10GB fibre modules are too expecive leading to a proprietary over copper solution with less bandwidth and support, no electrical isolation, limited range and a requirement for a really expencive decoder for each device anyway. Given what the technology is meant to be anyone who really jumps on this implementation is braindead for anything other than limited product runs.

 

I read somewhere, I think it was El Reg that intel were responsible for dropping the optical tech for thunderfoot (sic) as they were plesantly surprised at the speeds they attained over copper. I think cost was a factor, but this was related to the amount of firms in a position to adopt the fibre tech into peripherals at the moment. Same article went on to say that when fibre is introduced, the cables will interchance and carry both optical and copper to ensure forward and backward integration.

 

I'll see if i can find and link to the article as I've probably grossly misunderstood what was said.

[SYNACK]

I read somewhere, I think it was El Reg that intel were responsible for dropping the optical tech for thunderfoot (sic) as they were plesantly surprised at the speeds they attained over copper. I think cost was a factor, but this was related to the amount of firms in a position to adopt the fibre tech into peripherals at the moment. Same article went on to say that when fibre is introduced, the cables will interchance and carry both optical and copper to ensure forward and backward integration.

 

I'll see if i can find and link to the article as I've probably grossly misunderstood what was said.

 

I can see Intel being responcible, Apple would not have developed a whole new tech themselves but it is a total compromise either way. Its actually worse than the USB1 compromise on the eairly iMac's sure they had USB pots but they were unpowered meaning almost everything needed a power adapter. This is the same game but the adapters are way more expencive and will still be a limiting factor. Sure they are getting good speeds over copper but these are only possible because of expencive and probably delicate (comparitivly) cable along with expencive DSPs at each end.

 

I'm not saying its not cool technology I'm just saying that it follows the Apple model with actual new tech of pushing it out before its fully cooked. This make it of rather limited use and as a clear compromise from the original tech unlikely to get large amounts of devices developed for it given its sucsessor/better unwatered down parent is waiting in the wings.

 

I may be wrong and it may take off if the 10GB parts take too long to drop in price but is feels like showing the world a BMW and then shipping a Toyota as the actual product with the promise that the BMW would be out next year.

[mac_shinobi]

I can see Intel being responcible, Apple would not have developed a whole new tech themselves but it is a total compromise either way. Its actually worse than the USB1 compromise on the eairly iMac's sure they had USB pots but they were unpowered meaning almost everything needed a power adapter. This is the same game but the adapters are way more expencive and will still be a limiting factor. Sure they are getting good speeds over copper but these are only possible because of expencive and probably delicate (comparitivly) cable along with expencive DSPs at each end.

 

I'm not saying its not cool technology I'm just saying that it follows the Apple model with actual new tech of pushing it out before its fully cooked. This make it of rather limited use and as a clear compromise from the original tech unlikely to get large amounts of devices developed for it given its sucsessor/better unwatered down parent is waiting in the wings.

 

I may be wrong and it may take off if the 10GB parts take too long to drop in price but is feels like showing the world a BMW and then shipping a Toyota as the actual product with the promise that the BMW would be out next year.

 

Might be a case of waiting until they revise it , like with USB went from 1.1 to 2.0, so hopefully thunderbolt ( light peak ) or whatever you call it may get a revision to an optical only solution with 20gbps transfer rates or the likes.

 

Although as above am sure I also saw the same or similar article about thunderbolt being and working with optical cables which as mentioned numerous times works with longer cables, better transfer rates etc etc

[MK-2]

a good article on the register : What's not in the iPhone 4S ... and why ? The Register

[Arthur]

Another good article...

 

iPhone 4S Benchmarked: Obliterates competition

 

http://i.imgur.com/H94PG.png

 

http://i.imgur.com/UnPqS.png

 

http://i.imgur.com/RbJyC.png

 

http://i.imgur.com/0LGC5.png

[Arthur]

so hopefully Thunderbolt may get a revision to an optical only solution with 20Gbps transfer rates or the likes.

No need to wait. It's already 20Gb/s today.

 

http://i.imgur.com/dN2Ah.jpg

 

Thunderbolt is dual-channel, with each channel supporting 10 Gbps of bidirectional bandwidth. That’s a potential 20 Gbps of upstream and 20 Gbps of downstream bandwidth. The connection supports a daisy chain topology, and Thunderbolt also supports power over the cable, 10W to be precise. (Source)

[Arthur]

Sample video from the iPhone 4S...

 

 

Very impressive for a phone!