Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

iPhone 5 GeekBench Results

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the the-numbers-are-in dept.

Android 470

EGSonikku writes "The iPhone 5 has been benchmarked using the GeekBench tool. According to the results, Apple's claim of 2x higher performance over the iPhone 4S seems accurate. The results show the iPhone 5's A6 CPU is dual core and clocked at 1.2GHz, and is paired with 1GB of RAM. Despite the fact that the Samsung Galaxy S3 has a quad core CPU at 1.4GHz, and twice as much RAM, it seems the iPhone 5 is faster than the S3, or any other Android handset." Meanwhile, Samsung has launched a marketing campaign that compares some of the hardware specs and features between the new iPhone 5 and the GS3.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

F apple (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41356877)

They suck big d

WGAF? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41356885)

Who Gives A Fuck?

Re:WGAF? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357013)

Indeed. No good reason to run out and buy a new phone just because the specs a a bit better.

Re:WGAF? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357263)

2X is a significant improvement.

Re:WGAF? (5, Insightful)

CapuchinSeven (2266542) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357481)

Yes let's just ignore the fact that all we've heard for years from Android users is how fast the CPU is in their phones and how important it is to them, like it actually matters. Now the shoe is on the other foot it suddenly isn't a reason to buy or upgrade a phone.

Re:WGAF? (5, Informative)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357597)

The summary is bollocks. The iPhone 5 is faster than the dual-core Galaxy S III. The quad-core Galaxy SIII [primatelabs.com] is faster than the iPhone 5 [primatelabs.com] .

Oh Noes! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41356889)

Cue the fandroid bitch fest in 3..2..1...

Re:Oh Noes! (5, Informative)

atlasdropperofworlds (888683) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357477)

There seem to be plenty of S3's in their database that still beat the iP5. There are dual and quad core variants of the S3. Though it doesn't matter because it seems the S3 is actually still faster [primatelabs.com] according to the current, real data on their site.

Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (5, Insightful)

magarity (164372) | more than 2 years ago | (#41356895)

I'd rather it were the same thickness as the old model if the battery would last longer. Who exactly is it that thinks so they're so horribly thick?

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (5, Insightful)

_Shorty-dammit (555739) | more than 2 years ago | (#41356931)

I've said the same thing for years about both phones and laptops. Sooner or later they're of a size that is small enough, and continually making components smaller should simply give us more room for more battery capacity. Even if this iPhone 5 gives us similar, or one can hope for slightly better, battery performance compared to the previous model. But one can only imagine how much better it would be if it were still the same size, and all the shrunken components would give us a battery capacity twice that of the previous model.

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (4, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357047)

Well, despite the Macbook Air being extemely small. They have dedicated a fair amount of size to the battery. Check out this picture [hardmac.com] to see just how much space the battery takes up in the Macbook Air. I only wish my HP thickbook used the same percentage of the volume for the batteries. I'd be able to work an entire day without charging. I'd gladly go without the optical drive if they could replace the entire thing with a battery.

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (4, Informative)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357261)

Well, despite the Macbook Air being extemely small. They have dedicated a fair amount of size to the battery. Check out this picture [hardmac.com] to see just how much space the battery takes up in the Macbook Air. I only wish my HP thickbook used the same percentage of the volume for the batteries. I'd be able to work an entire day without charging. I'd gladly go without the optical drive if they could replace the entire thing with a battery.

I thought all the laptop vendors had something similar to Lenovo's "Ultrabay" battery that lets you swap out the CD-ROM drive for a battery? I know I've seen a Dell that has the same thing. HP doesn't?

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41356941)

Apple. Isn't that all that matters? They're pushing the limits of the product in the attempt to make it more successful. And the thinner/lighter formula has been just that.

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (5, Insightful)

js3 (319268) | more than 2 years ago | (#41356947)

I'd rather it were the same thickness as the old model if the battery would last longer. Who exactly is it that thinks so they're so horribly thick?

Everyone I've seen with an iPhone has a ridicilously huge rubber case protecting the fragile thing. You should see the one my girlfriends mom has. You would think she was using a phone from early 2000. Why is thin such a big deal when everyone has a case that makes it NOT thin?

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357053)

Oh, please, maybe because the "everyone" you claim isn't actually true. Lots of people (myself included) like to keep their devices naked. Why should I have a fat device just because your grandma has no taste.

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357363)

Jesus Christ put your pants back on. Nobody wants to see your naked device, even if it is fat. And leave his poor grandma alone.

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (5, Informative)

beltsbear (2489652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357065)

I have dropped my caseless iphone 4 and 4s at least 5 times each (yes I am clumsy) without breakage. It is not fragile even with glass on both sides. The main way gorilla glass is broken is a drop on to concrete, even asphalt seems not to do it at hand height. Almost half the people I work with have the iPhone 4 or 4s, out of maybe 10 phones I have seen one broken from a drop. I have had Samsung phones that break on the first drop and Erikson that took only a few drops. None of my Moto's ever broke from droppage.

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (2)

cognoscentus (1628459) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357157)

Amen to that - my old Razr V2 was virtually indestructible.

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (5, Funny)

Zuriel (1760072) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357173)

And, of course, there's the indestructible Nokia [iseeahappyface.com] .

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357269)

Yep, I dropped my iPhone over 12 feet down once. From a balcony to the lower balcony. All I had on it was a very very thin rubberized case. On top of the typical 4-5 foot drops I do a few times a month.

I did get unlucky and drop it face first onto a pointy rock last week though, and that did in the screen. Thanks to Applecare plus, for $50 and 15 minutes at the Apple store I got I brand new phone.

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (2)

Osty (16825) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357325)

Why is everybody dropping their phones? How does this happen? After years of smartphone use, and over a decade of cell phone use, I've only ever dropped one phone (an old Nokia, circa 2000; ended up with a loose battery connection that would occasionally cause dropped calls if it shifted mid-call).

Maybe rather than a case people should get the Nokia Lumia 920 and wear grippy gloves, since the 920's screen can be used with gloves on.

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (4, Interesting)

djdanlib (732853) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357527)

I have a friend who dropped her iPhone off the kitchen counter and that impact shattered the glass. She's done this twice, once with an iPhone 4 and once with an iPhone 4S. I think I'll take my chances with a better-constructed device.

Thinner is thinner (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357207)

Everyone I've seen with an iPhone has a ridicilously huge rubber case protecting the fragile thing.

Well the cases are not all that large that I have seen, but let's proceed as if they were.

Why is thin such a big deal when everyone has a case that makes it NOT thin?

Because the combination of a thinner device + a case is still thinner than the thicker device + a case. If the case, as you claim, is a constant - then thinner really does mean thinner to the user.

However one thing of note with the iPhone 5 is that it has a metal back again. I'm going to drop using a case with the iPhone5 since it should hold up better to drops (I never used a case with the original iPhone and never had an issue). Other people may also choose to stop using cases.

One other factor you forgot about is weight, the new phone is lighter - that does matter to people, I jog for instance and the iPhone 4 really produces a lot of pull in the pocket.

Re:Thinner is thinner (2, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357401)

"Because the combination of a thinner device + a case is still thinner than the thicker device + a case. "

So, what do you think a tautology proves? A thicker device is still thicker - have I proved a counterpoint?

Exactly what advantage (besides bragging rights to a a win in some pissing contest) does a 7.6 mm thick phone over a 9.3 mm phone? It's no different the the old Detroit "longer, lower, wider" marketing BS, which was about (marketed) style, not utility, performace, or any other competitive advantage.

Re:Thinner is thinner (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357621)

He was responding to a guy who basically argued that thinness can't matter because people add a case that makes it less thin. The counterargument is that there's still a net gain in thinness.

The exact advantage you asked for is 1.7mm less thickness. Approximately 20% less thick if you don't use a case; a smaller reduction if you do.

It's not that difficult. Do you really not understand why somebody would want something that they carry around all the time, in their pockets or purses or whatever, to occupy less space? Would you be happy if they quadrupled the phone's size so that the battery lasted 5 times as long (or whatever that would work out to)? What if they made it a cube? There's an really obvious trade-off here, a UTILITY tradeoff, and I simply don't believe you don't see it. Disagreeing with the cutoff point (eg. maybe you'd rather have another 1.7mm thickness for another two hours of talk time, if that's what it worked out to -- I have no idea what's realistic there) is another thing.

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357259)

Hey, want to go for a beer sometime? I'll show you my caseless iPhone 4S - the very same iPhone 4S that has fallen onto concrete twice, and whose screen, glass back, etc are still completely intact. In fact, the *only* evidence of damage is a *very* slight denting (perhaps a total of 1 mm deformation) in one corner.

Not everyone. (3, Interesting)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357411)

I don't have a case for my 4S, I didn't have one for my 3GS, and I didn't have one for my original iPhone, which I got from my brother when he upgraded to a 3G. My brother also is on his third phone and doesn't use a case. In all that time only one's ever fallen on the ground. My friend asked to hold it, and immediately dropped it onto a concrete floor when I handed it to him. It was the original iPhone. It put a small dent in the corner of the case, but it didn't really damage it. I'd hardly call the device fragile.

The population of iPhone owners seems pretty evenly split between people with cases and people without. I certainly appreciate a device that looks good and feels good in my hand. I'm not really concerned with breaking it since I look after my things. A lot of other iPhone users are the same.

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41356961)

umm, anyone who actually wears tight jeans? are you a fucking rapper or something?

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357441)

Maybe he's a hot chick?

Re:Faster is fine - do we need thinner? (1)

relyimah (938927) | more than 2 years ago | (#41356963)

The only issue I have with the thickness of the phone is the fact that it is made thicker by the "Otter Box" (or similar) case that is almost mandatory for someone like me that drops their phone occasionally....Although I do agree that it does not make /that/ big a difference that it would sway me either way....

It's a competitive advantage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357181)

No one else can make the phone that powerful and that thin today. While Apple has everyone else busy trying to catch up on that, they can move on to their next competitive advantage, whatever it may be.

Not related, but I want an answer (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357249)

I don't care about the size of the iPhone since I don't want any anyway.

But my question is:

Do the galaxy S III really have 2 GB RAM? Here in Sweden to? I thought it was only 1?

Is it quad-core Exynos 4 here with 1 GB and something else in the US? You got a different CPU but more RAM maybe?

http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i9300_galaxy_s_iii-4238.php [gsmarena.com]

Says 1 GB RAM.

I would had already bought it if it had 2 :/

Which one got which? Which one are the Swedish phones?

Check your countries. (5, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | more than 2 years ago | (#41356927)

Please note the summary is obviously about the "International" version of the Galaxy SIII.

The USA version of the Galaxy SIII, and the Evo LTE, and the One X all use the faster Qualcomm S4 chip, not the Tegra 3 they are trying to compare against. And "twice the RAM" should generally have nothing to do with performance.

What does this all mean? Generally, that the high-end [USA] Android phones perform easily as well as the new iphone 5.

Re:Check your countries. (5, Insightful)

BorgDrone (64343) | more than 2 years ago | (#41356959)

True, but they do this with twice the cores and a highernclock frequency. That makes the A6 pretty impressive.

Imagine if they put a higher clocked, quad-core version of this in an iPad.

Re:Check your countries. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41356987)

Wow, it's almost like number of cores and clock rate mean jack and shit when it comes to CPU benchmarking.

Re:Check your countries. (5, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357059)

From the blurb: "it seems the iPhone 5 is faster than the S3", from the linked article: S3 has a higher score than iPhone5 by roughly the relative clock ratio. Most tests are single-threaded so the number of cores doesn't matter, but in the few multi-threaded tests, S3 gets far better edge (duh!). The only part where iPhone5 wins is memory bandwidth.

Whoever misquoted the results this badly must be some incorrigible Apple fanboy.

Re:Check your countries. (5, Interesting)

Smurf (7981) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357427)

Sorry, I can't find the text you mention as "from the linked article". Can you please point out where one of the linked articles says that?

The only thing I could find is this page [primatelabs.com] saying that the A6 running at 1.02 GHz scored 1601, while this chart [primatelabs.com] says that the average Galaxy S3 running at 1400 MHz gets a score of 1560, i.e., the S3 scores slightly lower even though the clock runs 37% faster.

What am I missing?

Re:Check your countries. (0)

rjr162 (69736) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357551)

I just ran it with 6% battery on my international s III.. Got 1875. Now if this is a benchmark that only uses a single core as some have said, you could expect a much larger jump with all 4 core running

Re:Check your countries. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357559)

That chart is not an average.
See here [primatelabs.com] a list of all Galaxy S III scores.

Where are you seeing that? (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357541)

I'm looking at the linked article, and that doesn't seem to be the case. It shows the Galaxy SIII at 1560 [primatelabs.com] while it shows the iPhone 5 at 1601 [macrumors.com] . Care to elaborate?

Re:Check your countries. (1)

caladine (1290184) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357251)

Not quite correct. The US/LTE version is dual core (qualcomm S4) - and also faster than the quad core exynos or tegra 3.

Re:Check your countries. (1)

atlasdropperofworlds (888683) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357517)

Higher clocks, yes, but just 2 cores. The S4 is a dual core chip.

Re:Check your countries. (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357615)

True, but they do this with twice the cores and a highernclock frequency. That makes the A6 pretty impressive.

Imagine if they put a higher clocked, quad-core version of this in an iPad.

The battery life would be very short?

Re:Check your countries. (0)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357177)

And "twice the RAM" should generally have nothing to do with performance.

o_O

Re:Check your countries. (4, Informative)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357349)

And "twice the RAM" should generally have nothing to do with performance.

o_O

He's right. The programs either fit in the RAM or they don't. On a PC you might get performance improvement by installing extra RAM, but that's only because you get more filesystem cache and get less swapping.

Re:Check your countries. (0)

PmanAce (1679902) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357231)

A small note, the North American version of the SIII is actually faster than the International version, since the NA version has 2gb RAM while the International version only has 1gb RAM.

Comparing apples and oranges (2, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357239)

What does this all mean? Generally, that the high-end [USA] Android phones perform easily as well as the new iphone 5.

I don't know that I'd draw any conclusions, given the two devices run totally different OS's, the software written for them is in two totally different languages... I know some software for Android is written against the NDK but lots of it is not, is it fair to compare that against all the iPhone apps that are native?

Re:Check your countries. (3, Informative)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357295)

Actually it's exynos, Samsung's ARM, not tegra.

Not sure I'd call the USA phones high end, necessarily. They have less cores because samsung have to compromise and use third party chips in order to get LTE. I know the Qualcomm stuff is good, but I'm not sure I'd wager on it being *that* good.

Geekbench also seems to have recorded multiple scores for the S III that are above the 1601 reported for the iPhone 5.

All in all I'd say that there's actually no useful information here at all,

Re:Check your countries. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357351)

Uh, the international version (which I have) doesn't use a tegra 3....

You cannot compare specs directly (4, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357465)

It's really wrong to compare specs between Android and iOS devices directly without considering how the underlying systems are actually used.

For instance, an Android phone needs more memory than an iOS device as it tends to have more background processes. iOS has a tighter control over memory so it simply does not need as much to accomplish most things (unless you start getting into talking about image processing applications).

Also, what about the performance difference between Android apps and iOS apps? Android apps have to rely on a garbage collector to reclaim memory, iOS uses ARC which means memory is reclaimed without that overhead. Not to mention the VM in Android.

Also how many Android apps are written in such a way as to take advantage of all those cores? With so many Android devices still being on 2.x, lots of developers target that spec. iOS developers at worst are targeting about two versions back, currently switching from iOS4 to iOS5 as the lowest level supported - that means use of a LOT of libraries that actually make use of multiple cores for many tasks.

I can see comparing specs from on Android device to another or one iOS device to another, but comparing specs between an iOS device and an Android device seems kind of pointless unless you are giving very specific parameters for a task either might accomplish. Running GeekBench is not really a task a user would do every day...

Shocker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41356937)

Wow, what a surprise, a phone that is about to be released has slightly better performance than the 4 month old Galaxy S3.
I ran the same benchmark (GeekBench) on my Evo 3D (13 months old) and got a score of ~1150.
Not impressed.

Re:Shocker (1, Informative)

atlasdropperofworlds (888683) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357521)

Actually, it's not [primatelabs.com] .

Sloshdat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41356965)

News for Fucking niggers, stuff that's covered in aids.

Slashdot, for when mommy smacks you in the face for installing Linux on her Facebook machine.

Android logo? (5, Insightful)

mr_zorg (259994) | more than 2 years ago | (#41356979)

The android logo on an iPhone story? Really?!?!

Re:Android logo? (5, Interesting)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357277)

Thats just to pour fuel on the flames Slashdot seems to be degenerating to flamebait, remember when stories were generally interesting and not just to annoy various factions. Hearing the same comments repeated gets boring after a while.

Any way good on apple at bringing a more powerful iPhone to market. So how good are the next generation android phones going to have to be, to compete against this latest generation iPhone.

See this is where the battle for market share should be fought not in the court room.
   

With that much power under the hood (5, Funny)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357011)

Since it is faster than all the other phones I can get all my phone calls done faster. That's the way it works.

Plus, all the video encoding gets done that much faster while I text and drive.

Re:With that much power under the hood (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357121)

Right. If you want a mobile device with a better benchmark, get a laptop. Even an anemic netbook should be faster. Smartphones are for making calls and playing Angry Birds.

Re:With that much power under the hood (1)

gagol (583737) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357189)

Exactly, I have a friend who claims he's only computer is an android phone. Now he is in charge of creating and maintaining the website os his new venture and have much trouble just getting wordpress installed on his server... I advised him to remove the dust from one of his computer and use it... we'll see how it goes.

Phones and tablets are consumption devices, period. You need to be productive? get a computer.

Re:With that much power under the hood (1)

MoronGames (632186) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357313)

The iPhone 5 geekbench score is higher than every single Atom-powered computer on the score list. And it is faster than many other computers. So what was it that you were saying about an anemic netbook being faster?

Going for the S3 (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357015)

I've decided that my next phone (soon, I hope) is going to be the S3. I'd been holding out with my iPhone 4 for a while, waiting (like many others, I suspect) to see what Apple would wow us with for the iPhone 5. Needless to say, I wasn't that impressed, though to be honest, part of me really didn't expect to be, given that there are only so many innovations they could have come up with. What could they have done? An even bigger screen? NFC? A phone you could roll up? The first two would hardly have been groundbreaking and the latter is tech that doesn't really exist yet.

Still, at the end of the day, I'm sure I could be happy with the 5, but I'm ready to play with a new toy. I've never had an Android device before, but got a chance to play with a tablet and some phones over my vacation, and I liked what I saw.

Captcha: revenues

Re:Going for the S3 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357093)

Odds are, you'll go back. Every single person I've met that has switched to an Android phone has gone back to the iPhone. Many within the first month where they can get a full refund.

Re:Going for the S3 (0, Flamebait)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357353)

Uh no, only the Apple Fanboys who can't live without the latest from Apple stick with it. I've had friends who actually prefer Android, as do I. I'm sorry, the business model, their public attitude towards American Workers, the lock in and two of the carriers, AT&T and Verizon, is why I'll stay the hell away from Apple for a long damn time. Not to start a flame war, but it's pretty bad when I see Samsung investing double [samsung.com] what Apple does in the US [theatlantic.com] just to make the chips that drive the latest fanboy gadgets.

Apple may be creative but they certainly don't have my vote as a good corporate citizen in the US and all that speed from the new iPhone 5 is built by Samsung in Texas. [foxbusiness.com]

Re:Going for the S3 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357371)

I have a Samdung Infuse and I'm going to dump it for an iPhone 5 asap.

Re:Going for the S3 (0)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357579)

I haven't. Android for 3 years now, after Apple abandoned my new 3G within a year of new. No more security updates. Loss of app support (many apps requiring the newest IOS, perhaps as a means to fight the jailbreaking, so no new apps, and no updates to installed and paid for apps). Android is very very slow to get OS updates to phones (much faster if you jailbreak), but usually gets there eventually, depending on the phone maker and carrier.

iPhone 5 CPU clock speed error (1)

wrldwzrd89 (611694) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357023)

The Geekbench results show a reading of 1.02 GHz. How that could be mistaken for 1.2 GHz instead of 1.0 GHz is beyond me, as the article text stated when I typed this.

I'm going for an S3 (2, Interesting)

What'sInAName (115383) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357025)

(Grrr, thought I was logged in.)

I've decided that my next phone (soon, I hope) is going to be the S3. I'd been holding out with my iPhone 4 for a while, waiting (like many others, I suspect) to see what Apple would wow us with for the iPhone 5. Needless to say, I wasn't that impressed, though to be honest, part of me really didn't expect to be, given that there are only so many innovations they could have come up with. What could they have done? An even bigger screen? NFC? A phone you could roll up? The first two would hardly have been groundbreaking and the latter is tech that doesn't really exist yet.

Still, at the end of the day, I'm sure I could be happy with the 5, but I'm ready to play with a new toy. I've never had an Android device before, but got a chance to play with a tablet and some phones over my vacation, and I liked what I saw.

Captcha: revenues

Re:I'm going for an S3 (2)

starfire83 (923483) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357171)

Honestly, if you're going to go for an Android-based phone I'd go with one of the Nexus devices. They're a lot easier to modify and get software updates before any other phone. The Galaxy Nexus is available on all carriers and is fairly similar to the S3, spec wise. The iPhone 5 announcement was severely underwhelming and every "new" feature is something that's been floating around Android for a while now. Stock Android 4.0 or 4.1 works so much better and smoother than any of the 3rd party skins like TouchWiz or SenseUI that just hog resources. It's also a lot better, imo, than iOS 5 that I'm forced to use at work or with my parents. The UI just makes a lot more sense to me than iOS.

Re:I'm going for an S3 (2)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357367)

Honestly, if you're going to go for an Android-based phone I'd go with one of the Nexus devices. ... The Galaxy Nexus is available on all carriers and is fairly similar to the S3, spec wise.

No, it's not "fairly similar", spec-wise. The Galaxy Nexus is noticeably inferior to the GS3, much more like the iPhone 5, in fact. The only thing it has going for it - which is a BIG point for many - is that it's a stock Android experience.

Re:I'm going for an S3 (1)

MoronGames (632186) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357405)

Also, the galaxy nexus has a much better chance of being updated to newer versions of android than the S3

Re:I'm going for an S3 (1)

Karlt1 (231423) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357455)

"Honestly, if you're going to go for an Android-based phone I'd go with one of the Nexus devices. They're a lot easier to modify and get software updates before any other phone."

Unless you get a Nexus that works on the largest carrier in the US....

http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/09/11/verizon-galaxy-nexus-jelly-bean-update-excuses-roll-out/ [gottabemobile.com]

Re:I'm going for an S3 (1)

starfire83 (923483) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357487)

Takes less than five minutes to root and load CM10 for Jelly Bean goodness but I guess I can see how some people don't do that.

Re:I'm going for an S3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357203)

I'm going for an S3

An S3 Trio or ViRGE?

Re:I'm going for an S3 (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357223)

"A phone you could roll up? The first two would hardly have been groundbreaking and the latter is tech that doesn't really exist yet."

Haha. Hopefully, we'll be wearing our next smartphone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Glass [wikipedia.org]

Odd conclusion... (4, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357287)

Needless to say, I wasn't that impressed

Why? It is in fact very impressive hardware; it's simply the case that most of the details about it were leaked beforehand.

I do not know what aspect of the phone would fail to impress compared to current top-end Android phones unless you were into huge screens. The main thing I wanted was a great camera upgrade from the iPhone4; the iPhone 5 has an excellent camera. It runs iOS apps quite quickly, and has a somewhat larger screen without being physically huge.

I just don't understand the pure spec-based comparison that takes place without consideration of what software you might want to run...

Re:I'm going for an S3 (1)

Onco_Rx (2600353) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357309)

I would consider the galaxy S3 if it were not for the fact that my organization has standardized onto iOS platform. Sine they develop specific apps for our day-to-day activities I am stuck on the platform. The new S3 is intriguing I must admit.

Re:I'm going for an S3 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357317)

Speaking as someone who did swap to Android full-time with a Galaxy Nexus, I've really lived to regret this decision. The short gist of this is that there is not a way to achieve feature parity with some pretty simple iOS features without otherwise giving Google the contents of your communications and otherwise providing them free data.

Things like the closest approximation they have to Visual Voicemail, Google Voice, involve the automatic indexing of your communications. The stock email client is actually quite unpleasant and featureless even compared to iOS's rather spartan client -- in favor, Google just assumes you're going to be part of their family and will just use the GMail client.

For almost a year of putting up with this and taking an active interest in learning the ins and outs of the Android platform both as a developer and as a user, I've found the experience to be far rougher around the edges and I still cannot get over how blatant a data hoover this platform is for Google.

I'm really hoping that Jolla, a company to recently surface with a number of ex-Nokia engineers, might be able to capture the hardcore Nokia fans with a Meego handset worth a damn. We need more alternatives than iOS and Android and stop acting like either of these choices are actually good. They're not good -- they're just what we've been presented with so far.

OS change doesn't bother you? (5, Interesting)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357381)

I know I have a lot of money tied up in software for my phone. Whether it be remote control software, or specialty apps which are only available for a premium, or just games I paid for - there's a $100-150+ in software I would have to re-buy. I don't want to have to think about switching my media management over. Not that iTunes isn't a steaming pile of shit on Windows, but I've finally gotten it to work acceptably (most of the time) with my 80+GB of music, 400+GB of movies, audio and ebooks, podcasts, etc. I'm sure there are better managers, but the number of hours required to switch that stuff into another management app just makes my insides curl. I'm doubly tied as I have an iOS tablet.

At this point, the "competitor" from Android would have to be pretty fucking amazingly better to make it worth while to switch, and while the S3 is very nice and there are things about it I like better, it's hard to find a reason for the extra expense and time to switch.

Oh samsung... (3, Insightful)

kiriath (2670145) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357033)

That ad makes me giggle. Samsung is so deathly afraid of Apple that they are flaunting all of their silly useless(to me... I guess... maybe someone can use them) gadgets in hopes that people will think the I5 is inferior. The numbers will speak for themselves, and Samsung is wasting their advertising dollars... they should save up to pay their patent debts.

Seriously though, I never liked the Mac Vs PC ads, I feel like if you can't sell your product on its own merit, you shouldn't release ads trashing the other guys. When you have an awesome product, people will buy it... when you stoop to trash talk, you're showing your weakness. Apple showed their weakness with the MacVPC ads. Samsung is showing theirs with this.

Also, if Android didn't almost require 2GB of memory to run I'd feel like that is a lot. My 1GB android devices slug up so fast it is silly. If Android had the memory management of iOS, 2GB would scream.

Silly large companies...

Re:Oh samsung... (2)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357135)

Yeah, 1GB should be enough for anyone right?

I don't think Samsung are "deathly afraid of Apple". Not then they're currently the leaders in market share, and actually supply the hardware to Apple, to make their phones/tablets/laptops. It's kind of a win-win...

Re:Oh samsung... (0)

kiriath (2670145) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357221)

I didn't say that 1GB should be enough for anyone, I said that 1GB is enough to beat 2GB running android, large difference.

Samsung is leader in market share? Unless a lot has changed recently that I'm unaware of Samsung does not top the market share in the smartphone area.

Re:Oh samsung... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357297)

By volume, yes. They lead by nearly 100%.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/worldwide-market-share-for-smartphones-a-market-dominated-by-apple-and-samsung/2012/09/11/bbff6198-fc38-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html

Re:Oh samsung... (0)

kiriath (2670145) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357245)

Also, my opinion does not make me a Troll.. please don't mod people 'troll' just because you don't like what they're saying.

Re:Oh samsung... (1)

timothyl (2731609) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357587)

That post makes me giggle. Apple fans are so deathly afraid of Samsung that they are flaunting all of their silly useless (to me...I guess....maybe someone can use them) opinions in hopes that people will think the S3 is inferior.

Seriously though, at least try the phone out before declaring it is superior to the S3. On the surface the specs indicate less memory and a slower cpu clock speed. Ultimately the performance may be close, but the numbers will speak for themselves.

I personally was expecting something innovative and didn't see it, so I'm not sure how the Iphone 5 is an awesome product in itself. Yes, it does complement the Apple universe, but we all don't have to throw ourselves at Apple's feet.

Silly Apple fanboys....

Galaxy SIII is 2059... not exactly slower.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357035)

Iphone G5 1601
Galaxy SIII 2059
Galaxy nexus 1480 ...

Re:Galaxy SIII is 2059... not exactly slower.. (1)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357205)

Can you provide a citation for those numbers? TFA links here [primatelabs.com] , which lists Galaxy SIII and Galaxy Nexus at 1560 and 1039 respectively.

Re:Galaxy SIII is 2059... not exactly slower.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357255)

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1032880.

Some one should post it on the mac forums....

Pete.

Re:Galaxy SIII is 2059... not exactly slower.. (1)

raster (13531) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357279)

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?page=1&q=S+III&utf8=%E2%9C%93 [primatelabs.com]

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1012560 [primatelabs.com]
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/995810 [primatelabs.com]
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/912975 [primatelabs.com]

s3 is not slower. my bet that the variance in benchmarks is totally related to the cpu wantonly clocking down to save power while running the benchmark (eg it wasn't plugged into power at the time and the benchmark doesn't have root access to force the cpu to to clock speed). thus reality is you actually have to take the highest numbers as the real number given interference with clocking down and maybe even other running tasks will drag the benchmark down.

one thing the iphone5 is good as it memory bandwidth. that is where it kicks butt. it'll help memory constrained tests a lot.

Re:Galaxy SIII is 2059... not exactly slower.. (2)

Smurf (7981) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357571)

I see a lot of Galaxy S III there with processors running at 1,800 MHz, yet everywhere I look for the specifications of the SIII I only find 1.4 and 1.5 GHz. Are those phones overclocked?

If they are overclocked, the relevance of the comparison is greatly diminished. If they are not overclocked, it would be interesting to know where Samsung is selling S III handsets with those processors.

So many errors! (5, Informative)

lowlymarine (1172723) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357091)

There are a ludicrous number of errors here. The summary says that the CPU is clocked at 1.2 GHz, which the screenshot clearly shows is not the case - it's 1 GHz. The quad-core Galaxy S III only has 1GB of RAM, and the LTE variant with 2GB of RAM doesn't have a quad-core CPU. And both the HSPA+ and LTE Galaxy S III's score well above 1600 on Geekbench when actually running on all cores - the test results that are below 1600 and are no-doubt included in this "average" are custom tests run on fewer cores, which is clearly shown if you actually browse the results.

Re:So many errors! (1)

rjr162 (69736) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357573)

As I mentioned earlier, I ran it on my quad core sIII at 6% battery and got 1850

Does the processor matter that much? (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357123)

At least in the US, the carriers seem determined to ensure that you upgrade every two years anyway, so it's not like you're going to be stuck with a phone which is all that old. It seems more like "fast enough" is simply a responsive GUI and a generally imperceptible execution time for the kinds of activities you do on a phone. I'm not running CFD models, transcoding movies, or running a popular web service on the thing - I'm tweaking photos, or asking it to make simple calculations my HP48 might do, streaming media or rendering a web page (without flash; thanks Steve).

Now that a couple of generations have past for Android and iOS, the options for switching are getting far more expensive and time consuming. Switch all my media to a new program for syncing - major PITA. Re-buy all my apps (not an insignificant endeavor) for the other platform - $$$. Learn where the fuck the Android/iOS developers decide to put some obscure setting I want to change? Heck, even just setting up my icons and replicating a useful look & feel means dropping at least a couple, if not several, hours.

Megapixels, streaming video chat, resolution, memory amount, memory speed - the numbers mean almost nothing. They mean even less when you can't even run the opposing OS on the hardware. But I suppose everybody has to have a ruler handy at some point.

I made a mistake in the story write up... (5, Informative)

EGSonikku (519478) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357165)

Just wanted to fess up to a typo in the story. I accidentally typed that the iPhone 5 runs at 1.2GHz, meant to type 1.02GHz.

Re:I made a mistake in the story write up... (4, Funny)

mactard (1223412) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357373)

Isn't that what the Slashdot editors are for?

Re:I made a mistake in the story write up... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357389)

Slashdot has editors? When did this happen?

Re:I made a mistake in the story write up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357561)

AHAHAHHAHAHAhahahah....haha...oh, that was a good one!

sorta proves a good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357169)

sorta proves a good dual core design beats a bad quad core design, i'm pretty sure it also scores higher than the tegra 3 in other benchmarks.
i'm not an apple fan and i'm not gonna buy it, but the tegra3 is really poorly designed...

Re:sorta proves a good (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357377)

sorta proves a good dual core design beats a bad quad core design, i'm pretty sure it also scores higher than the tegra 3 in other benchmarks. i'm not an apple fan and i'm not gonna buy it, but the tegra3 is really poorly designed...

Agreed, which is why many people prefer the US variant of the GSIII, which has a dual-core Cortex-A15-based design.

samsung s3's with LTE use a dual core snapdragon (2)

user317 (656027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41357395)

samsung s3 with LTE use a dual core snapdragon, clocked at 1.5ghz with 2gb of ram. how come they didn't compare apples to apples?

The numbers are liars (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41357407)

One should note that the score given for the SGS3 is an average score from thousands of benchmarks which they range everywhere form 1271 to 2211.
The Iphone 5 however only has a single result, and that's on a phone that is probably not burdened by a bunch of crap which seemingly tends to give really varying results..
I won't trust this before they have at least 250 benchmarks done after the release.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?