Apple iPhone 4S: Thoroughly Reviewed
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Brian Klug on October 31, 2011 7:45 PM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Apple
- Mobile
- iPhone
- iPhone 4S
The A5 Architecture & CPU Performance
The original iPhone debuted with a single 412MHz ARM11 core built on a 90nm process. The 3G improved network performance in 2008 but left the SoC untouched. It wasn't until the iPhone 3GS in 2009 that the SoC got a major performance and power update. Apple moved to a 65nm process node, a brand new ARM Cortex A8 based SoC and an upgraded GPU. The A4 released in 2010 once again gave us a process shrink but kept the architecture unchanged.
Apple's A5 SoC
Apple's A5, first introduced with the iPad 2, keeps process technology the same while introducing a brand new CPU and GPU. The A5 integrates two ARM Cortex A9 cores onto a single die. The improvement over the A4 is tremendous. At the single core level, Apple shortened the integer pipeline without reducing clock speed. With a shorter pipeline the A5 gets more done per clock, and without decreasing clock speed the A5 inherently achieves better performance at the same clock. The move to the Cortex A9 also enables out-of-order instruction execution, further improving architectural efficiency. I've heard there's a 20% increase in performance per clock vs. the Cortex A8, but combine that with the fact that you get two A9s vs a single A8 in last year's design and you get a pretty big performance increase.
There are several situations where the A5's two cores deliver a tangible performance benefit over the A4's single core. Like Android, iOS appears to be pretty well threaded. Individual apps and tasks can take advantage of the second core without a recompile or version update. The most obvious example is web browsing.
Mobile Safari is well threaded. Javascript rendering can be parallelized as well as parts of the HTML parsing/rendering process. All of the major Javascript performance benchmarks show a 60 - 70% increase in performance over the A4, which is partially due to the availability of the second core:
This translates directly into faster page load times. As you can see in the video below, the iPhone 4S (left) loads the AnandTech front page over WiFi in about 5 seconds compared to 9 seconds on the iPhone 4 (right). That's really the best case scenario, the improvement in the next page load time was only about a second (7s vs 8s).
Typical improvements in load time fall in the 10 - 70% range, contributing significantly to the phone feeling snappier than its predecessor. To quantify the improvement I ran through our standard web page loading suite, a test that hits AnandTech, CNN, NYTimes, Engadget, Amazon, Digg and Reddit hosted locally on our lab's network. The average page load time over WiFi for all of the pages is below:
While web page rendering is a natural fit for multiple cores, I was surprised by how poorly threaded some apps ended up being. For example, although I did see performance improvements in exporting edited videos from the iOS version of iMovie, the gains weren't always evident. A quick profile of the app revealed that much of the export process is still single threaded. Just as we've seen on the desktop, there will be some added work necessary to get all apps to utilize multiple cores on iOS.
It's not always performance within an app that saw improvement with the A5: application install and launch times are also much quicker on the 4S. The time to launch Epic's iOS Citadel demo went from 32 seconds on the iPhone 4 to 22 seconds on the 4S. While the iPhone 4 may feel fast enough for many users, the 4S is noticeably faster.
Much of the faster feel comes from by shaving off of seconds here or there. For example, I noticed apps like Messages pop up just slightly quicker on the 4S and you'll see your listing of messages a hair faster than you would on the 4. In the video above you get a brief idea of the sort of subtle improvements I'm talking about. YouTube launches a fraction of a second quicker on the 4S vs the 4.
These subtle decreases in response time are simply icing on the cake. The move from a 4 to a 4S is one of those upgrades that you'll notice right off the bat but will really appreciate if you go back to an iPhone 4 and try to use it. If you do a lot of web browsing on your phone, you'll appreciate the 4S.
I wasn't entirely sure whether or not I could attribute all of these performance improvements to the faster CPU. It's possible that some of the tests I mentioned are IO bound and Apple could have used faster NAND in the 4S. To find out I rounded up a bunch of iPhone 4Ses at all available capacities and measured sequential write speed:
Apple uses multiple sources for NAND so it's possible that you'll see these numbers move around a bit depending on your particular phone. It looks like the iPhone 4S' NAND is no faster than what Apple shipped last year - at least in sequential write speed. The target appears to be 20MB/s and Apple does its best to stay around there. My iPhone 4 is actually pretty quick at 22MB/s but the advantage isn't significant enough to make a huge deal about. I don't have a good way of measuring random IO performance yet but application launch time is largely governed by sequential IO so I don't expect we're seeing gains from anything outside of the CPU and memory bandwidth in the earlier tests.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
199 Comments
View All Comments
ados_cz - Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - link
I have the 4S now and the problem is gone but once my girlfriend comes with her 4, I will make a video and post it to prove you wrong. People have no problems only in areas where signal is really strong. Why would I possibly want to lie?wonderfield - Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - link
What's of concern here is not whether the issue (signal loss) can be demonstrated but whether the phone is, in Brian's/Anand's words, "usable" with the defect or not. It's certainly possible for the GSM iPhone 4 to be rendered unusable in a low signal strength area with a natural, right-handed grip just as it can be rendered unusable with a death grip. That's not to say the phone will be unusable in most scenarios, however, because in most scenarios the phone should function properly. There are certainly edge cases, and the issue is more significant for those who're left-handed and for those who live/work in very poor coverage areas (where it can become an issue), but, again, that's not the typical use case. It's why I categorize Brian's claim that the GSM 4 is not usable without a case as being disingenuous.Realistically, you don't need a "really strong" signal to have not have any problems with the phone, you only need a signal great enough to overcome any attenuation introduced by making contact with the antenna. The extent of the attenuation, as demonstrated in another Anandtech article to which you might refer, is not as significant as portrayed by some media outlets.
ados_cz - Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - link
As far as the need for good signal went I needed to use the case all the time otherwise I would always have to hold the phone in unnatural way. iPhone 4/S is a really beautiful piece of hardware and It was really upseting that I had to use the case and spoil the desing. My close friend living just 15 miles next to me in Perth does not use the case and when he does not care to not to hold the phone in sensitive area, the call drops. It happend to me with him on the phone on few occasions. Few of my friends at uni need to use the case for iPhone 4 as well. The problem was not overstated. Either learn to hold the phone unnaturaly avoiding joining those two critical antenna strips or use a case. I opted for a case. My friend in the London got on well without case, but he learned to hold it by the to when calling. Anyway, I am glad that I have the 4S now and I think my girlfriend does not mind the case on her (former mine) iPhone 4. It so well made piece of hardware and so affordable here in Britain. You are being ripped off in US. Check the deals for iPhones on www.three.co.uk I got mine iPhone 4 for 69 pounds 5 months ago with two years contract for 35 pounds a month (2000 mins any network, 5000 mins mine network, unlimited 3G data with no fairu user policy). I paid 189 pounds for girlfriends (now mine) 4S for 32GB white version just few days ago and she got the same 35 pounds contract.Tetracycloide - Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - link
"I have hundreds of friends who have iPhone 4's who've never had any issue with signal loss at all."Really? Name them. Numbered from one to at least two hundred if you please.
Overstating the strength of your anecdotal evidence doesn't make you look right it makes you look biased.
For what it's worth, I think you're a huge tool for, well, being such a huge tool.
doobydoo - Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - link
Don't be ridiculous.To label someone a 'tool' for stating that their friends don't have issues with signal loss on a phone, is quite frankly ironic.
To suggest I would list my friends names in a bid to convince such a low level individual is even more ridiculous than the rest of your comment (which is a lot).
If you really need hard evidence, I'd point you in the direction of the millions of iPhone customers who gave the iPhone 4 the highest satisfaction ratings of any phone, full stop. Bit hard to imagine that happening if they cant make calls on it, don't you think?
To claim I'm overstating my quite logical claim doesn't make you look right, it makes you look biased.
Tetracycloide - Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - link
I labeled you a tool because your response to another commenter saying they experienced an issue you and 'your friends' never saw was 'your a liar' or more literally "For what it's worth, I don't believe you anyway." That's where you were a tool, that part right there.Your 'hundreds' comment was absurd and you know it. To obtusely pretend I'm actually asking you for a list of names and act like that's absurd (it was obviously rhetorical) is to miss the point which was: you do not actually have 200+ individual examples from 'friends' to draw from. That's absurd.
Your claim was hardly 'logical' it was an absurdly overblown statistic that, even if it was accurate, would still be anecdotal. As are you're 'millions of iPhone customers' by the way. The phone looses signal if held incorrectly. That is the objective reality, full stop.
doobydoo - Friday, December 2, 2011 - link
How ironic that your justification for calling me a tool, is that I essentially disbelieved someone else, after that's all your comments to me are based on.Not only that, but how ridiculous and illogical to say someone is a tool for not believing something. Grow up?
'Hundreds' is not absurd at all, perhaps it sounds absurd to a social recluse? But I can actually name at least 200 friends of mine who use iPhones. Sorry if having friends is a strange concept to you. How dare you claim that you 'do not believe' my 200+ friends claim - that makes you a tool (it's a definition handed down to me by someone special).
Even if my claim was anecdotal, so what? Your criticism of my claim wasn't that it was anecdotal, and I never masqueraded it as anything other than what it was?
The 'MILLIONS' of iPhone customers is not anecdotal at all, by the way - they HAVE factually given the iPhone 4 the best user ratings of any phone of all time. That's reality, fact, pure and simple. They wouldn't do this, if they couldn't make phone calls, don't you agree?
I own an iPhone 4, and it doesn't LOSE (wtf is 'looses') signal in any meaningful way (as in, it never affects call quality or causes calls to be dropped) if held in any way I want. Unbelievable that you make such claims then try to define them as 'objective' - exactly the criticism you levy at me.
gcor - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link
Reading the specs on a lead acid 12v battery I have, I discovered that the higher the load in amps, the lower the total amp hours the battery will output. For example, the spec's say that a particular model can deliver a max of 1 amp hour over 20 hours, but only .5 amp hour over 12 hours.I'm guessing this is also true for the batteries in smartphones and laptops. This assumption seems to be supported when looking at the 3D gaming battery life results in the review, where a 10% increase in power consumption on the 4S, resulted in a 25% drop in battery life.
I assume this has implications for the "race to sleep" concept, as an increase in amp draw by the device may reduce the battery efficiency enormously, as well as actually using more power.
Anyway, just a thought to add into the mix when estimating a % speed increase required for a pay off in additional sleep.
Pliablemoose - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link
Your recommendations mirror my own thoughts, picked up 3 iP4's in the last month, 2 ATT models to put on Straight Talk for $499/year each with unlimited talk text and data (yes, I know it's not really unlimited data) for my kids, and a Verizon iP4 for me. I actually replaced a ThunderBolt with an iP4, got tired of the poorly executed radio software and the constant reboots to keep it connected. The ThunderBolt is a heck of a 4G LTE modem, sort of a poor phone, and definitely a brick with the extended battery it needs get me through a day of web surfing and stock trading.Saving my upgrade next year for an iP5, and keeping my fingers crossed for at least a 4" screen.
ltcommanderdata - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link
"Furthermore Apple even seems to be ok with combining a process shrink with a new architecture as we saw with the iPhone 3GS. It's generally thought of as a risky practice to migrate to both a new process technology and a new architecture in the same generation, although if you can pull it off the benefits are wonderful."I don't believe Apple has actually pushed a new process and architecture simultaneously. Up to now, the iPod Touch was generally the test platform for new processes as a shrink on an existing architecture.
The full evolution is:
iPhone 2G/1st gen iPod Touch/iPhone 3G 412MHz ARM11 90nm
2nd gen iPod Touch 533MHz ARM 11 65nm
iPhone 3GS 600MHz Cortex A8 65nm
3rd gen iPod Touch 600MHz Cortex A8 45nm
iPad 1/iPhone 4/4th gen Touch 1GHz/800MHz Cortex A8 45nm
iPad 2/iPhone 4S 1Ghz/800MHz Cortex A9 45nm
It is curious that we haven't seen a shrink of an existing chip as a pilot for a next gen process, either Samsung 32nm or TSMC 28nm, although the iPod Touch not being updated this year didn't leave many options. It would no doubt be too risky to put a new process pilot chip on the iPhone 4S. I believe iFixit did find some different markings on the 2011 iPod Touch, but I haven't heard about any size difference so that makes a large shrink unlikely. Is there any chance the 2011 iPod Touch could be piloting the A4 on a TSMC 40nm process as a means of getting that relationship off the ground? Is there enough commonality in the tools for the 40nm and 28nm processes to make piloting on 40nm a worthwhile interim step?