The iPhone 5 Review
by Anand Lal Shimpi, Brian Klug & Vivek Gowri on October 16, 2012 11:33 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Apple
- Mobile
- iPhone 5
Increased Dynamic Range: Understanding the Power Profile of Modern SoCs
Section by Anand Shimpi
The iPhone 4S greatly complicated the matter of smartphone power consumption. With the A5 SoC Apple introduced a much wider dynamic range of power consumption to the iPhone than we were previously used to. Depending on the workload, the A5 SoC could either use much more power than its predecessor or enjoy decreased overall energy usage. I began our battery life analysis last time with some graphs showing the power savings realized by a more power hungry, faster CPU.
The iPhone 5 doesn't simplify things any more. I believe the days of us having straightforward discussions about better/worse battery life are long gone. We are now firmly in the era of expanded dynamic range when it comes to smartphone power consumption. What do I mean by that? The best way to explain is to look at some data. The graphs below show total device power consumption over time for a handful of devices running the Mozilla Kraken javascript benchmark. Kraken is multithreaded and hits the CPU cores fairly well. The power profile of the benchmark ends up being very similar to loading a very js-heavy web page, although for a longer period of time. All of the device displays were calibrated to 200 nits, although obviously larger displays can consume more power.
Let's start out by just looking at the three most recent iPhone generations:
The timescale for this chart is just how long the iPhone 4 takes to complete the Kraken benchmark. The iPhone 4/4S performance gap feels a lot bigger now going back to the 4 than it did when the 4S launched, but that's how it usually seems to work. Note how tight the swings are between min and max power consumption on the iPhone 4 during the test. As a standalone device you might view the iPhone 4 as being fairly variable when it comes to power consumption but compared to the 4S and 5 it might as well be a straight line.
The 4S complicated things by consuming tangibly more power under load than the 4, but being fast enough to complete tasks in appreciably less time. In the case of this Kraken run, the 4S consumes more power than the 4, however it's able to go to sleep quicker than the 4 and thus draw less power. If we extended the timeline for the iPhone 4 significantly beyond the end of its benchmark run we'd see the 4S eventually come out ahead in battery life as it was able to race to sleep quicker. The reality is that with more performance comes increased device usage - in other words, it's highly unlikely that with a 50% gain in performance users are simply going to continue to use their smartphone the same way as they would a slower device. Usage (and thus workload) doesn't remain constant, it's somewhat related to response time.
The iPhone 5 brings new meaning to device level power consumption. With a larger display and much more powerful CPU, it can easily draw 33% more power than the 4S under load, on average. Note the big swings in power consumption during the test. The A6 SoC appears to be more aggressive in transitioning down to idle states than any previous Apple SoC, which makes sense given how much higher its peak power consumption can be. Looking at total energy consumed however, the iPhone 5 clearly has the ability to be more power efficient on battery. The 5 drops down to iPhone 4 levels of idle power consumption in roughly half the time of the iPhone 4S. Given the same workload that doesn't run indefinitely (or nearly indefinitely), the iPhone 5 will outlast the iPhone 4S on a single charge. Keep the device pegged however and it will die quicker.
Out of curiosity I wanted to toss in a couple of other devices based on NVIDIA and Qualcomm silicon to see how things change. I grabbed both versions of the HTC One X:
The Tegra 3 based One X actually performs very well in this test, but its peak power consumption is significantly worse than everything else. It makes sense given the many ARM Cortex A9 cores built on a 40nm G process running at high clock speeds on the Tegra 3.
The 28nm Snapdragon S4 (dual-core Krait) based One X gives us some very interesting results. Peak power consumption looks identical to the iPhone 5, however Apple is able to go into deeper sleep states than HTC can with its S4 platform. Performance is a little worse here but that could be a combination of SoC and software/browser. I used Chrome for all of the tests so it should be putting Android's best foot forward, but the latest update to Safari in iOS 6 really did boost javascript performance to almost untouchable levels.
At the end of the day, the power profile of the iPhone 5 appears to be very close to that of a modern Snapdragon S4 based Android smartphone. Any battery life gains that Apple sees are strictly as a result of software optimizations that lead to better performance or the ability to push aggressively to lower idle power states (or both). It shouldn't be very surprising that these sound like a lot of the same advantages Apple has when talking about Mac battery life as well. Don't let the CPU cores go to sleep and Apple behaves similarly to other device vendors, but it's really in idle time or periods of lighter usage that Apple is able to make up a lot of ground.
There's one member of the modern mobile SoC market that we haven't looked at thus far: Intel's Medfield. The data below isn't directly comparable to the data above, my measurement methods were a little different but the idea is similar - we're looking at device level power consumption over time while Kraken runs. Here I'm only focusing on the latest and greatest, the Atom based Motorola RAZR i, the Snapdragon S4 based Droid RAZR M and the iPhone 5. The RAZR i/M are nearly identical devices making this the perfect power profile comparison of Atom vs. Snapdragon S4. The RAZR i is also the first Atom Z2460 based part to turbo up to 2.0GHz.
Very interesting. Atom is the only CPU that can complete the Kraken benchmark in less time than Apple's Swift. Peak power consumption is definitely higher than both the Qualcomm and Apple devices, although Intel's philosophy is likely that the added power usage is worth it given the quicker transition to idle. Note that Atom is able to drive to a slightly lower idle level than the Snapdragon S4, although the Swift based iPhone 5 can still go lower.
At least based on this data, it looks like Intel is the closest to offering a real competitor to Apple's own platform from a power efficiency standpoint. We're a couple quarters away from seeing the next generation of mobile SoCs so anything can happen next round, but I can't stress enough that the x86 power myth has been busted at this point.
I will add that despite Intel's performance advantage here, I'm not sure it justifies the additional peak power consumption. The RAZR i ends up being faster than the iPhone 5 but it draws substantially more power in doing so, and the time savings may not necessarily offset that. We'll see what happens when we get to our battery life tests.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
276 Comments
View All Comments
name99 - Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - link
If you want to read non-technical reviews, there are a million other sites you can go to, from NYT and WSJ to Engadget and TheVerge.The WHOLE POINT of people reading Anand's reviews is to get tech details we don't get elsewhere.
Perhaps as a followup you might want to suggest that John Siracusa in future limit his OSX reviews to a single letter-sized page?
rarson - Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - link
No, it's not the "WHOLE POINT," the whole point is that reviews are reviews and tech articles are tech articles.GotThumbs - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link
"Those longing for an HTC One X or Galaxy S 3 sized device running iOS are out of luck. "I find it hard to believe there is even one person that is in this group. Apple's walled garden is mostly OS and portal based (Itunes).
Especially with Apples maps being sub-standard.
Please stick to facts.
A5 - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link
If you don't want any editorial judgement or statements, there are plenty of places where you can just read a spec sheet and benchmark results.Omophorus - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link
I think the opposite is more likely... or at least I fall into that category.Mobile computing device aside, Android 4.0+ is shockingly much nicer to use (and this coming from a long time iPhone user) than iOS 5 or iOS6.
If I could get the iPhone 5 handset, maybe with slightly better anodization, running Android 4.0+ I'd be in hog heaven.
After playing with an iPhone 5, I really dig the hardware, but found the software woefully lacking.
crankerchick - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link
I think you and the original commenter missed what the statement was saying. It said, "HTC One X or Galaxy S3 'sized' device..."Specifically, a larger screen iPhone, is where I think they were going with the statement, especially given the context of the paragraph where the statement was made.
That said, I'm very much in the same camp as you. My number one device would be an iPhone-size and iPhone-build device running Android (but with a few tweaks since we are talking the ideal device). In fact, that is part of the reason I have an iPhone now and my Galaxy Nexus is sitting in a drawer by the bed--it's just too big and battery life is awful. I want a 4-4.2" 720p screen that doesn't have last year's hardware inside. The One S comes closest, but it's not on VZW to my knowledge, and it's still not "the best" hardware available, which you need with Android, especially on a manufacturer's skinned device.
perpetualdark - Monday, October 22, 2012 - link
What about the Incredible 4g? I think this phone was overlooked because of it's proximity to the S3 release and the fact that the market is generally trending toward a nearly 5" display..I like this phone because it has the current generation of technology, is pretty darn thin, has a replaceable battery, has the 4" display (ie I am not holding a small tablet to my ear or carrying it in my pocket), and is, more importantly, android.
Yes, the SLCD display may not be quite what the apple display is on paper, but to be perfectly honest, I have never noticed the differences.. Perhaps in a test environment, or to someone who calibrates displays all day, the Apple display would be better, I just don't see it.
The s4 processor is not only fast, but plenty efficient, and the battery lasts easily 2 full days of heavy use. I can use it to read a kindle book for 6-8 hours over 2 days, talk a few hours, surf the web a few dozen times, text a few hundred texts, and even play games for an hour or two before I run out of battery. I have yet to go below 40% in one 24 hour period of time with the exception of using it with GPS and maps up.. the gps on 100% burns up the battery fast.
gig of ram, 8 gigs on board storage, 32 more gigs with the sd card, etc, plenty of storage. 8 megapixal camera on back and a vga camera on front.
ICS, LTE, Beats Audio, pretty much all the latest in tech..
No, it can't quite compete with the S3, but it is pretty close to a One X in a 4" package and the closest thing to a One X you can get from Verizon, and honestly the phone that SHOULD be compared to the iphone5, given it is the only one with the current generation of hardware that is the same size. Sure, the iphone5 has an edge on the inc 4g in terms of tech specs, but when you add cost to the mix, the playing field is more level there as well, and to be honest, in real world applications the differences are going to amount to very small percentages.
What people really want is a phone that fits their needs. Usually the most important things are screen size, OS preference, cost, and battery life. Performance is ONLY an issue when there is a problem with it.. Like when the iphone 4 dropped calls and couldn't do internet when you touched it.. The difference from the S4 to the A6 in real world application is a second or two in loading an app.. if even that.. most of my apps open instantly and with chrome and a good 4G connection I am betting that side by side loading web pages would be nearly identical. Specs are cool when comparing e-peen size but otherwise don't mean much in application.
Not everyone is interested in big screens for a phone. Not everyone is interested in having a flexible OS. Not everyone is interested in the latest tech. Not everyone wants to spend a fortune on a phone that is, in practice, marginally better than what they have already. Not everyone is interested in bleeding edge technology. Sometimes you are looking for the phone that best suits YOUR needs. For me, that is an android platform, small form factor to fit in my front pocket comfortably as well as in my hand. A processor that was fast but power conservative. A battery that lasted a full day with reserve to spare, and could be used for 2 or 3 days if conserved well, AND could be swapped with a fully charged battery when travelling. I also like a phone that I can drop and scratch and not notice the dings and scratches.. since I put it in my pocket, I don't want to add a bulky case to keep it safe.. (I have dropped this phone dozens of times and 24" away you would never know it). I like to only pay $6.99 for insurance and be able to replace it if lost or stolen or broken for less than $100 ($12 per month for apple with $170 replacement deductible). And I like that I can use ANY micro-usb charger or cable to charge or connect to a computer. I don't have to buy any special adapters to make it work with my existing devices.
Quite frankly, I think the difference between an android fan and an apple fan is that an android fan will not settle for the one device available to suit his needs, he will shop around to find the RIGHT one. If that happens to be an iphone, that is what he will get. But with dozens of models to choose from that are every bit as good if not better in every way that really matters, the chances of going with an iphone are pretty slim. An apple fan will settle for what is available and try to convince everyone around him that this one device will fit everyone's needs perfectly without exception.
crankerchick - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link
I don't follow all the technicals like that, I'm more of an end user when it comes to mobile technology, but I think the trend towards the larger screens is more the MFRs pushing that a selling point (moar moar moar) to cover the fact that they can't fit the latest and greatest and cutting edge (NFC, quad core, LTE, etc) in the chassies of a 4" screen phone.Just my hunch. Wouldn't mind being schooled on this by someone in the know.
KPOM - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link
I'd agree with that assessment. Apple was one of the last to move to 3G and one of the last to move to LTE because of battery life. The other manufacturers got around it by building thicker phones in the 3G era, and then with the LTE era started putting in bigger screens, which gave them room for bigger batteries (though the larger displays also required more power). It turned out enough people liked the bigger screens.Now that the power consumption levels are down, it will be interesting to see if others shrink their screens back down to Apple levels. The Galaxy SIII Mini is a half-hearted attempt, as it lacks LTE and has mediocre specs. But maybe someone else will take the bait.
rarson - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
I feel like the iPhone 5 screen is actually too small (and I've heard complaints that the phone is too light, which I sort of agree with as well), but I think the Galaxy S3 is too big. I'm still using a Verizon Fascinate. It's got a bigger screen than the 5, but it's a bit smaller than the S2 and S3, perfect size. Thin but not too thin, and light but not too light. In fact, all I really want is a phone exactly like it, but with more power, better battery life, and maybe a slightly better screen (can't complain too much about the screen I already have).When I picked up the Fascinate, I knew it was the phone I wanted (helps that the price was only $50). When the S2 came out, I was excited to see it but disappointed by how much bigger the phone had gotten. I don't want a phone that I have to contort to get into my pocket. Apple's iPhone 5 is great in that respect, but after using this Fascinate for so long, its small size feels a bit cramped.
I'd love to have the hardware of the Apple phone, but proprietary connectors and iOS are absolutely a no-go for me. I really don't care for iOS at all, because Android is so much easier to use.