GPU Performance & Power

We covered the CPUs of the A13 in detail, but there’s also the GPU we have to consider. Apple’s performance improvement claims for this year have been a little more conservative, with the company promising a 20% performance increase or a 40% decrease in power at the same performance as the A12. Last year’s jump was a rather large one, and we don’t expect Apple (or any vendor for that matter) to repeat it any time soon, especially as we saw both major microarchitectural changes as well as the adoption of the new 7nm manufacturing node at the same time.

Beyond the raw performance of the chipset and the GPU, what’s important for gaming is the actual device’s thermal characteristics and how it’s able to dissipate and sustain the high heat generation of the SoC. For the A12 I did criticize Apple in terms of being extremely aggressive on the peak power that the phones were allowed to start off with in 3D workloads. This resulted in the phones not really able to sustain these performance levels more than 2-3 minutes before having to throttle down.

This year beyond the promised efficiency gains, Apple has said they’ve improved the device’s SoC cooling capabilities, being able to better spread the heat from the SoC to the body of the phone and as such allow the silicon to retain higher performance states.

3DMark Sling Shot 3.1 Extreme Unlimited - Physics

Starting off with the physics test in 3DMark, this is actually more of a CPU workload when power constrained during a GPU workload. In this scenario, the iPhone 11’s fare a bit better in terms of peak performance compared to last year’s iPhones, however they weren’t quite able to maintain the same sustained performance as we saw on the A12 iPhones.

The iPhone 11 Pro Max showcased the better scores than its siblings, and that’s not too much of a surprise given that the phone has the biggest form-factor and thermal envelope to be able to dissipate larger amounts of heat.

3DMark Sling Shot 3.1 Extreme Unlimited - Graphics

Switching over to the graphics workload which puts a maximum amount of stress on the GPU, we here now see major changes in the scores and rankings. First of all, the new iPhone 11s and the A13 now showcase significant performance increases compared to the A12 devices last year. I’ve noted that Apple was oddly weak in 3DMark when we analyzed the chip, and it looks like Apple was able to resolve whatever the bottleneck was this generation, showcasing a 38% increase in performance. I’ve actually gone back and quickly retested the iPhone XS on iOS13 and did see a 20% increase in performance compared to what we see in the graphs here; I’ll be updating those device’s scores as soon as I have more time.

The iPhone 11 Pros are doing much better than the regular iPhone 11 when it comes to the sustained performance results. I’m actually a bit surprised here given that these are the phones which have the SoC sandwiched between two stacked PCBs, but it seems Apple is able to cool off that whole assembly decently enough. The iPhone 11's scores here are a bit disappointing as it represents an almost 50% degradation in performance.

The new iPhones don’t score quite as well as some Snapdragon 855(+) devices, but this is rather because Apple does not allow the iPhones to get nearly as hot as some of these other devices. I wasn’t able to measure skin temperatures above 41°C on any of the new iPhones.

GFXBench Aztec Ruins - High - Vulkan/Metal - Off-screen

In the GFXBench Aztec High test, Apple’s microarchitecture is better able to flex its muscles and more clearly takes the lead in terms of both peak and sustained performance. Comparing the iPhone 11 Pro to the iPhone XS, we see a 23% increase in peak performance, and most importantly a much more impressive 50% increase in sustained performance.

GFXBench Aztec High Offscreen Power Efficiency
(System Active Power)
  Mfc. Process FPS Avg. Power
(W)
Perf/W
Efficiency
iPhone 11 Pro (A13) Warm 7FFP 26.14 3.83 6.82 fps/W
iPhone 11 Pro (A13) Cold / Peak 7FFP 34.00 6.21 5.47 fps/W
iPhone XS (A12) Warm 7FF 19.32 3.81 5.07 fps/W
iPhone XS (A12) Cold / Peak 7FF 26.59 5.56 4.78 fps/W
Galaxy 10+ (Snapdragon 855) 7FF 16.17 4.69 3.44 fps/W
Galaxy 10+ (Exynos 9820) 8LPP 15.59 4.80 3.24 fps/W

Measuring the power consumption, we again see that the A13 devices are extremely aggressive in their peak power, exceeding 6.2W. What is interesting here is even at this peak power-hungry performance state, the A13 is more efficient than the A12, and massively more efficient than the competition.

As usual, running a workload for a few minutes until the phone gets lukewarm (not to be mistaken with the longer sustained performance states in the benchmark graphs) will lower the performance and power to more reasonable levels. We’re able to make almost apples-to-apples comparisons here between the A13 and A12 iPhones: at roughly the same 3.8W power usage, the new A13 based device is able to showcase a 35% increase in performance. This performance state of the A13 actually corresponds to the peak performance of the A12, so that’s really nice as we’re able to do the same comparison but for the performance axis: At the same performance of the A12, the A13 is able to use 32% lower power. Not quite the 40% that Apple promised, but that could vary depending on workloads (Or it could be that Apple is quoting GPU power only, while we’re measuring whole system active power here).

GFXBench Aztec Ruins - Normal - Vulkan/Metal - Off-screen

GFXBench Aztec Normal Offscreen Power Efficiency
(System Active Power)
  Mfc. Process FPS Avg. Power
(W)
Perf/W
Efficiency
iPhone 11 Pro (A13) Warm 7FFP 73.27 4.07 18.00 fps/W
iPhone 11 Pro (A13) Cold / Peak 7FFP 91.62 6.08 15.06 fps/W
iPhone XS (A12) Warm 7FF 55.70 3.88 14.35 fps/W
iPhone XS (A12) Cold / Peak 7FF 76.00 5.59 13.59 fps/W
Galaxy 10+ (Snapdragon 855) 7FF 40.63 4.14 9.81 fps/W
Galaxy 10+ (Exynos 9820) 8LPP 40.18 4.62 8.69 fps/W

The “Normal” Aztec benchmark, which uses a lower resolution and has less workload complexity, actually fares even better for the iPhone 11s. Peak performance has improved by 21%. At roughly the same power, the A13 is 31% faster, while at almost the same performance, it’s again 32% more efficient.

GFXBench Manhattan 3.1 Off-screen

GFXBench Manhattan 3.1 Offscreen Power Efficiency
(System Active Power)
  Mfc. Process FPS Avg. Power
(W)
Perf/W
Efficiency
iPhone 11 Pro (A13) Warm 7FFP 100.58 4.21 23.89 fps/W
iPhone 11 Pro (A13) Cold / Peak 7FFP 123.54 6.04 20.45 fps/W
iPhone XS (A12) Warm 7FF 76.51 3.79 20.18 fps/W
iPhone XS (A12) Cold / Peak 7FF 103.83 5.98 17.36 fps/W
Galaxy 10+ (Snapdragon 855) 7FF 70.67 4.88 14.46 fps/W
Galaxy 10+ (Exynos 9820) 8LPP 68.87 5.10 13.48 fps/W
Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon 845) 10LPP 61.16 5.01 11.99 fps/W
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Kirin 980) 7FF 54.54 4.57 11.93 fps/W
Galaxy S9 (Exynos 9810) 10LPP 46.04 4.08 11.28 fps/W
Galaxy S8 (Snapdragon 835) 10LPE 38.90 3.79 10.26 fps/W
Galaxy S8 (Exynos 8895) 10LPE 42.49 7.35 5.78 fps/W

Manhattan 3.1 largely showcases similar results to the Aztec Normal scores.

GFXBench T-Rex 2.7 Off-screen

Finally, the older T-Rex benchmark has the new iPhone 11’s showcase significant improvements in terms of the sustained performance scores around 59% compared to last year’s XS devices.

GFXBench T-Rex Offscreen Power Efficiency
(System Active Power)
  Mfc. Process FPS Avg. Power
(W)
Perf/W
Efficiency
iPhone 11 Pro (A13) Warm 7FFP 289.03 4.78 60.46 fps/W
iPhone 11 Pro (A13) Cold / Peak 7FFP 328.90 5.93 55.46 fps/W
iPhone XS (A12) Warm 7FF 197.80 3.95 50.07 fps/W
iPhone XS (A12) Cold / Peak 7FF 271.86 6.10 44.56 fps/W
Galaxy 10+ (Snapdragon 855) 7FF 167.16 4.10 40.70 fps/W
Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon 845) 10LPP 150.40 4.42 34.00 fps/W
Galaxy 10+ (Exynos 9820) 8LPP 166.00 4.96 33.40fps/W
Galaxy S9 (Exynos 9810) 10LPP 141.91 4.34 32.67 fps/W
Galaxy S8 (Snapdragon 835) 10LPE 108.20 3.45 31.31 fps/W
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Kirin 980) 7FF 135.75 4.64 29.25 fps/W
Galaxy S8 (Exynos 8895) 10LPE 121.00 5.86 20.65 fps/W

We see the warmed up power draw for the phone here as being quite a bit higher than the other tests. It’s possible that the difference in here is the more CPU load due to the very high FPS figures we’re running the test at nowadays.

GPU Performance: Best In Class

Last year the A12 had some extremely impressive GPU improvements and it was the first time that Apple had been able to very clearly jump ahead of Qualcomm in terms of performance and efficiency. I didn't have as large expectations for the A13 this year as a follow-up, but Apple was very much able to impress and improve by greater margins than their marketing materials led me to believe.

First of all, the peak performance of the of the A13 is indeed improved by roughly ~20%. However this is not the metric that people should be paying most attention to. Apple’s sustained performance score improvements are a lot more significant and reach 50 to 60% when compared to last year’s iPhones. As things would seem, Apple’s claims to have improved thermal dissipation for the SoC have worked out extremely well.

The regular iPhone 11 does lag a bit behind the Pro models, as it seems it hasn’t been able to profit from the same design changes. Sustained performance here takes a little hit, but given the phone’s very low resolution I have to wonder if that really even matters in real workloads.

Most of all, Apple’s new GPU microarchitecture on the A13 is extremely impressive. Given the meager process node advancements, I had not expected the company to be able to push for such large performance and power efficiency gains. We’ll need to see some major paradigm shifts from the competition in order for them to be able to catch up in the next generation of devices.

Last year I did complain about the phones getting quite hot during the initial load periods at peak performance, and it looks like Apple has resolved this as I wasn’t able to measure skin temperatures above 41°C on any of the new phones. While I still question Apple’s need to drive the power draw near the limits of the power delivery of the phone, at least this time around it doesn’t create any negative drawback for the user experience.

System & ML Performance Display Measurement & Power
Comments Locked

242 Comments

View All Comments

  • BradleyTwo - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link

    My apologies if this has been disclosed already, but would it be possible to ask if Apple supplied these phones for testing?

    The reason I ask is that there is quite a long thread over at a popular Mac rumors forum where a number of us are concerned at the variable screen quality on the iPhone 11 Pro and Pro Max.

    Many of us, myself included, have received a suboptimal screen, in that it was a dim, murky yellow display (the less polite of us have called them p-stained), while others have received screens which are not uniformly lit.

    We have generally exchanged them to receive marginally better units, a few of which have been perfect, but a disappointing majority of the exchanges are often still below the apparently impressive characteristics of the displays discussed in the review.

    As this is not mentioned in the various iPhone 11 Pro reviews, a number of us have formed suspicions that Apple has cherry picked the best screens to supply to reviewers.

    A clarification whether Apple did indeed supply the units, or if they were bought off the shelf, would be much appreciated.
  • techsorz - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link

    Apple calibrates each device, this is what XDR essentially is. However this will create better uniformity across displays than make them as different as you say.

    Dim, murky yellow is probably caused by you not disabling true-tone and auto-brightness. Otherwhise you have a very faulty unit, as this display should be bright enough to nearly burn out your retina. (Exaggeration)

    Not uniformly lit could be an error, just return it in this case. Clearly Apple wouldn't supply faulty hardware to anyone on purpose, not testers or consumers.
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link

    These are Apple review samples, but in our experience and testing they don't differ from commercial models.
  • BradleyTwo - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link

    Thank you for the clarification. It would of course be negligent for Apple PR not to ensure reviewers receive fully tested units.

    I can assure you, however, that when it comes to the screen, the number of less than optimal units being sold at retail is probably higher than you might think. While these are most likely all within manufacturing tolerances for QC purposes, some of them I highly doubt Apple would send to reviewers.

    Oh well, at least the 14 day return period provides the opportunity to exchange. The "screen lottery" we call it.
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - link

    Apple would have to be very misleading in providing fully sealed units. It's possible that some retail units perform worse but over the years we've never really encountered such a unit.
  • s.yu - Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - link

    "It would of course be negligent for Apple PR not to ensure reviewers receive fully tested units."
    lol! Samsung Fold.
  • joms_us - Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - link

    It is pity though the so-called fastest SoC is not even close to these Android phones which are typically half the speed of fastest desktops. How do you expect people to believe A13 is faster than i-9900K or Ryzen 3950X? Where GeekBiased and jurassic SP2006? LOL

    https://youtu.be/ay9V5Ec8eiY?t=514

    https://youtu.be/DtSgdrKztGk?t=423

    https://youtu.be/PkVW5eSXKfw?t=115

    I'd say cut the crap and show us real-world results not cherry-picked worthless numbers from benchmarking tools.
  • Quantumz0d - Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - link

    The fanboys man they are so blinded by reality, Apple was able to set a perfect world utopian dream for them. Can't fix stupid.

    I used to run Sultanxda kernel on my OP3 with SD820 processor the SD821 had higher clock speed over 820 but guess what OP screwed it up or Qualcomm didn't provide fix there was Clockspeed crashing at high freq so he disabled it entirely on both big and small. Guess what ? Benches took a massive hit. But UX ? Nope. Infact it improved a lot how is that possible ? I guess Spec and GB only matters right.

    Pixel 3 lagged badly due to the RAM issue no one mentions all say its beautiful wonderful amazing. Guess what ? 1080P 60FPS doesn't exist as an option and its auto as Google deems. 4XL no 4K60FPS because less storage. No press mentions.

    Coming to this garbage phone. iOS 13 whatever. Same icons, same springboard since 1.1.4 (I used it and JBed it) no desktop no customization to OS. All iPhones on the planet look same just like the brainwash here of ridiculous comparision of a GB (bullshit bench) and Spec score. Masterpiece of corporate koolaid.

    Why don't they mention how the Audio format which records is not in Lossless but in AAC crap unlike my V30 does with the 192KHz 24Bit option in FLAC with Limiter and Gain switch or the Video mode which had full manual Pro controls or even the camera having any Manual options. All ASUS, Samsung, LG, Sony, OnePlus, Huawei offer Pro camera forget Pro Video which only LG and Sony do. But No one cares, simpletons only care about A series marketing BS.

    The worst of all no Filesystem. $1000 device which doesn't even have a Filsystem usable by end user or has an option to install the apps off the AppStore. Nor any SD expansion slot to be prepared for emergency. But people are riling up and getting worked over the ARM masterrace LMAO with BGA MacBook Pro with 1 USB C port. Bonus is, to develop iOS app you must pay $99 yearly fee AND own that BGA Soldered KB/Touchpad/Battery/SSD macbook because XCode !!

    The abomination design. Display mutilation for 3 years while heralding best colors best display LOL. Very funny.

    And no 3.5mm jack. Because Apple wanted to make $5bn off revenue from AirPods (Higher than AMDs entire profit) guess what ? Less than 320kbps data rate LMAO. My LG V30 absolutely destroys this phone to oblivion with its ESS9218P DAC processor only found in Top motherboards from ASUS/GB/MSI. Even Vivo Nex decimates this garbage audio iPhone.

    Very very funny how even Qualcomm who spent billions of dollars in R&D for their Centriq ARM server processor by even relegating the teams which worked on post 810, full custom Kryo 820 series and dumping all it out because of the Broadcom M&A (Major beneficiary was Apple due to the Hock Tan connection with Apple, he would sell out all LTE patents) impact and no profit in the ARM server market, forget logistics, capex, ROI, x86 emulation AND 64Bit x86 Emulation legacy code with a massive scale of Linux community around.

    But we want ARM A series BGA processor which has world class Spec and GB score and beats Mainstream and HEDT LGA processors.

    Claps !
  • Anand2019 - Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - link

    Why are you so angry?
  • Quantumz0d - Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - link

    Fed up of the unending talk of x86 vs ARM is one hell even AT forums cpu and oc subforum. Whole thread dedicated to worship this talk.

    Two Apple ruined smartphones by this policy of removing jack and features while raising the price to moon, Other companies also want greed by forcing people to buy BT earphones which sound garbage, horrid longevity (Need to charge everyday) pushing people to buy trash (Beats) thus making whole market saturated with Apple agenda. Look at Google Pixel 4 they also removed offering Dongle, Samsung, OnePlus. Same thing like Apple very greedy.

    Three destroyed the laptops with thin and light obsession. And soldered junk with less and less I/O.

    Finally 4th - this corporation is built on American values but is a stooge to cash from China thus enabling more totalitarianship while claiming Liberty on US land. Spineless positiin.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now