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
History loves to repeat itself, and even Apple isn’t immune to the yearly cycle of rumor and release. Leading to each year’s iPhone refresh, excitement, rumors, and hype build to a fever pitch, features and designs are added into an increasingly unrealistic combination, and finally everyone is silenced at the device’s eventual unveiling.
Today we’re looking at Apple’s latest iPhone refresh, the iPhone 4S (henceforth just 4S).
The review has to start somewhere, and the path of least resistance is usually just exterior appearances - in this case the 4S is easy to go over. The 4S keeps the overall form factor and design of its predecessor, but to call it identical to the iPhone 4 isn’t entirely correct. Instead, the 4S borrows its stainless steel band break locations from the CDMA iPhone 4, which we talked about extensively when it finally released. The GSM/UMTS iPhone 4 previously had three notches, where the CDMA iPhone 4 and 4S have a total of four.
Top: iPhone 4S, Bottom: iPhone 4
The long and short of this change is that the notches have been moved around to accommodate a design with two cellular antennas. One is up at the very top, the other is at the very bottom - the two are the small U shaped portions. The result of this change is that the 4S has a very symmetrical design, as opposed to the GSM/UMTS 4’s asymmetric layout.
Top: iPhone 4S, Bottom: iPhone 4
Just like the CDMA iPhone 4, the 4S also moves the vibrate/lock switch down the device just slightly to accommodate the new break for the top antenna band. This is the physical change that breaks compatibility with cases designed for the older GSM/UMTS iPhone 4. If you recall previously, however, Apple refreshed its bumpers with a new “Universal” line around the time of the CDMA iPhone 4 launch. At that time, case makers also followed suit with a larger vibrate/lock switch port. The result is that if you have a “universal” case created after the launch of the CDMA iPhone 4, you likely won’t need a new one for the 4S.
I say likely because some cases that cover the front of the 4S and are universal might not work as well owing to a small change in the placement of the 4S’ ambient light sensor. It’s going to be a case by case basis to determine which 4 cases that cover the front of the display work with the 4S.
The rest of the 4S exterior is superficially identical to its predecessor, which has become something of a point of contention for shoppers who like being able to identify themselves as owning a 4S, as opposed to a 4. There are, however, subtle differences you can leverage to tell the 4S from its two 4 brethren. The 4S includes the regulatory (FCC, recycling, European Conformity, e.t.c.) logos below its model numbers and FCC ID. The CDMA 4 doesn’t include those logos. Again, the GSM/UMTS 4 is alone with its three-notch stainless steel bands. It is admittedly curious that Apple hasn’t decided to make some other larger change to distinguish the 4S from the other two - there’s no mention of 4S anywhere on the phone. The iPhone 3G and 3GS were famously distinguished from each other by the inclusion of chrome iconography on the back. I fully expect Apple to update their identifying iPhone page with basically the above information at some point in time, but to say that the 4S is identical to the previous device is disingenuous.
The 4S design is without a doubt, however, an evolution of the CDMA iPhone 4’s design. Like the latter, the 4S includes the same improved vibration unit instead of the counterweight vibrator that most smartphones include. The result is a virtually silent, completely smooth vibrate, instead of the louder rattle and sharp acceleration that accompanies the counterweight vibration. The result is much less conversation-interrupting noise when the 4S vibrates during a call, and less intrusive notification.
Battery capacity up to 1430 mAh
The other subtle change is an extremely small jump in battery capacity, from 1420 mAh in the 4 to 1430 mAh in the 4S. This is a very small change that boosts the capacity in watt-hours from 5.25 to 5.3. In addition the 4S puts on a little bit of weight, from 137 to 140 grams, but again nothing major.
Even the 4S packaging is basically the same as prior versions, including the same design and contents. Inside you get the phone, dock cable, headset mic, and the same smaller 5V, 1A charger that came with the 4.
| Physical Comparison | |||||||
| Apple iPhone 4 | Apple iPhone 4S | HTC Sensation | Samsung Galaxy Nexus | Samsung Galaxy S 2 | |||
| Height | 115.2 mm (4.5") | 115.2 mm (4.5") | 126.3 mm (4.97") | 135.5 mm | 125.3 mm (4.93") | ||
| Width | 58.6 mm (2.31") | 58.6 mm (2.31") | 65.5 mm (2.58") | 67.9 mm | 66.1 mm (2.60") | ||
| Depth | 9.3 mm ( 0.37") | 9.3 mm ( 0.37") | 11.6 mm (0.46") | 8.94 mm | 8.49 mm (0.33") | ||
| Weight | 137 g (4.8 oz) | 140 g (4.9 oz) | 148 g (5.22 oz) | 135 g | 115 g (4.06 oz) | ||
| CPU | Apple A4 @ ~800MHz Cortex A8 | Apple A5 @ ~800MHz Dual Core Cortex A9 | 1.2 GHz Dual Core Snapdragon MSM8260 | 1.2 GHz TI OMAP 4460 Dual Core Cortex A9 | 1.2 GHz Exynos 4210 Dual Core Cortex A9 | ||
| GPU | PowerVR SGX 535 | PowerVR SGX 543MP2 | Adreno 220 | PowerVR SGX 540 | ARM Mali-400 | ||
| RAM | 512MB LPDDR1-400 | 512MB LPDDR2-800 | 768 MB LPDDR2 | 1GB LPDDR2 | 1 GB LPDDR2 | ||
| NAND | 16GB or 32GB integrated | 16GB, 32GB or 64GB integrated | 4 GB NAND with 8 GB microSD Class 4 preinstalled | 16GB or 32GB NAND integrated | 16 GB NAND with up to 32 GB microSD | ||
| Camera | 5MP with LED Flash + Front Facing Camera | 8MP with LED Flash + Front Facing Camera | 8 MP AF/Dual LED flash, VGA front facing | 5 MP AF with LED flash, 1.3MP front facing | 8 MP AF/LED flash, 2 MP front facing | ||
| Screen | 3.5" 640 x 960 LED backlit LCD | 3.5" 640 x 960 LED backlit LCD | 4.3" 960 x 540 S-LCD | 4.65" 1280 x 720 Super AMOLED | 4.27" 800 x 480 SAMOLED+ | ||
| Battery | Integrated 5.254Whr | Integrated 5.291Whr | Removable 5.62 Whr | Removable 6.475 Whr | Removable 6.11 Whr | ||
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
199 Comments
View All Comments
robco - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link
I've been using the 4S from launch day and agree that Siri needs some work. That being said, it's pretty good for beta software. I would imagine Apple released it as a bonus for 4S buyers, but also to keep the load on their servers small while they get some real-world data before the final version comes in an update.The new camera is great. As for me, I'm glad Apple is resisting the urge to make the screen larger. The Galaxy Nexus looks nice, but the screen will be 4.65". I want a smartphone, not a tablet that makes phone calls. I honestly wouldn't want to carry something much larger than the iPhone and I would imagine I'm not the only one.
Great review as always.
TrackSmart - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link
I'm torn on screen size myself. Pocketable is nice. But I'm intrigued by the idea of a "mini-tablet" form factor, like the Samsung Galaxy Note with it's 5.3" screen (1280x800 resolution) and almost no bezel. That's HUGE for a phone, but if it replaces a tablet and a phone, and fits my normal pants pockets, it would be an interesting alternative. The pen/stylus is also intriguing. I will be torn between small form factor vs mini-tablet when I make my phone upgrade in the near future.To Anand and Brian: I'd love to see a review of the Samsung Galaxy Note. Maybe Samsung can send you a demo unit. It looks like a refined Dell Streak with a super-high resolution display and Wacom digitizer built in. Intriguing.
Rick83 - Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - link
That's why I got an Archos 5 two years ago. And what can I say? It works.Sadly the Note is A) three times as expensive as the Archos
and B) not yet on Android 4
there's also C) Codec support will suck compared to the Archos, and I'm pretty sure Samsung won't release an open bootloader, like Archos does.
I'm hoping that Archos will soon release a re-fresh of their smaller size tablets base on OMAP 4 and Android 4.
Alternatively, and equally as expensive as the Note, is the Sony dual-screen tablet. Looks interesting, but same caveats apply....
kylecronin - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link
> It’s going to be a case by case basis to determine which 4 cases that cover the front of the display work with the 4S.Clever
metafor - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link
"Here we have two hypothetical CPUs, one with a max power draw of 1W and another with a max power draw of 1.3W. The 1.3W chip is faster under load but it draws 30% more power. Running this completely made-up workload, the 1.3W chip completes the task in 4 seconds vs. 6 for its lower power predecessor and thus overall power consumed is lower. Another way of quantifying this is to say that in the example above, CPU A does 5.5 Joules of work vs. 6.2J for CPU B."The numbers are off. 4 seconds vs 6 seconds isn't 30% faster. Time-to-complete is the inverse of clockspeed.
Say a task takes 100 cycles. It would take 1 second on a 100Hz, 1 IPC CPU and 0.77 seconds on a 130Hz, 1 IPC CPU. This translates to 4.62 sec if given a task that takes 600 cycles of work (6 sec on the 100Hz, 1 IPC CPU).
Or 1W * 6s = 6J = 1.3W * 4.62s
Exactly the same amount of energy used for the task.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link
Err sorry, I should've clarified. For the energy calculations I was looking at the entire period of time (10 seconds) and assumed CPU A & B have the same 0.05W idle power consumption.Doing the math that way you get 1W * 6s + 0.05W * 4s = 6.2J (CPU B)
and
1.3W * 4s + 0.05W * 6s = 5.5J (CPU A)
metafor - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link
Erm, that still presents the same problem. That is, a processor running at 130% the clockspeed will not finish in 4 seconds, it will finish in 4.62s.So the result is:
1W * 6s + 0.05W * 4s = 6.2J (CPU B)
1.3W * 4.62s + 0.05 * 5.38s = 6.275J (CPU A)
There's some rounding error there. If you use whole numbers, say 200Hz vs 100Hz:
1W * 10s + 0.05W * 10s = 10.5W (CPU B running for 20s with a task that takes 1000 cycles)
2W * 5s + 0.05W * 15s = 10.75W (CPU A running for 10s with a task that takes 1000 cycles)
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, October 31, 2011 - link
I wasn't comparing clock speeds, you have two separate processors - architectures unknown, 100% hypothetical. One draws 1.3W and completes the task in 4s, the other draws 1W and completes in 6s. For the sake of drawing a parallel to the 4S vs 4 you could assume that both chips run at the same clock. The improvements are entirely architectural, similar to A5 vs. A4.Take care,
Anand
metafor - Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - link
In that case, the CPU that draws 1.3W is more power efficient, as it managed to gain a 30% power draw for *more* than a 30% performance increase.I absolutely agree that this is the situation with the A5 compared to the A4, but that has nothing to do with the "race to sleep" problem.
That is to say, if CPU A finishes a task in 4s and CPU B finishes a task in 6s. CPU A is more than 30% faster than CPU B; it has higher perf/W.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - link
It is race to sleep though. The more power efficient CPU can get to sleep quicker (hurry up and wait is what Intel used to call it), which offsets any increases in peak power consumption. However, given the right workload, the more power efficient CPU can still use more power.Take care,
Anand