Insanely Great: iPhone 6s benchmarks as powerful as the Retina MacBook

“The iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus shouldn’t arrive at your door for a few more days – I sure know mine isn’t here yet – but a lucky customer from California has already received her rose gold iPhone 6s, and she posted a slew of unboxing images as well as the first benchmark test results,” Chris Smith reports for BGR.

“And yes, benchmark scores say Apple’s iPhone 6s brings insane performance improvements compared to last year’s models,” Smith reports. “In fact, the numbers suggest the iPhone 6s is as powerful as Apple’s 2015 12-inch Retina Macbook.”

“Adrienne Alpern took to Twitter to express her excitement about the unexpected delivery, posting pictures of the iPhone 6s’ retail packaging and the [rose gold] device itself,” Smith reports, “[Alpern] put the device through a Geekbench 3 benchmark test at the request of others, posting the results on Twitter. According to the images above, the iPhone 6s scored 2292 in the single-core test, while multi-core tests yielded a 4293 score… And looking at the basic Retina MacBook’s Geekbench scores (1.1GHz dual-core Intel Core M CPU), you’d find 2295 for the 64-bit single core test, and 4464 multi-core test.”

More info and photos in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Boom!

Earlier today, Matthew Panzarino reported for TechCrunch, “The iPhone 6s Plus notched a blistering 2515/4367. The iPhone 6s scored similarly.”

TechCrunch reviews iPhone 6s/Plus: ‘The camera alone is worth the price of admission’ – September 22, 2015
Mossberg reviews iPhone 6s/Plus: ‘The best smartphone, period.’ – September 22, 2015
The Verge reviews iPhone 6s/Plus: ‘You should buy an iPhone 6S Plus’ – September 22, 2015
USA Today’s Baig reviews iPhone 6s/Plus: 3D Touch, great camera add up to tempting upgrade – September 22, 2015
Apple sees fastest iOS adoption ever with iOS 9 as iPhone 6s/Plus set to arrive on September 25th – September 21, 2015

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz” and “Bill” for the heads up.]


          1. Well I assumed that you were alluding to the fact that Samsung have indeed included a mode in their phones making them run faster in test mode to precisely fool such tests into giving them a higher score. First thing I thought of indeed when I first read about the VW affair.

    1. Well the next iteration or two will certainly be the time when we will see Apple’s view on that subject I think. They will want a clear gap in performance I reckon between them and Intel low power chips before committing to that I would have thought, though the x version might even get close to that now, we shall see.

  1. iOS is a version of OS X. if you think for a second that there is not a port of OS X running on AX already, you would not know anything of apple’s intentions and past deeds.

    1. I recall that a jouno noted visiting a design room and seeing a row of iPhone models all lined up on a shelf that were tried before settling on the first production version.

      Thus, there are likely dozens of potential models of new MacBooks and MacBook Pros floating around the design studio.

      Apple evaluates all sorts of versions before it settles on what to make.

  2. The MB Retina is generally regarded as a tech 1.0 tour de force for its form factor and connectivity, but hardly a speed demon. For perspective, what are the comparable scores for the Mac Book Airs and Mac Book Pros?

    That should begin to tell us just how close the A series is getting.

    1. What a stupid comparison. The 2015 MacBook is an embarrassment. It’s just another example of Apple’s style over substance emphasis since Cook took over.

      Yippee, so the iPhone got faster. It’s still not even close to average Mac performance. Just because Apple released a hobbled MacBook aimed at maximum battery life and kindergarten performance doesn’t mean that RISC chips are catching up in capability to Intel’s higher performing CISC (Core and Xeon) processors. That’s just not happening.

      Apple thinks (wrongly) that its Mac users are willing to let performance stagnate so that Ive can make a computer without any moving parts, zero ports, the thickness of 5 sheets of paper. That is most emphatically not what Mac users in general want. Ever Mac user I know is lamenting the lack of better desktop options, the 17″ MacBook Pro, and entry-level student MacBooks with all the ports that people still actually need. For every year that Apple releases a faster A-chip, Intel releases a faster chip. Apple would be wise to use its cash horde and huge engineering resources to keep making the Macs that users are asking for, with the best Intel chips available. The A chip is not good enough for Macs, and I don’t see it becoming a viable option for many many years if ever.

      1. Jeez dude, settle down.

        Apple’s A-series SoCs are specifically designed for power efficiency. There’s nothing stopping Apple from designing an ARM-based CPU with performance as a target. (And as far as your comment about RISC not catching up to CISC, you should read up on IBM’s POWER architecture or even Oracle’s SPARC.)

        The MacBook is obviously an entry level computer meant for more casual use, it is in no way “hobbled”. Stop reading tech specs as the end-all-be-all of a computer’s performance. It doesn’t take a monster CPU/GPU to meet most user’s needs. In fact, unless you’re doing some pretty serious computing, there’s no reason anyone would need a top-of-line Intel CPU.

  3. The best news is, this is still just a dual core, given the ratio between single and multiple core benchmarks. That’s great because Apple can still easily add cores in the future for an A10 MacBook or whatever.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.