Benchmark contest: Apple’s iPhone X vs. MacBook Pro

“We were amazed when the iPad Pro 2nd Gen was compared to the fastest 2017 MacBook Pro 13-inch,” Rob Morgan reports for Bare Feats. “When our iPhone X arrived, we were very curious where its performance falls compared to the iPhone 7, latest iPad Pro, and fastest 2017 MacBook Pro 13-inch.”

“The Phone X beats the iPad Pro Gen 2 in Geekbench’s Single and Multi-Core CPU test. And it beats the fastest 2017 13-inch MacBook Pro in the Multi-Core CPU test,” Morgan reports. “As expected, the iPhone X beats the iPhone 7 in both Geekbench CPU tests.”

“On the other hand,” Morgan reports, “the 2017 13-inch MacBook Pro and Gen 2 iPad Pro smoked the iPhone X in the Geekbench Metal GPU Compute test suite while it was competitive with both in the GFXBench Manhattan 3.1.1 Metal animation.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: APple’s iPhone X is noticeably faster than any other smartphone not named iPhone 9 or iPhone 8 Plus. Apple’s A11 Bionic is astounding!

We each passing year, and especially with iPhone X, it becomes increasingly clear – even to the Android settlers – that the competition has no chance of even remotely keeping up against Apple’s unmatched vertically integrated one-two punch of custom software and custom hardware. The Android to iPhone upgrade train just turned onto a long straightaway, engines stoked, primed to barrel away! — MacDailyNews, September 13, 2017

SEE ALSO:
iPhone 8’s Apple A11 Bionic chip so destroys Android phones that Geekbench creator can’t even believe it – September 30, 2017
Apple’s A11 Bionic chip is by far the highest-performing system on the market; totally destroys Android phones – September 19, 2017
Apple’s A11 Bionic chip in iPhone 8, 8 Plus, and iPhone X leaves Android phones choking in the dust – September 18, 2017
The inside story of Apple’s amazing A11 Bionic chip – September 18, 2017
Apple’s A11 Bionic obliterates top chips from Qualcomm, Samsung and Huawei – September 18, 2017
Apple accelerates mobile processor dominance with A11 Bionic; benchmarks faster than 13-inch MacBook Pro – September 15, 2017
Apple’s A11 Bionic chip in iPhone X and iPhone 8/Plus on par with 2017 MacBook Pro – September 14, 2017

15 Comments

  1. This is BS. These benchmarks are do far from reality.

    MacBook Pros have CPUs that have more power. That are able to use more energy because the battery constraints aren’t as severe. Then there’s graphics performance.

    Put the A11 chip in a Mac running OS X and watch it choke.

    1. I don’t know about that!

      I’m thinking a wireless keyboard and a “dock” to hook up the iPhone to a, say 22″, monitor would be all the computer a lot of both home users and office users need.

      My client has sent out Windows Tablets that some engineers are both running legacy apps and doing light CAD work, for example: on simple jobs, redlines, and corrections. In some cases, drawing changes can be made in the field. Lot of reports say things like “works better than what we had before”, “works decently” and “is convenient”. Another words, tablets are getting there. Phones can’t be too far behind. Make no mistake, most need high horsepower computers (trucks) to be efficient 40 hours per week.

    2. I don’t think you know what cpu power is. It is not Measured in WATTs. It is measured in ops per second. These benchmarks measure operations performed. What is it about OSX that will diminish this number. It will work on “data” in exactly the same manner. Compile OSX to feed address and data into the device and it performs an operation.

    3. Benchmarks are in imperfect measure, but your interpretation is inaccurate. The optimized ARM-based CPUs in iOS devices are capable of doing more with less power than Intel-based devices, even the “low-power” Atom. That was actually true for at least some of the PPC CPUs, as well, such as the G3 (PPC750). That is why radiation-hardened versions of the PPC750fx are used for spaceflight, where electrical power consumption and thermal dissipation are critical considerations.

      I have been an advocate of putting the A11 SoC in a low-end Mac. Actually, the A11X is the first A-series SoC that needs to go in Macs because of the extra graphics performance.

      But the A11 is pushing 2436-by-1125 pixels (2.74 Mpixels)
      on the iPhone X, and that isn’t too shabby.But the 12.9″ iPad Pro is pushing 2732-by-2048 pixels (5.6 Mpixels). The A11X Bionic (which will go into the next generation of iPads in place of the A10X Fusion), will be fully suitable for many Macs. And, in years to come, the A12, A13, and so on, will likely leave Intel hardware in the dust. The main issue, in my opinion, is the ability of Apple’s A-series architecture to support massively parallel configurations.
      ——

      Separate thread

      As far as the iPhone X being beaten by the iPad Pro and the MBP, it is because the iPhone X uses an A11, not an A11X. The iPads always get the “X” versions with the extra graphics processing capability. The A11X has long been my target as the first A-series SoC that offers great potential as a low to medium range Mac processor.

      The fact that the A11 Bionic did as well as it did against the A10X Fusion and the Intel in the MBP bodes very well for the future of A-series based Macs. Very well, indeed.

  2. I’m waiting for:

    – True Tone Mac screens ( is this out?)
    – Portrait mode in video (w/bokeh)
    – double-camera portrait mode video for Mac
    – FaceID Mac (mid-2018?)

    What are you eager to see incorporated into the lineup?

    1. Imagine we have two athletes running a race. One is on a 100m track and the other is on a 200m track. The one on the 100m track finish first even though the other guy is past the 150m point at the same time. The one that finished first is not necessarily the “fastest”.

      With the number of pixels in the X being more than the number of pixels in the 8 it is like the X was on a shorter track. It will always seem to finish first even though it is not the fastest.

  3. I think MDN was joansing to say:
    APple’s iPhone X is notcheably faster than any other smartphone not named iPhone 9 or iPhone 8 Plus. Apple’s A11 Bionic is astounding!

    1. I am thinking about it. It tells me that Apple has done a poor job keeping its Macs near the cutting edge. I have less than no desire to rely on a battery powered mobile device to do my work, especially if that mobile device locks you into a walled garden.

  4. Imagine how fast the iPhone x would be if it wasn’t hobbled with a stupid notch and a gazillion emojis. Cook has decided Apple must chase after snapchat, fb, twit gossip, etc. that’s what all this mobile computing power is being used for. What a waste.

    1. and how do a “stupid notch and a gazillion emojis” keep an “iPhone x” from being “fast”…??

      …as in how much CPU power and RAM does the notch steal…???

      Did you mean keep it from being a fast seller? About which, if the supply side guy (Cook) has done his job, we’ll see….

Reader Feedback

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