The poll doesn't have a question about the battery alone.
When you say it's massively faster, can you give some real world examples?
Speed difference will depend on the task and how well it can be optimised. 64 bit on its own doesn't give any real world advantage; one has 8 ARM cores. The other has 2 ARM cores.
Even with a few additional instructions, the A7 can't get close to the octocore Samsung CPU in raw processing power.
Which is why I'm asking for real world examples where a user might notice something happening "massively faster"?
If a user doesn't use their phone for the sorts of things where it might have most benefit....
..but would see benefit from the M7 processor using fitness apps....
Are they really clueless for selecting the A7/M7 in that survey?
It'll have up to 3 times the processing power; for some applications (well, gaming) that could be useful. For browsing it won't make a blind bit of difference.
Most people don't even need the processing power of the A7, let alone some 8 core monster.
Are they clueless? Depends - if they chose the A7 thinking it was faster, then they were clueless. If they chose it thinking it was more than adequate, then they were right.
" Not so, the iPhone 5S just claimed the win with 24.17% of votes "
24.17% went for the choice of 1.
The interesting thing I found is that low selling HTC One, and its pre-predecessors get a lot of support. Interesting in that, apart from having a high end screen, they are also limited by design.
It'll have up to 3 times the processing power; for some applications (well, gaming) that could be useful. For browsing it won't make a blind bit of difference.
Most people don't even need the processing power of the A7, let alone some 8 core monster.
Are they clueless? Depends - if they chose the A7 thinking it was faster, then they were clueless. If they chose it thinking it was more than adequate, then they were right.
You realise the title says "Ultimate smartphone" right? Of course people chose it because they thought it was the best.
See previous posts - it depends on what you might user he phone for.
If it's something like gaming that would see more benefit for a more powerful would be preferable.
If you're not a big gamer, but would make use of fitness apps, then the A7 / M7 would be preferable.
But again, it says ultimate smartphone. As in best or more powerful.
The A7 chip and 1440mAh battery is nowhere near the power of Snapdragon 800 and 3000mAh+ battery.
Fitness apps will run just as well if not better on other phones. M7 is just a dedicated co processor. Nothing we haven't seen before and nothing any other processor can't do.
Best isn't necessarily most powerful. Just as with screen size, biggest isn't necessarily best.
Best surely depends on the user's requirements?
That's the trouble with so many of these discussions - some people can't get their head around the thought that others have different needs, requirements or preferences.
I thought the whole point of the M7 was the way in which it kept track of all the motion sensors without apps having to do it directly, and so preserving battery life significantly.
I thought that was a new thing, and not something that other phones typically did.
Best isn't necessarily most powerful. Just as with screen size, biggest isn't necessarily best.
Best surely depends on the user's requirements?
That's the trouble with so many of these discussions - some people can't get their head around the thought that others have different needs, requirements or preferences.
I thought the whole point of the M7 was the way in which it kept track of all the motion sensors without apps having to do it directly, and so preserving battery life significantly.
I thought that was a new thing, and not something that other phones typically did.
Is that not the case?
Read my post again.
"Nothing we haven't seen before"
"Nothing other any other processor can't do"
So why opt for the less powerful A7 chip and crap battery when a bigger battery and more powerful chip will lead to the "Ultimate" smartphone.
I thought the whole point of the M7 was the way in which it kept track of all the motion sensors without apps having to do it directly, and so preserving battery life significantly.
I thought that was a new thing, and not something that other phones typically did.
Is that not the case?
Until the official Nike app comes out, have a look at Argus. Even without the App running it retrieves very interesting historic data using the M7. The M7 is basically running all the time capturing data, nothing is done with the data it seems until an optimised app actually requests it. This is only based on my anecdotal findings from playing around with a 5s for a few weeks, so I may be totally wrong !
See previous posts - it depends on what you might user he phone for.
If it's something like gaming that would see more benefit for a more powerful would be preferable.
If you're not a big gamer, but would make use of fitness apps, then the A7 / M7 would be preferable.
You talk some nonsense I have to say. Let's say the coprocessor is perfect for these fitness apps no problem. Aside from that the 800 and a huge battery gives far more benefit to the user in every single way.
So unless you are claiming all those people voting for the iPhone cpu and battery are fitness freaks then they are talking rubbish as are you.
It is when you post drivle like this that you are unable to hide your ludicrous bias for evening apple.
That poll is mad. Only a quarter like the Apple hardware but nearly half want iOS. Looks like Apple need to improve their hardware if they want to sell more phones. A small low resolution screen does not cut it in 2013.
That poll is mad. Only a quarter like the Apple hardware but nearly half want iOS. Looks like Apple need to improve their hardware if they want to sell more phones. A small low resolution screen does not cut it in 2013.
You talk some nonsense I have to say. Let's say the coprocessor is perfect for these fitness apps no problem. Aside from that the 800 and a huge battery gives far more benefit to the user in every single way.
So unless you are claiming all those people voting for the iPhone cpu and battery are fitness freaks then they are talking rubbish as are you.
It is when you post drivle like this that you are unable to hide your ludicrous bias for evening apple.
Far more benefit to the user in every single way?
If the 5S is already incredibly fast and responsive, I'm not convinced the benefits would be that noticeable in everyday use.
I'll stand corrected if you could give some practical examples though. Gaming might be the best example, but not a big deal if the user isn't a big gamer.
"Nothing we haven't seen before"
"Nothing other any other processor can't do"
So why opt for the less powerful A7 chip and crap battery when a bigger battery and more powerful chip will lead to the "Ultimate" smartphone.
So which of he other phones in the survey have something like the M7 working the same way, with the same benefits?
Am I to believe its already a standard thing, nothing new, and yet despite the willingness of the media to knock Apple down org or two, that fact hasn't really had any coverage in the media?
So which of he other phones in the survey have something like the M7 working the same way,
Same what way? Apple simply used obfuscation to disguise the fact that those Coretex A57s in the A7 are power hungry. Like Tegra, they opted for a cheap way round it.
It's really is the low budget Big.Little that we get with Samsung.
Exactly the same as those A6 Swift cores being a low budget way of not using Coretex A15.
Forget the hype, they obviously did it because it was cheap. Tail wagging Samsung were obviously quite happy to work with them on it too. Apple also have the cheapest screen, by many a country mile.
Ultimate profits is the aim. That is obviously smart as long as cheap is still seen as premium.
If the 5S is already incredibly fast and responsive, I'm not convinced the benefits would be that noticeable in everyday use.
I'll stand corrected if you could give some practical examples though. Gaming might be the best example, but not a big deal if the user isn't a big gamer.
Practical examples are irrelevant, if it is indeed the ultimate phone you would choose the fastest. This is yet another example of your nonsense, you are now actually trying, in some ludicrous way, to defend the inclusion of a slower processor in a phone, simply because it has an apple on it
You really have lost all sense of reality and i even won't mention the choice of screen.
Practical examples are irrelevant, if it is indeed the ultimate phone you would choose the fastest. This is yet another example of your nonsense, you are now actually trying, in some ludicrous way, to defend the inclusion of a slower processor in a phone, simply because it has an apple on it
You really have lost all sense of reality and i even won't mention the choice of screen.
So practical examples of actually using the phone are irrelevant.
Comments
The poll does say that.
A7 & 1440mAh battery - 30.67%
Note 3, 3220mAh battery and 8 core processor - 25.57%
The 8 core processor in the note 3 is massively faster than the A7 and has oveer twice the capacity battery.
People didn't choose the higher spec, faster processor. They chose what has been marketed as better, rather than what is actually better.
The poll doesn't have a question about the battery alone.
When you say it's massively faster, can you give some real world examples?
It must be strange going through life being
Speed difference will depend on the task and how well it can be optimised. 64 bit on its own doesn't give any real world advantage; one has 8 ARM cores. The other has 2 ARM cores.
Even with a few additional instructions, the A7 can't get close to the octocore Samsung CPU in raw processing power.
Which is why I'm asking for real world examples where a user might notice something happening "massively faster"?
If a user doesn't use their phone for the sorts of things where it might have most benefit....
..but would see benefit from the M7 processor using fitness apps....
Are they really clueless for selecting the A7/M7 in that survey?
It'll have up to 3 times the processing power; for some applications (well, gaming) that could be useful. For browsing it won't make a blind bit of difference.
Most people don't even need the processing power of the A7, let alone some 8 core monster.
Are they clueless? Depends - if they chose the A7 thinking it was faster, then they were clueless. If they chose it thinking it was more than adequate, then they were right.
My preference? how is that relevant in any way, fascinating take on this.
You have things which are superior yet you defend people choosing things that are inferior, most bizarre indeed.
24.17% went for the choice of 1.
The interesting thing I found is that low selling HTC One, and its pre-predecessors get a lot of support. Interesting in that, apart from having a high end screen, they are also limited by design.
You realise the title says "Ultimate smartphone" right? Of course people chose it because they thought it was the best.
See previous posts - it depends on what you might user he phone for.
If it's something like gaming that would see more benefit for a more powerful would be preferable.
If you're not a big gamer, but would make use of fitness apps, then the A7 / M7 would be preferable.
But again, it says ultimate smartphone. As in best or more powerful.
The A7 chip and 1440mAh battery is nowhere near the power of Snapdragon 800 and 3000mAh+ battery.
Fitness apps will run just as well if not better on other phones. M7 is just a dedicated co processor. Nothing we haven't seen before and nothing any other processor can't do.
Best surely depends on the user's requirements?
That's the trouble with so many of these discussions - some people can't get their head around the thought that others have different needs, requirements or preferences.
I thought the whole point of the M7 was the way in which it kept track of all the motion sensors without apps having to do it directly, and so preserving battery life significantly.
I thought that was a new thing, and not something that other phones typically did.
Is that not the case?
Read my post again.
"Nothing we haven't seen before"
"Nothing other any other processor can't do"
So why opt for the less powerful A7 chip and crap battery when a bigger battery and more powerful chip will lead to the "Ultimate" smartphone.
Until the official Nike app comes out, have a look at Argus. Even without the App running it retrieves very interesting historic data using the M7. The M7 is basically running all the time capturing data, nothing is done with the data it seems until an optimised app actually requests it. This is only based on my anecdotal findings from playing around with a 5s for a few weeks, so I may be totally wrong !
You talk some nonsense I have to say. Let's say the coprocessor is perfect for these fitness apps no problem. Aside from that the 800 and a huge battery gives far more benefit to the user in every single way.
So unless you are claiming all those people voting for the iPhone cpu and battery are fitness freaks then they are talking rubbish as are you.
It is when you post drivle like this that you are unable to hide your ludicrous bias for evening apple.
49% is a lot more than a quarter.
Far more benefit to the user in every single way?
If the 5S is already incredibly fast and responsive, I'm not convinced the benefits would be that noticeable in everyday use.
I'll stand corrected if you could give some practical examples though. Gaming might be the best example, but not a big deal if the user isn't a big gamer.
So which of he other phones in the survey have something like the M7 working the same way, with the same benefits?
Am I to believe its already a standard thing, nothing new, and yet despite the willingness of the media to knock Apple down org or two, that fact hasn't really had any coverage in the media?
It's really is the low budget Big.Little that we get with Samsung.
Exactly the same as those A6 Swift cores being a low budget way of not using Coretex A15.
Forget the hype, they obviously did it because it was cheap. Tail wagging Samsung were obviously quite happy to work with them on it too. Apple also have the cheapest screen, by many a country mile.
Ultimate profits is the aim. That is obviously smart as long as cheap is still seen as premium.
Practical examples are irrelevant, if it is indeed the ultimate phone you would choose the fastest. This is yet another example of your nonsense, you are now actually trying, in some ludicrous way, to defend the inclusion of a slower processor in a phone, simply because it has an apple on it
You really have lost all sense of reality and i even won't mention the choice of screen.
So practical examples of actually using the phone are irrelevant.
I'm not sure many would agree with you there.
Anyone?