Watch: iPhone X takes on Samsung's Galaxy S9+ in benchmarking bonanza

Thank you for the comprehensive report. I prefer iOS a great deal over Samsung’s TouchWiz version of Android (or any Android for that matter) so I’ll get another iPhone when the time comes. If you’re partial to Samsung’s version of Android then it’s good to see that it’s catching up to iPhone. I don’t see many loyal users switching over. 

The iPhone X on the other hand, has a 6-core A11 Bionic processor with two high performance cores and four efficiency cores.

I think it's worth noting that the A11 Bionic isn't like the bigLITTLE cores used by other devices as it can run with the 4 low performance cores, 2 high performance cores, or all 6 cores at once.

I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 

mtbnut said:

I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 

You're only looking at the benchmark results, but you're not factoring in what Samsung has to do in order to even try to compete with Apple. Samsung has to add double the RAM, a much faster CPU with more cores, which all probably requires a much larger and heavier chassis mostly do to a much larger battery and heat dissipation requirements. Apple, on the other hand, has so much vertical integration that they can use less RAM, less cores, a lower clock rate, and smaller battery in a small chassis while still trouncing the competition.

PS: It should be noted that Apple's comparatively high number of unit sales for a given design allows for economies of scale that add an additional benefit to Apple that other vendors can't possibly compete with it, which is why Apple can also add other amazing features that are generations beyond what even Samsung can feasibly achieve without a high risk with a potential loss in profit, at least in the short run.edit: Here's an example of what I mean by costs outweighing the benefit for a company like Samsung that doesn't sell nearly as many devices of a single design and are likely not getting the profit margins they wish they could get as compared to Apple.

• https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3041016#Comment_3041016 (images)

Soli said:

mtbnut said:

I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 

You're only looking at the benchmark results, but you're not factoring in what Samsung has to do in order to even try to compete with Apple. Samsung has to add double the RAM, a much faster CPU with more cores, which all probably requires a much larger and heavier chassis mostly do to a much larger battery and heat dissipation requirements. Apple, on the other hand, has so much vertical integration that they can use less RAM, less cores, a lower clock rate, and smaller battery in a small chassis while still trouncing the competition.

PS: It should be noted that Apple's comparatively high number of unit sales for a given design allows for economies of scale that add an additional benefit to Apple that other vendors can't possibly compete with it, which is why Apple can also add other amazing features that are generations beyond what even Samsung can feasibly achieve without a high risk with a potential loss in profit, at least in the short run.edit: Here's an example of what I mean by costs outweighing the benefit for a company like Samsung that doesn't sell nearly as many devices of a single design and are likely not getting the profit margins they wish they could get as compared to Apple.

• https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3041016#Comment_3041016 (images)

You are forgetting Samsung makes money every time an iPhone X is Sold.  Tails Samsung wins ; heads Samsung wins more.