- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Apple has guts...
Posted on 2/2/15 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 2/2/15 at 1:34 pm
.... when it tells me the web page has encountered a problem and needs to be reloaded (iPhone 6).
It really should say:
"We ran out of RAM and so ALL pages need to be reloaded." Blaming the page itself is... uncool.
They should take their 1GB RAM and shove it.
It really should say:
"We ran out of RAM and so ALL pages need to be reloaded." Blaming the page itself is... uncool.
They should take their 1GB RAM and shove it.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 6:38 pm to Street Hawk
Ohhhhhhhh. You sure told them
Posted on 2/2/15 at 7:13 pm to Street Hawk
quote:
They should take their 1GB RAM and shove it.
I know you're trolling, but surprised the fanboi's haven't taken the bait and told you that ram doesn't matter
This post was edited on 2/2/15 at 7:15 pm
Posted on 2/2/15 at 8:08 pm to jennyjones
Who says "ram doesn't matter"?
Posted on 2/2/15 at 8:36 pm to Street Hawk
How many do you have open?
Posted on 2/2/15 at 9:35 pm to TigerGman
3-4. I could keep over 7-8 open on my iPhone 5 without them reloading. 64-bit processor combined with 1GB RAM was a very bad decision because of the extra RAM required with 64-bit applications.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 9:39 pm to jennyjones
God damnit. Do I have to post all of this shite again?
Java (Android) requires 2x-8x more RAM to run as efficient as Objective-C (iOS)
Android OEMs are deceptive on CPU clock speed
Java (Android) requires 2x-8x more RAM to run as efficient as Objective-C (iOS)
quote:
In other words, you need four or eight times more memory, than you are actually using to be super efficient. But when the memory becomes constrained, that performance goes way down.
This is why Android devices have all that RAM.
iOS does not use this style of garbage collection and does not slow down in constrained memory environments.
So 1GB for iOS results in more performance than 3GB for Android.
Android OEMs are deceptive on CPU clock speed
quote:
With a modest boost in CPU clock speeds from 1.3GHz to 1.4GHz (an 8% speed-up), the 25% improvement obviously comes from various other tweaks and tricks. Before diving deeper in benchmarks, though, here is the place for a quick insert about clock speeds and the state of the industry. Commentators in forums are quick to point out the apparent inferiority of Apple clock speeds in comparison to the much faster speeds declared in rival Snapdragon and Exynos chips, for instance. The most up-to-date example is the Snapdragon 805 with a declared clock speed of ‘up to 2.7GHz’. At first sight, Apple’s Cyclone core looks like a sore loser with its declaration for just half that at 1.4GHz.
Most people would call it a day at this point - the Snapdragon outperforms the A8 hugely, case closed. This, however, would be naïve: running real-world applications and games shows instantly that the 2.7GHz speeds can only be achieved for a very short periods of time, but after those short outbursts, the chip quickly throttles back to the much more sane ~1.3GHz. Put simply, the 2.7GHz number that you read about is not the nominal frequency, but maxed out turbo speeds that are not sustainable for the long term. In fact, Apple is being much more truthful as it declares actual nominal (and not turbo) speeds for its chip, plus, the company goes on to disclose a second big thing about its chip: sustained performance times. Apple actually claims its A8 is capable of running flat at its nominal speeds for (at least) 20 minutes.
This post was edited on 2/2/15 at 9:40 pm
Posted on 2/2/15 at 9:41 pm to colorchangintiger
quote:
God damnit. Do I have to post all of this shite again?
Posted on 2/2/15 at 11:39 pm to colorchangintiger
quote:
God damnit. Do I have to post all of this shite again?
Java (Android) requires 2x-8x more RAM to run as efficient as Objective-C (iOS)
You've posted this before, and all of the McTech sites have quoted this Quora entry. Now, I agree with the information provided, but do you understand what it's actually saying? Android may fill up its available memory to near-capacity before performing garbage collection tasks, which is when you'll see a performance loss during the process, and this scenario occurs either because of heavy multitasking or just a memory-intensive app -- so we're talking about variables outside of how much memory the OS itself is using, and memory optimization (or lack thereof) with any given app lies solely with its developer.
On the flip side, the efficiency of iOS is that it doesn't perform garbage collection at all, because once it's allocated all of its available memory, it simply starts suspending or killing processes, making no attempt to recycle freed up memory and therefore using no additional processes. It is precisely the reason OP's browser tabs need to be refreshed. It would happen substantially less often if iOS had more RAM. The problem is compounded with the phone's increased resolution requiring more RAM depending on the application; texture data has to be stored somewhere that's quickly accessible.
Is one method of memory management better than the other? Not really. They apply to two different usage scenarios and schools of thought, and it really just boils down to how memory intensive your apps are and how much you need to truly multitask.
Now, regarding CPU clock speeds and performance, it's true but not significant or relevant to OP's issue (but maybe, for education's sake, it's worth noting that CPU stepping behavior can be tweaked to near-obsessive detail with custom Android kernels, so--barring straight-up thermal throttling to prevent total failure--the clock sustainability factor is merely a limitation of the stock kernel to preserve power efficiency balanced with just enough performance, which prevails over raw performance in 99% of use cases in smartphones).
We're also comparing two different architectures with different goals (including differences in image processing, on-chip audio quality, DirectX, etc.). The misrepresentation of clock speeds is just as bad as people who bother to compare clock speeds at all when looking at two different architectures. But in terms of raw performance, we again have two different schools of thought. The A8 uses two very fast cores, so it's going to fare extremely well in comparing individual app performance between the A8 and the 4 and 8-core chips--with individually weaker cores--competing with it in most scenarios, because the day-to-day apps you're using are probably not written to use more than 2 cores. It's the same reason an Intel i5 is generally (but not specifically) a better choice than AMD's 8-core FX CPUs unless you're building a targeted machine for multi-threaded applications (video editing or live streaming, for example).
At the same time, having multiple cores also lends to better multi-tasking with single-threaded applications, as an OS's thread scheduler can send tasks to cores not in use. This can help with something as simple as tabbed browsing. But iOS doesn't need more cores right now and would not benefit from them at all; with Apple's 1GB of RAM, no matter how efficiently the OS itself can manage its resources, it's still an inherent multitasking limitation. So, because most apps are single-threaded, and because iOS will start killing processes before those two powerful cores reach full usage across multiple apps, two powerful cores are much more effective for iOS (Given the nature of iOS itself, you might argue it's a fairly balanced hardware combination overall).
But obviously, in reality you won't notice a bit of difference between any of the flagship CPUs in today's phones, because there's so much more at play affecting performance. Nothing under the hood means shite without a desirable user experience.
EDIT: looking forward to the rebuttal from the downvoters.
This post was edited on 2/3/15 at 2:15 pm
Posted on 2/3/15 at 1:05 am to Street Hawk
quote:
Apple has guts when it tells me the web page has encountered a problem and needs to be reloaded (iPhone 6).
It really should say:
"We ran out of RAM and so ALL pages need to be reloaded." Blaming the page itself is... uncool.
When iOS runs out of RAM, Safari just unloads the page from memory. When you tap on that page, it refreshes the page automatically, no error message.
If you actually got a message saying that the page needs to be refreshed, then it's likely the process just crashed.
Posted on 2/3/15 at 8:39 am to ILikeLSUToo
The crazy thing is that the margins on each phone can easily handle adding more RAM. Does it really matter if quarterly profits are $17.8 Billion instead of $18 Billion? I'm guessing part of the equation is legacy support. Developers would start programming with more RAM in mind and leave older phones behind.
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:26 am to TigerinATL
The RAM is maybe $15/GB at its high point, but probably more like $10. Another 10-15 bucks would get you 32GB of NAND flash for storage. But nope, gotta keep that base model at $200 production cost (all the phone builders are working with similar profit margins). The question is, would another GB in the iPhone 6 sell a lot more iPhones? Probably not, so bottom line wins.
Posted on 2/3/15 at 11:28 am to colorchangintiger
quote:i love when you quote shite like this.
Apple is being much more truthful
Posted on 2/3/15 at 2:00 pm to efrad
quote:
When iOS runs out of RAM, Safari just unloads the page from memory. When you tap on that page, it refreshes the page automatically, no error message.
If you actually got a message saying that the page needs to be refreshed, then it's likely the process just crashed.
I routinely have 16-20 pages "open" in Safari on my phone and I've never seen that error message before. Not saying you can't get it, just saying it's odd to me only 3-4 pages and you do.
Now I used to see it sometimes on my desktop, but I'd have like 33 tabs open.
Posted on 2/3/15 at 2:52 pm to ILikeLSUToo
quote:
looking forward to the rebuttal from the downvoters.
people that downvoted you, were lost by the 2nd sentence, so there is almost a 0% chance of this.
Posted on 2/3/15 at 7:06 pm to ILikeLSUToo
android runs on dalvik vm, which functions as an intermediary between android applications and the hardware itself. conversely, iOS used objective C, which means that executed applications run directly on the hardware, with no translation required.
android devices incur cpu and memory performance hits whenever dalvik translates, and those extra cpu cycles and the additional ram occupancy decrease relative performance...as well as battery life.
dalvik also has to be cognizant of the various underlying architectures on which it is running, and has to identify the optimal instruction set for a given app.
this isn't to say iOS is inherently faster...just far more efficient and far more optimized.
android devices incur cpu and memory performance hits whenever dalvik translates, and those extra cpu cycles and the additional ram occupancy decrease relative performance...as well as battery life.
dalvik also has to be cognizant of the various underlying architectures on which it is running, and has to identify the optimal instruction set for a given app.
this isn't to say iOS is inherently faster...just far more efficient and far more optimized.
This post was edited on 2/3/15 at 7:08 pm
Posted on 2/3/15 at 7:59 pm to demosa
quote:
android runs on dalvik vm, which functions as an intermediary between android applications and the hardware itself. conversely, iOS used objective C, which means that executed applications run directly on the hardware, with no translation required.
Which contributes to a fine case for using multi-core CPUs. It's definitely obvious that Android needs more resources at its disposal to run as it was designed vs. what iOS needs to do what it allows. However, worth noting that Lollipop replaced Dalvik with Android Runtime, which, based on it description, appears to be much more efficient than JIT compilation. But the Nexus 6 is my first Android device (7 years of iphones prior to that), so I can't exactly attest to its real-world improvement.
quote:
this isn't to say iOS is inherently faster...just far more efficient and far more optimized.
It's one of the top benefits of proprietary hardware and software, in addition to a highly restricted environment (saving the user from himself, which is not a bad thing). But good memory management, as efficient as it may be, does not change the requirements and usage of third party apps (or even Safari, since memory consumption is not consistent from site to site). If all Objective C is doing is unloading apps from memory to free up memory, it stands to reason that more memory = less unloading = better multitasking, which is rarely something measured in benchmarks. That's really it. If the iPhone has a bottleneck, it's the RAM, but bottleneck does not mean slow.
Posted on 2/4/15 at 7:57 am to ILikeLSUToo
Thanks for the rebuttal ILike, I trust you know way more than me on matters like these. i honestly didn't read it all though.
What I posted doesn't really address the problem OP is facing anyway. I'm 99% sure it's another bug in iOS 8 and not a simple not enough RAM issue. I never had this problem before iOS 8 on any iPhone since the original. Since iOS 8 I've experienced on both my iPhone 5 and my 6+. Just my 2 cents.
What I posted doesn't really address the problem OP is facing anyway. I'm 99% sure it's another bug in iOS 8 and not a simple not enough RAM issue. I never had this problem before iOS 8 on any iPhone since the original. Since iOS 8 I've experienced on both my iPhone 5 and my 6+. Just my 2 cents.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News