Apple has guts...

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

How many do you have open?

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)

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.