Apple may deceive users, A18 may be a renamed version of A17 processor, while A18Pro is brand new

09/18 2024 553

As consumers receive their iPhone 16, the test results of the device have been released, revealing that although the processor in the iPhone 16 is named A18, its performance is significantly different from the A18Pro found in the iPhone 16 Pro. Instead, it is comparable to the A17Pro.

Based on Geekbench test scores shared by netizens, the A18's single-core performance scores around 3100 points, while the A18Pro's scores around 3400 points. For Apple's A-series processors, single-core performance is prioritized, showcasing Apple's unique technological expertise in core architecture.

In terms of processor performance, Apple took a different path from Qualcomm and MediaTek in the early days. Apple emphasizes single-core performance, while Qualcomm and MediaTek focus on multi-core performance. Apple believes that for mobile phones, single-core performance is more crucial as users typically run one app at a time. Qualcomm and MediaTek, on the other hand, have been ridiculed for their multi-core strategy where one core struggles while others spectate.

Moreover, Qualcomm and MediaTek's R&D capabilities were weaker back then, and they commonly used ARM's public core designs. In contrast, Apple licensed ARM's instruction set and developed its own core architecture, giving its A-series processors a long-standing lead in single-core performance. Apple has even designed M-series processors with single-core performance comparable to Intel's, making them the most powerful in the ARM ecosystem.

The current 10% difference in single-core performance between A18 and A18Pro is noteworthy. Notably, the A17Pro's single-core performance was around 3100 points, suggesting that the A18 processor may share the same core architecture as the A17Pro, while the A18Pro boasts an entirely new design.

Apple's naming strategy for its new-generation processors may be aimed at boosting iPhone 16 sales. Previous iPhone 14/15 standard models used older-generation processors, while the Pro versions featured brand-new designs, contributing to higher Pro sales than standard models.

Historically, standard iPhone models outsold their Pro counterparts due to their lower prices, making them more accessible to consumers. For example, iPhone 13 standard model sales far exceeded those of the Pro version. In March 2022, iPhone 13 sales surpassed the combined sales of iPhone 13 Pro and iPhone 13 Pro Max, driving total iPhone 13 sales to a record high of 237 million units.

After differentiating the standard and Pro versions of iPhone 14 and iPhone 15, Pro sales increased, but overall iPhone sales declined, dropping to 225 million units in 2023. This decline displeased Apple's board, leading to a reduction in CEO Tim Cook's bonus. The drop in iPhone sales not only impacted overall revenue but also threatened profits, as Apple's services business, which contributes half of its profits, relies heavily on iPhone users.

In response, Apple changed its strategy this year, equipping all four iPhone 16 models with A18 processors. However, the standard iPhone 16 and iPhone 16 Plus use the standard A18, while the Pro versions, iPhone 16 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro Max, feature the A18 Pro. This move aimed to attract price-sensitive customers. Nevertheless, as evident from the comparisons above, the A18 appears to be a rebranded A17Pro rather than a brand-new processor, with the A18 Pro being the genuinely new offering.

The practice of renaming and relaunching older chips originated in the Android space. MediaTek rebranded its Dimensity 700 and Dimensity 810 as Dimensity 6020 and Dimensity 6080 in 2021. Qualcomm's approach was even more extreme, relaunching the 2018 Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 as the Snapdragon 680 after upgrades, with devices featuring this chip selling for nearly $200, despite the fact that phones with similar chips now sell for just over $20 on the second-hand market!

In contrast, Apple's approach seems more ethical. Even if the A18 is indeed a rebranded A17Pro, it's still only a year-old chip being repurposed, unlike Android devices that relaunch chips several years old.

Solemnly declare: the copyright of this article belongs to the original author. The reprinted article is only for the purpose of spreading more information. If the author's information is marked incorrectly, please contact us immediately to modify or delete it. Thank you.