Speed Tests

By Rachel Rosmarin, published on June 19, 2009
Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: , , | Themes: Smartphones

2. Speed Tests

June 19, 2009 Los Angeles Speed Test: Load Nytimes.com

iPhone 3GS AT&T
iPhone 3G AT&T
22 seconds
42 seconds

July 11, 2008 Los Angeles Speed Test: Load Nytimes.com

iPhone 3G AT&T

iPhone Classic AT&T EDGE

iPhone T-Mobile EDGE

23 seconds

65 seconds

57 seconds

As you can see, when it comes to loading full (not designed for mobile) web pages, such as nytimes.com, the iPhone 3GS is nearly twice as fast as the iPhone 3G, in our limited tests. Oddly, when we conducted this same test between the iPhone 3G and iPhone Classic nearly one year ago, the iPhone 3G performed nearly twice as fast at that time, than it did today. Many factors could have created this outcome, including time of day, heavier load on the network, and even the design of the New York Times site one year ago versus today. Further, the iPhone 3G in this test is running OS 3.0 now, while it wasn't during the test conducted a year ago.

Proportionally, however, the timed page load test tells a predictable story: iPhone Classic is half the speed of the iPhone 3G; iPhone 3G is half the speed of the iPhone 3GS.

Other actions are also speedier on the iPhone 3GS.

Boot Up Time

iPhone 3GS
iPhone 3G
18 Seconds
38 Seconds

When using the two phones, the iPhone 3GS is noticeably speedier when switching between apps, opening Mail, and opening the camera app.

Comments | Print | Send to a friend

Sponsored links

Comments

jokemeister 06/20/2009 12:39 PM
Hide
-1+

I assume then that to use the navigation features, say while driving, that you need connectivity to the internet. That doesn't sound like a good solution in terms of reliability, ie. always there when you need it, or from the perspective of cost as a lot of data will be downloaded to keep the google map updated. My aging PDA has Tom Tom Navigator installed and it works a treat with no need for internet access just to guide me somewhere. Anyway, it's just an observation as I dont have an iPhone so I'm not up on what apps are available. I'm afraid the whole Apple monopoly gets up my nose.

Tomsguiderachel 06/20/2009 12:56 PM
Hide
-0+

Jokemeister :
I assume then that to use the navigation features, say while driving, that you need connectivity to the internet. That doesn't sound like a good solution in terms of reliability, ie. always there when you need it, or from the perspective of cost as a lot of data will be downloaded to keep the google map updated. My aging PDA has Tom Tom Navigator installed and it works a treat with no need for internet access just to guide me somewhere. Anyway, it's just an observation as I dont have an iPhone so I'm not up on what apps are available. I'm afraid the whole Apple monopoly gets up my nose.


Driving while staring at an iPhone screen isn't safe. But to answer your questions: 1) iPhone uses the cell network (in this case AT&T 3G) to load its maps, not wireless Internet access. 2) All AT&T iPhones have unlimited data phones, so you don't incur fees no matter how many times you load the maps.

Curnel_D 06/20/2009 2:56 PM
Hide
-0+

A conclusion would have been nice.

Tomsguiderachel 06/20/2009 5:02 PM
Hide
-0+

Curnel_D :
A conclusion would have been nice.


Okay, Curnel_D. Here's your personalized conclusion:
"After about four hours use, nothing about the iPhone 3GS convinced this iPhone 3G user that she simply must have it. The speed--both in Web browsing and in switching between applications built into the phone--is a genuine perk to the 3GS, but using the phone is akin to using a laptop with a better processor than the one yours has. It certainly doesn't mean its time to ditch your one-year-old laptop in favor of a brand new one. For iPhone Classic owners, the upgrade option might be far more compelling.

Most iPhone 3G owners will be satisfied with the shiny, new feeling they got when they installed iPhone OS 3.0 on their phones earlier this week. For now, that's enough to carry most of them through until something even better (iPhone or not) comes along."

Curnel_D 06/20/2009 6:58 PM
Hide
-0+

Tomsguiderachel :
Okay, Curnel_D. Here's your personalized conclusion:"After about four hours use, nothing about the iPhone 3GS convinced this iPhone 3G user that she simply must have it. The speed--both in Web browsing and in switching between applications built into the phone--is a genuine perk to the 3GS, but using the phone is akin to using a laptop with a better processor than the one yours has. It certainly doesn't mean its time to ditch your one-year-old laptop in favor of a brand new one. For iPhone Classic owners, the upgrade option might be far more compelling.Most iPhone 3G owners will be satisfied with the shiny, new feeling they got when they installed iPhone OS 3.0 on their phones earlier this week. For now, that's enough to carry most of them through until something even better (iPhone or not) comes along."


Now put that in the article!

eddieroolz 06/21/2009 7:29 AM
Hide
-0+

I see the camera section of this article with interest.

It's interesting how so many of the major media agencies tolerate subpar (read: crappy) picture quality from the iPhones, but demand ultra-sharp pictures from other handsets like LG, Samsung and SE, and then still criticize for lacking focus, flash, etc, etc. It seems very, very hypocritical to me.

Especially the AutoFocus is a complete failure for the iPhone if it actually does not lock into the particular item. Of course, you were quick to make excuses, calling fluorescent light the problem.

The truth is, my SH906i with 5.2MP autofocus takes pictures fine under fluorescent light. It's not overexposed, not underexposed, image is sharp and best of all, it's actually watchable.

Just a little rant from someone who owns a Japanese phone and had experienced so much better.

Tomsguiderachel 06/22/2009 12:50 PM
Hide
-0+

eddieroolz :
I see the camera section of this article with interest.It's interesting how so many of the major media agencies tolerate subpar (read: crappy) picture quality from the iPhones, but demand ultra-sharp pictures from other handsets like LG, Samsung and SE, and then still criticize for lacking focus, flash, etc, etc. It seems very, very hypocritical to me.Especially the AutoFocus is a complete failure for the iPhone if it actually does not lock into the particular item. Of course, you were quick to make excuses, calling fluorescent light the problem. The truth is, my SH906i with 5.2MP autofocus takes pictures fine under fluorescent light. It's not overexposed, not underexposed, image is sharp and best of all, it's actually watchable. Just a little rant from someone who owns a Japanese phone and had experienced so much better.


Couldn't agree more: many phones out there--especially those that aren't "smartphones"--have much better cameras than the iPhone 3GS (and the other iPhones too). The truth is, other camera phones would've performed much better in our testing environment. Next time I will try to include comparison shots from other camera phones, so that you can see the difference.

Thanks for reading,
Rachel Rosmarin
Editor, Tom's Guide

eddieroolz 06/22/2009 11:33 AM
Hide
-0+

Tomsguiderachel :
Couldn't agree more: many phones out there--especially those that aren't "smartphones"--have much better cameras than the iPhone 3GS (and the other iPhones too). The truth is, other camera phones would've performed much better in our testing environment. Next time I will try to include comparison shots from other camera phones, so that you can see the difference.
Thanks for reading,Rachel RosmarinEditor, Tom's Guide



Thanks for the consideration!

Sponsored links