iPhone X and iPhone 8 Are World's Fastest Phones (It's Not Even Close)

Update 12/21: We've added results from the iPhone X.

The "Bionic" part in the name of Apple's A11 Bionic chip isn't just marketing speak. It's the most powerful processor ever put in a mobile phone. We've put this chip -- which powers the iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X -- to the test in both synthetic benchmarks and some real-world speed trials, and it obliterates every Android phone we tested.

As a quick primer, the A11 Bionic is a six-core CPU, with two performance cores that promise a 25-percent boost in performance and four high-efficiency cores that promise up to a 70-percent improvement over the iPhone 7's A10 Fusion chip. Last but not least is an Apple-designed GPU that's supposed to be 30 percent faster than before.

Let's start with Geekbench 4, which measures overall performance. On the multicore portion of this test, the iPhone 8 hit 10,170. That's 54 percent faster than the score from Samsung's Galaxy Note 8 — currently the fastest Android phone. The iPhone X scored 10,357 on the same test.

The Android competition wasn't close. The Note 8 scored 6,564, and that's with an impressive 6GB of RAM paired with Qualcomm's fast Snapdragon 835 chip. How about the OnePlus 5 and its 8GB of RAM and Snapdragon 835? That handset got 6,542. With 4GB of RAM, the Galaxy S8 scored 6,295 with the same processor.

The iPhone 8 even edged out the score from the 13-inch Apple MacBook Pro with a 7th-generation Core i5 processor. That notebook notched 9,213. Is Geekbench 4 really comparable from phone to desktop? According to the founder of Geekbench, John Poole, “the short is answer is yes that the scores are comparable across platforms, so if an iPhone 8 scores higher than an i5, then the iPhone 8 is faster than the i5.”

MORE: iPhone 8 Plus vs. Galaxy Note 8 Camera Face-Off - Why Apple Wins

However, Poole provided the important caveat that laptops are better at delivering sustained performance over a longer period of time, as opposed to the shorter max burst performance that benchmarks like Geekbench 4 are designed to measure. In other words, the iPhone 8 simply doesn’t have the thermals and heat dissipation necessary to replace your laptop.

Next up is 3DMark, which gauges graphics performance. The iPhone 8 scored an off-the-charts 62,212, and the iPhone 8 Plus managed an even higher 64,412. Compare that to the Note 8's 39,834 and the OnePlus 5's 39,576.

If you're wondering how all this translates to real-world performance, we have more good news for iPhone 8 shoppers — and bad news for everyone else. To really put the A11 Bionic chip through its paces, we put the same 2-minute video, shot in 4K by a drone, on the iPhone 8, Galaxy Note 8 and Galaxy S8+, and then added the same transitions and effects before exporting and saving the video.

The iPhone 8 and iPhone X finished this strenuous task in just 42 seconds, while the Note 8 took more than 3 minutes. The Galaxy S8+ took more than 4 minutes.

How about opening a large file? We downloaded a 5.1 MB map illustration PDF to both the iPhone 8 and Galaxy Note 8 and opened them from their native file managers: the Apple Files app and the My Files app. The iPhone 8 averaged under 0.8 seconds, while the Note 8 averaged 6.41 seconds.

The iPhone 8 also opened more demanding apps faster than its predecessor and the top Android phone right now, although those differences were less dramatic. It took the iPhone 8 11 seconds to fully load the Injustice 2 game, compared to 14.53 seconds for the iPhone 7 Plus and 19 seconds for the Note 8.

Of course, there are lots of ways to measure performance, but based on our testing thus far, the iPhone 8 is easily the fastest phone ever. Now everyone else has to play catchup.

Illustration: Tom's Guide/Shutterstock

Create a new thread in the iPhone forum about this subject
36 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • mcg341
    Tour saying the apples a Vetter ohone?
    0
  • varonecl
    for a grand it better beat a lot of laptops and tablets screw other phones
    -2
  • jerryjack246
    im sorry but android is better
    -1
  • lol.kelvinzhou
    im sorry but you are wrong
    -2
  • mojoeherb
    Regardless your benchmark tests are so different from others, so where did you get these figures from? Other reputable sites have different results. Regardless, Apple I-phones always seem to be faster but when the real test comes in, like opening up a web page or even some files, they are much slower than Android and I know because I have both phones.
    2
  • robzorbakeenan
    Would have been useful to see how it compares to the iPhone 7, too.
    0
  • chris.p.dunning
    Anonymous said:
    for a grand it better beat a lot of laptops and tablets screw other phones


    You should probably keep in mind that the phones they’ve compared it to are also nearly a thousand dollars.
    0
  • typicaldigguser
    Relax. These results are simply stating the processor is years ahead of those in new android phones. The results never told you to get an iPhone. If you like android than buy it. Simple as that.
    1
  • ultmast
    Anonymous said:
    a grand


    You're thinking of the iPhone X. This is the iPhone 8.
    1
  • ultmast
    Anonymous said:
    Regardless your benchmark tests are so different from others, so where did you get these figures from? Other reputable sites have different results.


    Go ahead and list them. This seems to be exactly in line with every other review I've seen. It's not like the Geekbench scores are changing, either.

    Quote:
    Apple I-phones [sic] always seem to be faster but when the real test comes in, like opening up a web page or even some files, they are much slower than Android


    Totally false. That's the iPhone 7 killing the latest.
    0
  • Hrunga_Zmuda
    Not bad for a $649 phone! I think I'll get one.
    0
  • juliusb1994
    How do you test the video render? Those timings are faster than my PC. My PC takes double the time of the final video, here it seems to take a third of that time. Could we get a little more information on the methodology used?
    1
  • gregzeng
    Seems the Snapdragon 820 is fastest, as used on three smartphones, including the Samsung Galaxy s7.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhrlVwPHb20

    "Top 10 Fastest Mobile Phone Processors",
    by: Tech Comedy Vines, Published on Aug 25, 2017

    CPU ANTUTU USED IN YT TIMING
    SNAPDRAGON 808 68508 4 0-17
    SNAPDRAGON 650 78979 3 0-28
    APPLE A8 79100 2 (6) 0-41
    SNAPDRAGON 652 79636 3 0-51
    SNAPDRAGON 810 81049 5 1-03
    EXYNOS 7420 86652 4 1-14
    KIRIN 950 92846 2 1-27
    EXYNOS 8890 129865 2 1-38
    APPLE A9 132657 2 (6) 1-49
    SNAPDRAGON 820 136383 3 (s7) 2-04

    "USED IN" are the number of separated phones currently.
    "YT TIMING" is the minutes-seconds on the video.
    -5
  • vanyarom2
    Gregzeng, are you (and I am sorry) an idiot? This freaking video is outdated. Apple A11 is not referenced in this video, as well as Snapdragon 835 which is in S8 Note, for instance. Right now, A11 beats the hell out of the latest intel core i5 chip.
    2
  • sdreamer
    Would be nice to see what this means for x86/CISC processors and how they compare. I get that sustain operations argument, but that's like saying, "sure it's just as fast, but it doesn't have the endurance" which to me means it's fast as the x86 stuff now, they just need to work on thermal now. Was thinking about getting a new Mac, but if this thing is about to overtake the MacPro which is three times more (I know the multicore of the MacPro still runs circles, but what about next year?), what's to stop Apple from redoing it's laptop/desktop market with these in house processors which use little power, but huge efficiency gains if they manage to get the thermal issue within the next two years?
    0
  • juliusb1994
    You're pretty much always running into thermal problems. You can overclock until you need a better cooling solution. Liquid nitrogen isn't an option for a smartphone, so thermals are the limiting factor, not technically but practically. What I'd like to see is a mobile processor used in a small Laptop. As others mentioned, the x86 performance might be very good. Maybe even a hybrid OS to save some power like the Google Chrome OS. If the Video render times are that low, I'd like to see these chips embedded in a Laptop that I can well use for productivity. A Surface Book killer should be very well possible
    0
  • blgn8
    @GREGZENG

    Your video posts a the newest Snapdragon vs 2+ year old Apple A9 (and older processors). Lame. And even the, results are within margin of error.
    0
  • ultmast
    Anonymous said:
    Seems the Snapdragon 820 is fastest, as used on three smartphones, including the Samsung Galaxy s7.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhrlVwPHb20


    Good lord, that video is almost an archaeological find at this point. The A9? The Snapdragon 820? We're way way past those chips. Apple is 4 chips past that, for example (A9X, A10, A10X, A11).
    0
  • wader
    Wish I didn't feel so claustrophobic when using iOS, as this does look potentially impressive.
    0
  • blgn8
    Anonymous said:
    for a grand it better beat a lot of laptops and tablets screw other phones


    It's not "a grand".
    Apple iPhone 8: $699
    Samsung Galaxy 8: $725
    Samsung Note8: $930

    So; iPhone in comparison is the least expensive. Time to start talking about the "Samsung Tax".
    Note: Prices taken from respective manufacturers sites as of 9/22/2017.
    0