Comparison of the Apple A20 iPhone Processor with Other Computers

In terms of microprocessor development, there is a stark difference between the last decade and the current decade. The 2010s were kind of depressing because processors weren't advancing very quickly, with companies bragging about improvements of only 5% to 10% from one year to the next. Likewise, Intel was having difficulty making chips with smaller circuits. During that decade, the manufacturing process went from 45 nm to 14 nm, which mirrors the progression of all the iMacs I have owned, but Intel couldn't advance much further.

However, during the 2010s, Apple's mobile processors were making much bigger improvements.

Everything changed in 2020 when Apple introduced the M1 chip for its desktop computers. Not only did Apple switch from Intel processors to the more efficient ARM architecture, but the chip also used a 5-nanometer manufacturing process, allowing it to be more powerful while using considerably less power. Skeptics complained that this was essentially just a different version of Apple's iPhone processors, but the chip was beating most Intel computers.

For comparison, I am going to use my 2020 iMac with its 14-nm i7-10700K as a baseline. The previous-generation iMac I owned had a 4-core i7 processor and was plenty powerful, but the new chip nearly doubled the computing power by having 8 cores instead of 4. It can also consume up to 250 watts of power and get quite hot, compared with the 168 watts of the previous generation.

My 2023 AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS 8-core mini-computer has a 4-nm processor, consumes only 45 watts, and scores 50% better on the Geekbench 7 benchmark. It is a powerful computer in a small box that uses far less electricity.

All the recent iPhone processors have two performance cores and four efficiency cores. For this reason, their single-core performance is impressive, sometimes even beating desktop computers. However, their overall multi-core performance is typically only about 2.5 to 3 times their single-core performance. For most applications, single-core performance is going to be more important anyway.

Compared with my 2020 iMac, my cheap 2018 iPhone XR with the A12 Bionic 7-nm processor is 45% as powerful in single-core performance and 17% as powerful in multi-core performance. Still, for a mobile chip that uses only about 6 watts, that is pretty impressive.

Again, compared with the 2020 iMac, the Apple A20 processor in the new iPhones, with its amazing 2-nm process, is 237% as powerful in single-core performance but only 83% as powerful in multi-core performance. It uses only 10 watts, which is 25 times less power than the desktop processor.

These benchmarks don't include the more powerful graphics and neural-engine capabilities of the A20 chip. This chip is powerful enough to run some modern video games.

Some people complained that the new A20 chip is only a marginal improvement over the previous-generation 3-nm A19. Actually, it is 29% more powerful while using 2 fewer watts of power. Still, both processors deliver desktop-level performance that I would be happy with. If Apple were to put either of these chips into a budget tablet, as it did with the A16 chip, it would make for a very powerful tablet.

Apple has tried to promote the idea that you can use your phone or tablet for all of your computing needs. Although the chips are amazing, most of the software I use only runs on Intel-compatible computers. For me, this includes chess programs, video games, and software development tools, so I still need my Intel-compatible computers. Maybe someday everything will run on Apple hardware, which would make Intel-compatible computers obsolete, but that is nowhere close to being true at the moment.

For everyday phone or tablet use, most people don't need this much power, especially if they aren't using these devices as their main computer. However, having desktop-level performance in mobile devices should keep them relevant for many years to come.

Android devices often cost less than Apple devices, but some of their processors are only half as powerful as their Apple counterparts.

Mac vs Windows in 2026 - It's a Disaster

Unless a person needs a portable computer, I see no reason to have a laptop. They are a significantly worse experience than a desktop computer, yet many people want to use laptops as their main computer.

If someone only needs a laptop for occasional portability, then perhaps a cheaper laptop will do the job. Tablets are also becoming increasingly competitive with laptops.

Apple computers have always cost more, but the recent RAM crisis has changed the equation. Given the uncertainties in the economy, I suspect that Apple will have to become more price-competitive in the future.

Neil deGrasse Tyson And Jaron Lanier on the AI Illusion

In "One-Half a Manifesto", Lanier criticizes the claims made by writers such as Ray Kurzweil, and opposes the prospect of so-called "cybernetic totalism", which is "a cataclysm brought on when computers become ultra-intelligent masters of matter and life."[22] Lanier's position is that humans may not be considered to be biological computers, i.e., they may not be compared to digital computers in any proper sense, and it is very unlikely that humans could be generally replaced by computers easily in a few decades, even economically. While transistor count increases according to Moore's law, overall performance rises only very slowly. According to Lanier, this is because human productivity in developing software increases only slightly, and software becomes more bloated and remains as error-prone as it ever was. "Simply put, software just won't allow it. Code can't keep up with processing power now, and it never will.


 Lanier criticized the sometimes-claimed omniscience of collective wisdom (including examples such as the Wikipedia article about him, which he said recurrently exaggerates his film-directing work), describing it as "digital Maoism".[25] He writes: "If we start to believe that the Internet itself is an entity that has something to say, we're devaluing those people [creating the content] and making ourselves into idiots."[25]

His criticism aims at several targets that concern him and are at different levels of abstraction:

any attempt to create one final authoritative bottleneck that channels the knowledge onto society is wrong, regardless of whether it is a Wikipedia or any algorithmically created system producing meta information,
it creates a false sense of authority behind the information,
a sterile style of wiki writing is undesirable because:

it removes the touch with the real author of original information, it filters the subtlety of the opinions of the author, essential information (for example, the graphical context of original sources) is lost,

collective authorship tends to produce or align to mainstream or organizational beliefs,
he worries that collectively created works may be manipulated behind the scenes by anonymous groups of editors who bear no visible responsibility,

and that this kind of activity might create future totalitarian systems as these are basically grounded on misbehaved collectives that oppress individuals.

n December 2006, Lanier followed up his critique of the collective wisdom with an article in Edge entitled "Beware the Online Collective".[27] Lanier writes:

I wonder if some aspect of human nature evolved in the context of competing packs. We might be genetically wired to be vulnerable to the lure of the mob... What's to stop an online mass of anonymous but connected people from suddenly turning into a mean mob, just like masses of people have time and time again in the history of every human culture? It's amazing that details in the design of online software can bring out such varied potentials in human behavior. It's time to think about that power on a moral basis.

Lanier argues that the search for deeper information in any area sooner or later requires finding information that has been produced by a single person, or a few devoted individuals: "You have to have a chance to sense personality in order for language to have its full meaning."[27] That is, he sees limitations in the utility of an encyclopedia produced by only partially interested third parties as a form of communication.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier

Is The Cambridge Z88 Vintage Portable Computer Too Quirky For Its Own Good?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbYzA8SsnVk

Used Apple iMacs Have a Fatal Flaw

Apple's Trick to Make You Pay Twice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3EHfpkmnpA&t=1342s

There is much overlap in the capabilities of the different Apple devices. Phones and tablets have gotten very powerful, with some of them being as powerful as desktop computers. However, for anything that requires effort, a desktop computer is far easier to use.

I can use my phone to write an email. For a short email or text message, it is convenient. However, long messages take too long to write, and I would rather use a computer.

I have found tablets useful mainly when I was traveling and a portable screen was handy, but my phone is also a portable screen. Tablets are also useful in businesses where a portable screen is necessary.

Can technology solve all our problems?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6me9riotp0&t=987s