Why iPhones Are and Will Remain Faster Than Android Smartphones
Why does the iPhone 7 outperform the Samsung Galaxy S7, and the iPhone 8 beat the Galaxy S8? The answer lies in the different philosophies behind their operating systems, but one of Apple’s main advantages has always been its unique system-on-chip (SoC) designs. The A10 and A11 processors significantly outpace Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 820/821 and Snapdragon 835 in benchmarks. But why is this the case? What’s the “Apple magic”? Let’s set aside fan arguments and examine the real reasons why Apple’s mobile processors have outperformed Qualcomm’s offerings.
Factor 1: It Just Happened That Way
Back in 2013, Qualcomm had the successful Snapdragon 800 chips, based on their own 32-bit Krait 400 cores. These chips powered dozens, if not hundreds, of devices. At the time, there were no real alternatives: ARM Cortex A15-based solutions were too power-hungry to compete. Qualcomm seemed to be on top of the world. What could go wrong?
In 2011, ARM Holdings announced the ARMv8 architecture, which enabled faster processing for certain tasks, like stream encryption (now used in nearly all smartphones). The first mobile cores using this architecture, Cortex A53 and A57, were announced in 2012, with ARM predicting actual processors would arrive in 2014. But Apple, with its architectural license, beat everyone to the punch by almost a year.
In November 2013, Apple released the iPhone 5s, the first smartphone with a 64-bit Apple A7 ARMv8 processor. Its performance in Geekbench was impressive: its dual-core processor outperformed Krait 400 cores by 1.5x in single-threaded tasks, and matched them in multi-threaded ones.
The expanded ARMv8 instruction set was perfect for Apple’s new Secure Enclave hardware security system, which handled data encryption. For Apple, choosing a 64-bit architecture made sense: only ARMv8 cores had the instructions needed for fast stream encryption, which Apple had already been using. This allowed Apple to achieve unprecedented speeds for encrypted data access. In contrast, the Nexus 6 (Snapdragon 805, ARMv7) released a year later was 3–5 times slower accessing encrypted data.
Initially, many saw 64-bit architecture in smartphones as pure marketing, including Qualcomm’s leadership. But in 2014, Apple released the iPhone 6 with the A8 processor (also ARMv8). Qualcomm responded with minor updates: most phones still used the 32-bit Snapdragon 801, and the Snapdragon 805 was just a Krait 400 with a better GPU. Apple’s processors were faster in both single- and multi-threaded tasks, and far superior in specialized uses like stream encryption. Qualcomm had to catch up.
In 2015, Apple launched the iPhone 6s and A8, while Qualcomm released the Snapdragon 810 and its cut-down 808. These were Qualcomm’s first 64-bit chips, but their lack of experience led to major issues: high power consumption, overheating, and throttling, which reduced performance to Snapdragon 801 levels after a few minutes.
The takeaway? Apple caught the industry off guard by using new architecture where it seemed unnecessary, giving them an 18-month lead over Qualcomm. Why did this happen? Let’s look at the differences in development cycles.
Factor 2: Different Development Cycles
Apple’s lead was due to differences in development cycles between Apple and Android device makers. Apple controls the entire iPhone development process, from processor design to hardware and software optimization. Everything happens within one company, allowing seamless collaboration between OS and hardware teams.
On Android, the process is fragmented. ARM designs the reference processor cores (like Cortex A53, announced in 2012), but doesn’t make the actual SoCs. Companies like Qualcomm license these designs and build processors, which are then used by OEMs to make smartphones. Each step adds time. Then, the OS needs drivers for the new chipset, which takes more time. Finally, the device must be certified by Google for Android compatibility. All this means that Snapdragon 808/810-based phones only appeared in 2015, 18 months after Apple’s 64-bit SoCs. This is a real, historical advantage for Apple.
Qualcomm eventually recovered with the Snapdragon 820, but by then, Apple’s lead was clear.
Factor 3: Chip Size Matters
Comparing the latest Apple and Qualcomm processors, Apple’s chips have more than double the single-core performance and about 1.5x the multi-core performance. Why? One reason is chip size. The A11 Bionic’s die area is 1.2 times larger than the Snapdragon 835’s, allowing more transistors and a more advanced core architecture. Even the “small” cores in the A11 Bionic are much larger and more capable than those in the Snapdragon 835, supporting out-of-order execution for higher performance per clock.
Larger chips cost more to make, which leads us to the next factor: price.
Factor 4: The Price Factor
According to Android Authority, the Apple A10 Fusion’s processor cores are twice the size of those in the Snapdragon 820. As Linley Gwennap of The Linley Group notes, Apple can afford to spend a few extra dollars per chip, which is negligible in a $600+ device, to achieve much higher performance. For Android OEMs, every dollar counts, so they push for cheaper SoCs, often using outdated, weaker cores like the A53. Qualcomm and ARM also need to make a profit, so a processor equivalent to Apple’s would actually cost more, making it unviable for mass adoption.
Samsung and Huawei have their own processor lines (Exynos and Kirin), but Huawei uses off-the-shelf ARM cores and GPUs, so their performance can’t exceed ARM’s own designs. Samsung tries to make custom cores, but their performance is only slightly better than standard ARM cores.
Factor 5: Control Over the Platform
In 2017, Apple dropped support for 32-bit apps in iOS 11, coinciding with the release of the iPhone 8, 8 Plus, and X. Dropping 32-bit support simplifies the processor’s decoding and execution units, saving transistors. This can be used to shrink the chip (lowering cost and power use) or to add more transistors elsewhere for higher performance. The A11 Bionic likely gained an extra 10–15% performance this way.
On Android, a similar move is possible, but not soon. Only from August 2019 did Google require developers to include 64-bit versions of their apps in the Play Store. Apple made this move in February 2015, giving them a 4.5-year head start.
Factor 6: Optimization and Resource Utilization
Optimization is crucial for performance. Apple is known for excellent optimization, while Android’s situation is more mixed. Stock Android (on Nexus, Pixel, Motorola, and Nokia devices) usually runs well on new hardware, but even here there are issues. For example, the Nexus 6 had major problems with encrypted storage speeds due to poor implementation of hardware encryption. In tests, the Nexus 6 read encrypted data at 25–39 MB/s, while the iPhone 5s managed 183 MB/s. Other Android devices also suffer from poor optimization, leading to lag and overheating even on high-end hardware.
Factor 7: Screen Resolution
Another factor is display resolution. Standard iPhones use HD screens, Plus models use Full HD. Android flagships often use QHD (2560 × 1440) or at least Full HD. Higher resolutions mean more pixels to process, which impacts performance and battery life. For example, the Samsung Galaxy S8’s screen has 1.5 times more pixels than the iPhone X. Processing more pixels reduces performance, especially in graphics-heavy tasks. Some manufacturers, like Sony and Samsung, allow users to lower the logical resolution to improve performance.
Conclusion: Do Our Phones Really Need 64 Bits?
Do mobile devices really need 64-bit processors? 32-bit cores have some advantages, like shorter instructions and lower memory requirements, which can mean higher performance in some scenarios. However, many modern tasks (like stream encryption and real-time HDR processing) require ARMv8 support. The industry has moved to 64-bit cores, but not all manufacturers use 64-bit operating systems. For example, all Windows 10 Mobile devices run in 32-bit mode, and many Android devices (even with 64-bit chips) still use 32-bit OS builds, limiting their potential.
Even Apple’s 64-bit apps are limited by backward compatibility requirements, while Android’s ART compiler can optimize bytecode for the current hardware. Still, for maximum performance and guaranteed optimization, Apple is the clear choice. For a similar experience at half the price (and performance), Android devices are the alternative.