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.

With iOS 27, Apple Is Quietly Setting the Stage to Paywall Your iPhone

https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/with-ios-27-apple-is-quietly-setting-the-stage-to-paywall-your-iphone

I tried the iPhone Duo. I get it now

I'm buying the iPhone Duo

I Was 5 Minutes From Buying an iPhone 18 Pro Max — Here's Why I Stopped

Mac vs Windows in 2026 - It's a Disaster

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Paj0IAIHxDM

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.

iPhone Duo

 

Compare the iPhone Duo, which has a 5.4-inch display that unfolds to 7.6 inches, with the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max, which have 6.3- and 6.9-inch displays, respectively. Would I spend $2,000 on the Duo when I can get non-foldable displays that are almost as large for $1,200 and $1,300, respectively?

The idea of a foldable phone is to have a phone that can be used like a tablet. However, 7.6 inches is smaller than the 8.3 inches of the iPad mini. I don't think it is going to be a great tablet experience when the screen isn't much bigger than that of a high-end iPhone.

Like many Apple products, it feels like a gimmick.

I'm not paying $1,000 or more for an iPhone when I can get a recent model for less money. Total Wireless has deals on last year's iPhones.

However, I don't need a new iPhone. My iPhone XR, which I paid very little for, provides a good iPhone experience.

Apple's Trick to Make You Pay Twice

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.

The Android Tablet Problem

The Android Tablet Problem

This says what I have been saying for a long time: most people don't need a tablet. We have phones with 6+ inch displays that can handle most of our portability needs, and we have PCs with large, comfortable displays for when we don't need portability.

I have seen professionals, such as medical personnel and mechanics, carry tablets with them to do whatever work they need to do. In these cases, a larger screen makes sense. Tablets could also be useful for students who need some sort of portable screen to do their schoolwork.

I feel the same way about laptops. For decades, I have known many people who wanted a laptop instead of a desktop computer, but they really didn't need the portability. They just thought laptops were "cool." However, laptops often cost more than desktops and are full of compromises. The components are designed for portability, which means you take a hit in performance, while the keyboard and screen are far worse than what you can get with a desktop.

Portable devices are also almost never upgradeable, even for things like memory and storage.

If I needed a portable screen, then a tablet would make sense, but I don't. I paid around $420 for a 16-year-old 32-bit iPad, and I never got my money's worth out of it. I still have it, but it is so out of date that it won't run anything.

The best tablets, which cost quite a bit of money, can outperform a desktop computer, especially the ones from Apple, which are almost always more powerful than their Android counterparts. However, who needs super-desktop performance in a handheld device? Only people who do high-productivity work, such as video editing, really need that kind of performance. But for this kind of work, why not use a desktop computer?

The low-end iPad (https://www.amazon.com/Apple-iPad-11-inch-Display-All-Day/dp/B0DZ77D5HL) has performance comparable to that of a good-quality laptop and outperforms some older desktops. For the mundane tasks that most people will perform on a tablet, this is more power than they need. In past years, budget iPads have been discounted on Black Friday to around $220, which would be a steal today. I suspect they won't be quite that cheap this Black Friday.

I've seen budget Android tablets that aren't as powerful, but they are less expensive and still perfectly adequate for basic tasks.

When it comes to Apple versus Android, I definitely prefer Apple's operating system. It is more intuitive, far less complicated, and, in my experience, less prone to viruses. I've seen people get viruses on their Android phones. My past experience with tablets is that I also prefer the feel of Apple devices in my hands. They seem to have a better tactile experience.

Amazon makes the Fire line of tablets. Although they retail for $150 or more, they are often half-price on Black Friday, and I paid $80 for mine. The newer models aren't much more powerful than the 2019 model I bought, and their processor performance is poor. However, they were designed for streaming video, listening to audiobooks, and reading books, whether from Amazon or another company such as Netflix. At these tasks, these cheap tablets work amazingly well. They can also play some Android games.

If I needed a portable screen for watching videos, then a Fire tablet would make sense, but I don't. I found mine useful exactly once, when I took it on vacation.

For basic Internet tasks such as web browsing and email, Fire tablets work, but they are slightly slow.

New Advanced Chip Fab

On Sat, May 9, 2026 at 12:31 PM Larry wrote:

(1401) New American Chip Factory That Terrifies TSMC - YouTube

Processor on my 2009 i7 iMac:       i7- 860

Processor on my 2017 i5 iMac:       i5- 7500K
Processor on my 2017 i7 iMac:       i7- 7700K
Processor on my 2020 i7 iMac:       i7-10700K

The first iMac was 45 NM.  The next three are 14 NM.  

My complaint about the time period from 2010 to 2020 is that advances in processors seemed to be very slow.  The i7-10700K is only twice as fast because it has twice as many cores.  It wasn't until Apple came out with the M1 that we saw a big change.

The Ryzen 9 7940hs processor on my Minisforum computer is 4 NM.  In theory, it is about 60% faster than the  i7-10700K, but I think that the mini-computer thermal throttles.  Maybe the iMac does too, but it has a big cooling system relative to the compactness of the all-in-one computer.

Compact computers tend to use laptop parts.  The "M" in M1 is for "Mobile".  iMacs use smaller versions of memory and storage, and so does my mini-computer.

--

Best wishes,

John Coffey

http://www.entertainmentjourney.com

So This is Peak Foldable

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

@john2001plus
0 seconds ago
When a phone unfolds from 6.6 inches to 8.1 inches, why bother—especially with a $1700 price tag? Normal phones range from 6.1 to 6.9 inches, which is fine for everyday use.

It seems to me that people want a tablet in a phone, but an 8.1-inch display falls short of my 11-inch tablet.  Maybe the argument is that you can have one device instead of two, but for this price you could get two devices.