Is iPhone 4G 32GB faster than the 16GB?

Is the iPhone 4G 32GB faster than the 16GB? Are there any other advantages to getting the 32GB (other than memory size)? Thank you.

Daniel Wasinger wrote:
Thanks very much. A friend who bought the 32GB said it has more ram and is therefore faster. But I was skeptical
As Track607 stated, you guys have no idea the difference in terms.
Memory is RAM, and is NOT the same as STORAGE. And no, it's not "the same difference", it's completely different.
Also, to add, the iPhone does not have the capability to use virtual memory, thus, the iPhone could have 64 gigs of storage, and it wouldn't run faster. Your friend does not know about computers. Don't ever let him help you pick out a computer.

Similar Messages

IPhone 4 is faster than the iPad

i have both and i have been doing some speed testing on them. and the iPhone has been rendering pages faster. and not mobile sites. and not already visited sites. i loaded a non-mobile website that i have never viewed, its definitely faster.

eaglesflight1258 wrote:
They do have the same A4 chip. However, the iPhone has 512 MB of RAM as opposed to the 256 MB of RAM in the iPad.
Though as mentioned, all the professional tech blog/news sites that have tested show the iPad faster and they even brought up how the iPhone has more RAM but realized the iPhone is underclocked.

Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2?

Hi,
Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2? Also, how much better resolution is the iPad 3 from the iPad 2? I was just wondering because I heard that the new iPad isn't worth it's price.

The New iPad is not remarkably faster, but does have a faster chip, which is required to handle the amazing Retina display. The new display on New iPad is without question significatly better than iPad 2 and offers nearly 4 times the resolution of iPad 2. Whether it's important to you, only you can know. To see the difference, go to an Apple store where they still sell iPad 2 and New iPad. For me, the difference was night and day, which is why I sold my iPad 2 and upgraded to New iPad.

Will my duel 800 G4 work with Leopard? Its fast than the 867 G4?

My duel 800 G4 was the top of the line when I purchased it, much faster than the 867 G4, which seems to be the limit on the new Leopard operating system. Will I still be able to upgrade? I have seen on other Apple forums many people asking the same question? I would appreciate any help.

Well, the minimum system requirements that Apple tells us really aren't always totally truthful. For example, they say OS 10.4 needs a minimum 256 MB Ram, and a DVD drive. That isn't true. I have tested this on a few different machines and found that the true minimum requirements are 192 MB for installation, 128 MB for running. On an ibook G3 500 mhz with 128 MB RAM, 10.4 ran surprisingly well. It was a little laggy of course, but it was stable and reliable. Also, you do not need a DVD drive, as you can use target disk mode to install the system from another computer (yes, the other computer needs a dvd drive...but I am speaking in specifics). What they say in their requirements is for the general public, but most of the time they aren't entirely dogmatic on those requirements.
If it were my guess, I would say 10.5 will probably run on your system. If they entirely cutoff installation based on clockspeed, I'm guessing some mac-hacker will figure it out.
Also, as far as your computer being top of the line "when you bought it"-that's the issue. Basically everyone's mac was top of line or near top of the line at it's release. But we all know the computer industry is not a slow moving market. Your computer can be outdated in a few months or a year. I helped a guy buy his first mac a few months ago (imac). 2 days later Apple released the new imac. That's the nature of computers. And you really can't expect Apple to keep supporting machines approaching 7 years old (my ol' Gigabit). They want to be at the head of the market, and pushing the old out is some times the only way to do it.
You always have the option to upgrade your system. Go and look at some cpu upgrade cards. They aren't all that expensive. For $400 I turned my dual 450 to a dual 1.4 Ghz (and don't forget the level 3 cache). Third party upgrades are what keep us old timers goin.

Is the Core i7 processor comparable, much slower, or faster than the 2.8 Ghz core 2 duo from 2009?

I am looking to get a new MacBook Air, but when looking at the prices I am seeing the MacBook Pro 13" for the same price and a lot more guts (RAM and Processor). I am ok with spending the amount of money on the air if it means I get a computer that is like my iPad, which i love (flash based, snappy), but don't want it to be super slow.
I am coming off of a 17" 2.8Ghz MacBook Pro from 2009. I was happy with the speed and power of that machine. The most taxing thing I did was make a complilation of family movies in iMovie and burned them with iDVD once in the 2 years of ownership.
I mostly browse the internet and compose written documents, and keynote presentations.
I know my questions may seem stupid, but I don't know how significant the changes between i7 and Core 2 Duo are, so I ask the question:
I am wondering if the processing power in the core i7 will be somewhat comparable, much slower, or faster than the 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo I had in my 2009 computer?
Thanks for any help!!

Hi brosephb,
Like you I went through a similar comparison process. I bought the MacBook air 13" and up specced the processor and memory. I don't do anything taxing enough or frequently enough to NEED the extra power of the MacBook pro.
I am overjoyed at my air. It's gorgeous, the way it wakes instantly, it's speed and it's portableness is so endearing that I just don't use my iPad anymore. I read numerous reviews on it and the overwhelming opinion was it's addictive ease of use because of it's slim, light and rapid waking. At work I can hold the air with one hand, open it rapidly at will. It's just great but it's made my iPad redundant (for me anyway).
I see the new airs are even faster and I'm tempted to consider selling my 6 month old air and getting the new one, but, it runs a dream so I am happy to just be envious of the new one.
In short, unless you need the power (for your work) go for the air. I'm looking at a new iMac to use as a home work station. For the price of a new air I can get an iMac that will swallow any task for a good few years to come. And my air will suffice as my mobile companion. However, that's just me spoiling myself as, at the moment, I have no teal need for another mac. I may get the cinema display for any long winded tasks, as the screen size will help with multiple tasking.
A bit of a ramble, hope this is useful.

Is the Gig version really faster than the 100m version !?

I just upgraded my 100 meg AEBS to the new Gig version, and ran a quick n easy benchmark, an rsync -e ssh on a 150 meg file. The server is an iMac connected via gig-e, and the Macbook c2d is connected via 802.11n (reporting a consistant 300 mbps in network utility - about 20 feet from the router, going through 2-4 sheets of drywall). The tests were conducted in my Chicago apartment, with at least 10 detectable 2.4gHz networks, and no 5.8gHz networks that I know of.
The 802.11n 5.8gHz no backwards compatibility was by far the fastest. The fastest test I ran was 11 MBps on the copy, with 802.11a compatibility I believe was around 8, and 2.4ghz + 802.11g compatibility was around 6. I repeated all tests a few times, the results were pretty consistant.
These results suprised me, as I was really hoping for a bit faster. I could get 40 MBps on my Linux file server over gig-e to the iMac in previous tests. Unfortunately that machine is down until I get some replacement parts, so I couldn't use it to test the new AEBS. But I seem to remember getting 11 or 12 MBps with the Linux file server over the old AEBS with 100m and 5.8gHz no backwards compatiblity.
So how much of the performance non-difference is due to the iMac vs Linux file server, or the Gig-E version being no faster than the 100 meg version remains to be seen. I'm curious if anyone else has done tests.
If the router, or this 802.11n implementation is the bottleneck - folks may not want to waste their money upgrading, unless they really want that 4 port (in bridge mode) gig-e switch on the back.
Rob

That is somewhat counterintuitive, as the 802.11n connection speed is reportedly 300 mbps. I understand the implications of protocol overhead, but 70% overhead seems a bit excessive. I guess I'm curious if the bottleneck is:
- in the router backplane
- in the 802.11n protocol
- in apples implementation of 802.11(draft)n
Also - anyone else have actual benchmark data to share?
regards
Rob

I installed the ios 5.0.1 and now suddenly close apps and battery dies faster than the ios5!

I installed the ios 5.0.1 and now suddenly close apps and battery dies faster than the ios5!
we need the 5.0.2 or 5.1 ios quickly!
thks

A few people that post here have said they are having trouble with there battery life. As for the apps crashing, have you reset you iPad , it may help.

HT6058 Will this new update slow down my iphone 4 even more than the last update?

Will this new update slow down my iphone 4 even more than the last update?

Thats a hard question to answer. The iPhone 4 has older technology than newer models which can cause the device to lag. Depending on what data and settings you have on the device, it could run slower. I would probably make sure to constantly close apps in multitasking and possible think about restoring the device as a new device. Make sure to backup your data prior to the restore

Sun Studio 12 is still much faster than the newest express 11/08

I gave the newest Express 11/08 a try on my laptop. I found that Studio 12 is still
much faster than the express version at least on my laptop. See the old messge below.
http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5321607&tstart=15
I think poor performance is a bug for a compiler. Sun should fix it.

I think poor performance is a bug for a compiler. Sun should fix it.Thanks for noting :)
This has already been filed as a bug - http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6735472.
And as you can see it is even already fixed.
Unluckily it missed Express 11/08 integration time slot (by a mere week or so).
It is reasonable to expect it to be available at the next Express/whatever release happens next.
regards,
__Fedor.

Audigy2 NX :Sampled audio is faster than the origi

Sampled audio at 6 bits is faster than the original soundtrack
I'm using Sonar 2.2 and when I use My Audigy 2NX USB2 with 2 audio tracks,
I'm recording on the second one while listening the first one :
-No problem with my AC/97 sound card
- Problem occur with my audigy 2 NX (Sampled audio becomes faster (Timing not adequate) while listening to the recording , the first 0 seconds seems in exact timing, then after I feel that the recorded begins to take speed and then ends second before the track one !!!
I Solved the problem partially by using CoolEdit instead of Sonar and in the Setting-Multitrack Tab, i activated "correct for drift in recording"
Please Help !!!
Thanks
Dany D.
Message Edited by waize2 on <SPAN class=date_text>0-7-2004 <SPAN class=time_text>03:5 AM
Message Edited by waize2 on 0-7-2004 03:52 AM

First try to play your video on the PC. Use Quicktime 7 and it should work.
If it does the same thing on the PC then the video encoding has created this problem. Nothing wrong in the phone. You will need to re-encode. May I enquire as to which software you are using to encode?
If it plays correctly on the PC then your best bet is to lower the bitrate or the frame rate of the video, re-encode, transfer and try again.
I recommend using h263 as the video codec as this will be "safer" to use. Try 3gp extension format as well.
640K Should be enough for everybody
El_Loco Nokia Video Blog

Something faster than the Elgato Turbo?

Hi,
I have a Mac Pro 2.66 and from what I've read on line, there's no point in getting the Elgato Turbo Encoder. Is there something I can get which will encode faster than the Mac Pro 2.66?
Thanks
-Dean

8 core mac pro. i'm going to end of year. probably save 25% more time.

I just upgraded my Internet service to 12 MPS. It doesn't appear to work any faster than the 3MPS I had before. The AT

I just upgraded my Internet service to 12 MPS. It doesn't appear to work any faster than the 3MPS I had before. The AT&T guy said it may be the computer rather than the connection. I have an iMac intel core 2 duo, running OS 10.5.8. It has 1 GB of memory. I have plenty of memory left. Is there something I can check on the computer to see if it's capable of running faster with this new Internet upgrade?

You certainly are going to see improvements if you download big files, i.e. Apple updates, or watching trailers also at higher resolution.
You won't see much difference if you use peer to peer download.

Why is the volume of the music on iphone 4s is lower than the ipod?

why is the volume of the music on iphone 4s is lower than the ipod?

Yes, It's a new phone. Let me try your suggestion.
thanks

2011 MBP - why is the optical port faster than the hard drive port?

In looking at an earlier discussion (April I think) I found a screen grab that showed a 15" MBP with a 6.0Gbp/s hard drive connection and a 3.0Gbp/s optical bay connection. That is image number one below.
Images two and three are from my brand new MBP 17". Can someone please explain the Link Speed and Negotiated Link Speed differnces? What is the 1.5 Gbp/s about?
I would appreciate any input guys.
Thanks!
Hugh

Why did Apple change this?
9-pin FireWire ports use FireWire 800, which is faster than the old 6-pin FireWire 400 ports.
Is there an adapter I can buy so that I can backup my Macbook?
Yes.
(48784)

The 15-inch unibody is faster than the 17-inch unibody flagship?

Macworld benchmarks has the 15 edging out the 17.
And that is Before yesterday's speedbump for the 15.
http://www.macworld.com/article/139139/2009/03/unibody17_inch_macbookpro.html
When they remeasure, will the 15 be substantially faster than the 17-inch flagship?

Historically, the 17-inch has been faster and better in many ways.
I'm sorry, but this is simply incorrect. I will present for you the following specifications from every MBP revision. All specifications represent the high-end 15" and stock 17" of the time which are the two models we are comparing here.
MacBook Pro (Early 2006, Original Revision)
15.4"/2.16 Ghz (CTO)/1 GB RAM/100GB/256 MB VRAM/$2499
17"/2.16 Ghz/1 GB RAM/120 GB HD/256 MB VRAM/$2799
Macbook Pro (Late 2006)
15.4"/2.33 GHz/2 GB RAM/120 GB HD/256 MB VRAM/$2499
17"/2.33 GHz/2 GB RAM/160 GB HD/256 MB VRAM/$2799
Macbook Pro (Mid 2007)
15.4"/2.4 GHz/2 GB RAM/160 GB HD/256 MB VRAM/$2499
17"/2.4 GHz/2 GB RAM/160 GB HD/256 MB VRAM/$2799
Macbook Pro (Early 2008)
15.4"/2.5 GHz/6 MB L2/2 GB RAM/250 GB HD/512 MB VRAM/$2499
17"/2.5 GHz/6 MB L2/2 GB RAM/250 GB HD/512 MB VRAM/$2799
I think it is pretty evident that in terms of clockspeed, RAM, and VRAM the 15" and 17" have never been too far apart. I don't think 20-40GB of HD space is all that big a deal. Yes, the 17" has had an extra USB/FW port. I don't know if these things qualify as "faster and better in many ways" though. Really, the most significant way that the 17" was "better" was the screen size and resolution as has already been mentioned. Things are no different now than they've been for the last three years. I don't know what they were like in the PPC days because I don't have time to look back that far, but I don't think it matters.
In fact it's slower, and will seem even slower with the 15's speed bump.
It's not slow at all. In fact, it's one of the fastest notebooks that you can buy at all right now. We have already pointed out that you shouldn't take the benchmarks seriously because they have absolutely no statistical significance.
These things are not going to change. If you need the notebook now, you should buy it. If you don't need it, then wait. If you don't want it, then buy something else.
--Travis

Is iPhone 4G 32GB faster than the 16GB?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for