Top Five Reasons for the Apple iPhone 4S 16GB

Top 31 Reasons for the Apple iPhone 5 32GB

 
 
Which is better? Show result
0
0

Embed this comparison:

Apple iPhone 4S 16GB vs Apple iPhone 5 32GB

Top Five Reasons for the

Apple iPhone 4S 16GB

Compared to Apple iPhone 5 32GB

2439
A little bit higher pixel density
Comment
330 ppi
vs
326 ppi
1.23% higher pixel density

×

278
Shorter
Comment
115.2 mm
vs
123.8 mm
8.60 mm shorter

×

133
Measurably lower SAR for body (USA)
Comment
0.98 W/kg
vs
1.18 W/kg
0.20 W/kg lower SAR for body (USA). SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) describes how much radio frequency energy emitted by the device will be absorbed by your body. The rate is measured at hip level. The legal limit is 1.6 W/kg in the USA.

×

Meinard Adrian Pangilinan Francisco
1
Easy to mute
Comment
Yes
vs
No
It is easy to mute because it have a mute button

×

Apple A5 APL0498
Yes
vs
No
Top 0 Reasons for Apple A5 APL0498
Imagination Technologies PowerVR SGX543 MP2
Yes
vs
No
Top 1 Reason for Imagination Technologies PowerVR SGX543 MP2
57
Newer version of OpenGL
Comment
2.1
vs
2
Newer version of OpenGL. OpenGL is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.

×

Apple iPhone 4S 16GB is better than Apple iPhone 5 32GB because...

Yes
vs
No

Please choose the related object

Top 31 Reasons for the

Apple iPhone 5 32GB

Compared to Apple iPhone 4S 16GB

3564
Slightly more battery power
Comment
1440 mAh
vs
1418 mAh
1.55% more battery power

×

2879
Explicitly faster CPU clock speed
Comment
2 x 1.3 GHz
vs
2 x 0.8 GHz
1.63x faster CPU clock speed

×

2018
Bigger screen size
Comment
4 "
vs
3.5 "
14.29% bigger screen size. The bigger the screen size is, the better the user experience.

×

1688
Much more RAM memory
Comment
1 GB
vs
0.5 GB
0.50 GB more RAM memory

×

1647
Vastly higher resolution
Comment
1136x640 px
vs
960x640 px
18.33% higher resolution

×

1429
Substantially more megapixel (photo, front camera)
Comment
1.2 MP
vs
0.3 MP
4x more megapixel (photo, front camera)

×

1012
Lighter
Comment
112 g
vs
140 g
28 g lighter

×

859
Thinner
Comment
7.6 mm
vs
9.3 mm
1.70 mm thinner

×

716
Significantly more internal storage
Comment
32 GB
vs
16 GB
16 GB more internal storage

×

656
Substantially faster downloads
Comment
100 MBits/s
vs
14.4 MBits/s
6.94x faster downloads

×

558
Has a dedicated camera button
Comment
Yes
vs
No
A dedicated camera button allows you to take snapshots more easily.

×

292
Has continuous autofocus when recording movies
Comment
Yes
vs
No
When recording movies they stay focussed and sharp.

×

286
Noticeably more microphone(s)
Comment
3
vs
2
1 more microphone(s). More microphones result in better sound quality and enable the device to filter out background noise.

×

266
Has a video light
Comment
Yes
vs
No
A video light helps when recording a movie in low-light situation like a party.

×

249
Appreciably smaller semiconductor size
Comment
32 nm
vs
45 nm
13 nm smaller semiconductor size. A smaller size indicates that the process to create the chip is newer.

×

214
Appreciably faster uploads
Comment
50 MBits/s
vs
5.76 MBits/s
8.68x faster uploads

×

211
Has manual ISO
Comment
Yes
vs
No
This allows to manually set the ISO level.

×

203
Higher GeekBench result
Comment
708
vs
262
Higher GeekBench result. This is a cross-platform benchmark that measures the performance of the CPU. (Source: Primate Labs, 2015)

×

182
Has AF tracking
Comment
Yes
vs
No
With AF tracking, once you choose the subject and press the shutter release part way down, as the subject moves, the autofocus will follow it. No more out of focus shots.

×

94
Lower SAR for head (EU)
Comment
0.95 W/kg
vs
0.99 W/kg
0.04 W/kg lower SAR for head (EU). SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) describes how much radio frequency energy emitted by the device will be absorbed by your body. The rate is measured at head level. The legal limit is 2.0 W/kg in the EU.

×

89
Slightly less body volume
Comment
55.1 cm³
vs
60.6 cm³
9.98% less body volume

×

22
Distinctly less shutter lag
Comment
0.24 s
vs
0.4 s
0.16 s less shutter lag. The amount of time it takes the camera to take a photo, without having to focus.

×

21
Distinctly less startup delay
Comment
0.84 s
vs
1.4 s
0.56 s less startup delay. It takes less time for the camera to turn on and take a first picture.

×

Ádám Szirtes
2
SGH S 5611
Comment
Yes
vs
No
SGH S 7350

×

Apple A6
Yes
vs
No
Top 2 Reasons for Apple A6
235
Considerably higher ram speed
Comment
533 MHz
vs
400 MHz
133 MHz higher ram speed. It can support faster memory, which will give quicker system performance.

×

110
Considerably more memory bandwidth
Comment
8.5 GB/s
vs
6.4 GB/s
2.10 GB/s more memory bandwidth. This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.

×

Apple Swift
Yes
vs
No
Top 3 Reasons for Apple Swift
103
Supports hardware-assisted virtualization
Comment
Yes
vs
No
It is easier to obtain better performance when using virtualization if it is hardware-assisted.

×

97
Significantly wider front-end
Comment
3
vs
2
1 wider front-end. The CPU can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), meaning that the CPU performs better

×

48
Noticeably newer version of VFP
Comment
4
vs
3
1 newer version of VFP. Vector Floating-Point (VFP) is used by the processor to deliver increased performance in areas such as digital imaging.

×

Imagination Technologies PowerVR SGX543 MP3
Yes
vs
No
Top 2 Reasons for Imagination Technologies PowerVR SGX543 MP3
329
Considerably faster GPU clock speed
Comment
266 MHz
vs
200 MHz
66 MHz faster GPU clock speed. The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.

×

196
Substantially higher floating-point performance
Comment
0.0255 TFLOPS
vs
0.0128 TFLOPS
0.01 TFLOPS higher floating-point performance. Floating-point performance is a measurement of the raw processing power of the GPU.

×

Apple iPhone 5 32GB is better than Apple iPhone 4S 16GB because...

Yes
vs
No

Please choose the related object

x
Join