Top Six 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 Six Reasons for the

Apple iPhone 4S 16GB

Compared to Apple iPhone 5 32GB

2384
Somewhat higher pixel density
Comment
330 ppi
vs
326 ppi
1.23% higher pixel density

×

260
Shorter
Comment
115.2 mm
vs
123.8 mm
8.60 mm shorter

×

131
Sizably 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
4
Power Button on the top
Comment
Yes
vs
No
The power button is on the top of the Iphone

×

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
56
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

3491
A tad more battery power
Comment
1440 mAh
vs
1418 mAh
1.55% more battery power

×

2823
Explicitly faster CPU clock speed
Comment
2 x 1.3 GHz
vs
2 x 0.8 GHz
1.63x faster CPU clock speed

×

1976
Bigger screen size
Comment
4 "
vs
3.5 "
14.29% bigger screen size. The bigger the screen size is, the better the user experience.

×

1660
Amply more RAM memory
Comment
1 GB
vs
0.5 GB
0.50 GB more RAM memory

×

1618
Significantly higher resolution
Comment
1136x640 px
vs
960x640 px
18.33% higher resolution

×

1397
Explicitly more megapixel (photo, front camera)
Comment
1.2 MP
vs
0.3 MP
4x more megapixel (photo, front camera)

×

976
Lighter
Comment
112 g
vs
140 g
28 g lighter

×

828
Thinner
Comment
7.6 mm
vs
9.3 mm
1.70 mm thinner

×

695
Measurably more internal storage
Comment
32 GB
vs
16 GB
16 GB more internal storage

×

649
Vastly faster downloads
Comment
100 MBits/s
vs
14.4 MBits/s
6.94x faster downloads

×

552
Has a dedicated camera button
Comment
Yes
vs
No
A dedicated camera button allows you to take snapshots more easily.

×

283
Has continuous autofocus when recording movies
Comment
Yes
vs
No
When recording movies they stay focussed and sharp.

×

279
Explicitly 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.

×

261
Has a video light
Comment
Yes
vs
No
A video light helps when recording a movie in low-light situation like a party.

×

246
Sizably 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.

×

209
Has manual ISO
Comment
Yes
vs
No
This allows to manually set the ISO level.

×

208
Measurably faster uploads
Comment
50 MBits/s
vs
5.76 MBits/s
8.68x faster uploads

×

202
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)

×

177
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.

×

81
A bit 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
Clearly 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
230
Measurably 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.

×

108
Appreciably 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
102
Supports hardware-assisted virtualization
Comment
Yes
vs
No
It is easier to obtain better performance when using virtualization if it is hardware-assisted.

×

96
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
Notably 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
323
Significantly 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.

×

191
Measurably 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