If you take the Pre as the "accepted" value, it's a 16.65% difference. With the iPhone as the "accepted" value, it's a 19.99% difference. If you use the proper percent difference formula (difference / average), it's 18.16% faster. Any way you look at, it is neither 11% nor 21%, though 21% is certainly closer. Interestingly enough, it is a ~21 second difference in total times. Absolute difference is NOT relative difference, which is what matters in these situations. Bad math, indeed. Bad anandtech for posting it, and bad engadget mobile for not bothering to even verify it.
While the iPhone is faster, I find it interesting that 1.0 software on 1.0 hardware can match up even that equally to 3.0 hardware with 3.0 software. I think this speaks volumes about the potential of the Pre, given the likelihood of future optimization. And this will likely spur further optimization of the iPhone software as well. So it's a win/win, regardless of which camp you support.
They also seem to be 'one off' numbers too, and not an average of a series of tests at different times. This is very suspect because you can see the 3GS and the Pre compare VERY closely on most of the numbers but then on one or two there are very drastic differences that don't seem to follow that pattern. When you think about all the variables involved in web page loading speed, the browser you're using is only a tiny percentage of that, and to take that timing measurement only once would be very silly and very misleading.
Not to mention the complete fallacy of comparing things in percentage terms that you've already mentioned. Its the same cheap trick that dodgy TV doctors use to sell their products. When you say 21% it sounds somewhat impressive, but when you express it realistically, say about ~1 second, its not that impressive really. A bit like a small company that says its experiences a 1000% increase in sales, when really it means it sold 1 product last time and 1000 this time. Not great.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Kevin @ Jun 21st 2009 10:57AM
If you take the Pre as the "accepted" value, it's a 16.65% difference. With the iPhone as the "accepted" value, it's a 19.99% difference. If you use the proper percent difference formula (difference / average), it's 18.16% faster. Any way you look at, it is neither 11% nor 21%, though 21% is certainly closer. Interestingly enough, it is a ~21 second difference in total times. Absolute difference is NOT relative difference, which is what matters in these situations. Bad math, indeed. Bad anandtech for posting it, and bad engadget mobile for not bothering to even verify it.
While the iPhone is faster, I find it interesting that 1.0 software on 1.0 hardware can match up even that equally to 3.0 hardware with 3.0 software. I think this speaks volumes about the potential of the Pre, given the likelihood of future optimization. And this will likely spur further optimization of the iPhone software as well. So it's a win/win, regardless of which camp you support.
MatthewJ @ Jun 21st 2009 10:11AM
They also seem to be 'one off' numbers too, and not an average of a series of tests at different times. This is very suspect because you can see the 3GS and the Pre compare VERY closely on most of the numbers but then on one or two there are very drastic differences that don't seem to follow that pattern. When you think about all the variables involved in web page loading speed, the browser you're using is only a tiny percentage of that, and to take that timing measurement only once would be very silly and very misleading.
Not to mention the complete fallacy of comparing things in percentage terms that you've already mentioned. Its the same cheap trick that dodgy TV doctors use to sell their products. When you say 21% it sounds somewhat impressive, but when you express it realistically, say about ~1 second, its not that impressive really. A bit like a small company that says its experiences a 1000% increase in sales, when really it means it sold 1 product last time and 1000 this time. Not great.