Difference between revisions of "Talk:List of iPhones"

From The iPhone Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(iPhone 11, 11 Pro, 11 Pro Max: new section)
(iPhone 11, 11 Pro, 11 Pro Max)
Line 61: Line 61:
If we could add the new specs to these new iPhones, that would be great.
If we could add the new specs to these new iPhones, that would be great.
- Malenmon

Latest revision as of 02:54, 12 September 2019


I think this should be formatted like the iPod touch page with images and metric weights and stuff --5urd 15:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is in urgent need for more cowbell. --Blackbox 23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


Six rows for battery life is far too much. Can we merge this into one row? Maybe just the battery capacity in mAh? --http 10:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree --5urd 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Battery V2

The "DesignCapacity", reported by BatteryInfoLite on my iPhone 4S shows 1430mAh, not 1432mAh listed here. Where does the current value come from? If this battery tool does not have these values hardcoded (which I don't assume) I would trust this far more than any specification. Also the value in Wh is probably wrong; just multiply the mAh with the Voltage and you get different values than the ones listed. --http 12:30, 4 November 2012 (MST)

The number here is from iFixIt's tear down. As for the formula you use amps. But milliamps is what is listed. I went through and recalculated them a while back and the numbers were off on one. You can see it in th source as a comment I put. --5urd 12:46, 4 November 2012 (MST)

CDMA iPhone 4 initial firmware

I'd hate to ruin the chart, but I believe the initial firmware on the CDMA version of the iPhone 4 was 4.2.5. My friend pre ordered the Verizon iPhone 4 and it came with 4.2.5, I didn't catch the build number, but just a minor correction which probably doesn't matter. --Gamer765 05:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a pretty obscure topic; I've seen reports of some phones shipping with 4.2.5, and some with 4.2.6. For the sake of consistency (and authenticity?), I'd prefer the build number to go with the addition of 4.2.5 in the "Initial Firmware" field. If anyone has the build number, providing it would be appreciated. --Dialexio 05:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe the version number was 4.2.5, with build number 8E128. --Gamer765 06:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
This should also go into the main firmware list as well, except we can't get a hash for it since no IPSW was publicly released for the firmware. --gamer765 06:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Cache and Properties to show in general

I feel like listing the CPU cache doesn't quite fit on this page… I think it's better suited for the CPU pages. --Dialexio 00:06, 22 September 2012 (MDT)

I figured if we were listing the RAM and other stuff CPU centric like cores, then the L caches would fit too. --5urd 13:08, 22 September 2012 (MDT)
L caches never really struck me as notable when talking about mobile CPUs or SoCs. CPU cores and RAM are often used to boast about smartphones' power, but I have never seen a mobile SoC boast about how much L1/L2/etc. cache it has. --Dialexio 17:52, 22 September 2012 (MDT)
I think on this page we should list the main hardware properties only. All these features that are software-dependent don't really belong here (like HDR, Siri, Latest Firmware, etc.). Also the "rated battery life" is something subjective. We should just list the battery size in [mAh], not all these "music playback time" and that stuff. For the question about the cache, I don't care. If it's of some importance, we can list it, otherwise better leave it away. For comparison, we also don't list CPU technology, instruction set or die size. --http 11:31, 24 September 2012 (MDT)


I want to change the information in "Architecture" to the ARM instruction set the iPhone uses (ARMv6, ARMv7, ARMv8). Both ARMv6 and ARMv7 would get lumped into "32-bit," yet their performance is notably different. "64-bit" isn't very descriptive, considering PowerPC, x86-64, Itanium, and ARMv8 can perform 64-bit processing. Obviously, none of those except ARMv8 are going to come even close to fitting in an iPhone, but just having "32-bit" and "64-bit" seems too vague. Thoughts? --Dialexio (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

agreed. --http (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


Now that the iPhone 6 has been announced and will be added to this page, I have noticed that it will stretch over the page. I was thinking that maybe we could have a table for each device instead of one big one? Or maybe just text? What does everyone else think? Anybody got any better ideas? --iAdam1n (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Having one big table is very useful for comparison, however I think it should be split in half. Like one table for iPhone (original) to iPhone 4S and another one below for iPhone 5 to iPhone 6 Plus. --Jaggions (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
If we were to do that, I think we should include the iPhone 4S in the same table as newer devices as it supports iOS 8. I have shrunk the images, and it currently fits. --iAdam1n (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I've been thinking about asking this, but never got around to it. I like the shrinking of the images, but it is a temporary fix. It won't last, but I guess no solution ever lasts forever. However, I'll Apple is going to have two firmwares for each device (iPhone7,1-iPhone7,4?), so the table will get even wider when the devices are released. If we really need to, we could add style="font-size:x-small" (wikitables already use font-size:smaller), but it may be too hard to read for some people. Guess we'll wait and see. --5urd (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
We could probably cut up the table into what is and isn't supported. (Of course, when we start seeing eleven unsupported models, it'll be time to cut that table again.)
While contemplating solutions, I saw how some of the information on the page may be useful, but I think the page in its current state has just way too much. (Is there really a need to compare mundane specs like L2 cache?) That being said, I think we should probably drop several rows (the information can be moved to appropriate pages) in the process, lest we want this page to become the next iTunes software license agreement. --Dialexio (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
That sounds great to me, with or without the removal of some not so important rows. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
These are the rows I'm thinking of "tossing out":
  • Case Material (the devices' pages should have this)
  • Colors (the devices' pages should have this)
  • CPU specs (move them to another page, like "Comparison of CPUs"?)
    • CPU Speed
    • ARM Architecture
    • Core Design
    • CPU Cores
    • CPU Cache
  • Software features that don't rely on hardware features
    • HDR
    • Voice Control
    • Siri + Raise to Speak + Dictation
    • Panorama
I'm aiming to settle this and finish this in time for the iPhone 6 launch. Do let me know if anything should be added/removed to that. --Dialexio (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Personally I think we should still list colors and CPU speed. Clicking the device page would be a lot of work for a few devices. The other options do not matter to me if they stay or go. --iAdam1n (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I think Colors can stay (Case Material actually sounds like something that should be ripped out instead), but the CPU speed should go with the rest of the CPU specs. I think it's enough to just mention which models have what CPU. --Dialexio (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, those two are both important. We should keep those, CPU speed and Color from that list. We still want an informative page which it won't be if all of that is removed. --iAdam1n (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd actually love to rip out a LOT more, but I held back from suggesting the removal of more stuff because I know it's not possible to keep the table both simple and vastly informative. But if all of the other CPU specs are headed to another page, why not the CPU speed too? There's still a lot of information about the differences between each model, so that's not quite an issue. --Dialexio (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hm, well ok. I still think that the color and arm architecture are important so should stay. --iAdam1n (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Add "ARM Architecture" and "RAM" to the "CPU specs" list. For the "Comparison of CPUs" page, would Application Processor do? Then we could also have a Motion Coprocessor page to compare the M7 and M8. This "removal" should also extend to iPad, iPad mini, and iPod touch.
Also, for things that have changed over time like "Front-facing Camera", "Video Recording", "Slow-mo Video", and maybe "Facetime", I don't like the "Yes/No" color cells. Maybe replace {{no}} with {{n/a}} and {{yes}} with the specs. After all, for iPad and iPad mini, we don't use the "Yes/No" cells for "Cellular Radio" --5urd (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Added "ARM Architecture" to the list. I'm a little reluctant to rip out RAM since, as I recall, the first couple of iPhones didn't have a SoC. As for the destination page, we could probably spruce up Application Processor. Right now, I don't see Apple making notable changes between motion coprocessors— there are only so many specs to note for something that tracks motion, right? It can probably remain a row on this table for the meantime. As for removing {{yes}} and {{no}}, I think we can do that too. And of course, these changes should be propagated to the other pages too. --Dialexio (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

iPhone 11, 11 Pro, 11 Pro Max

If we could add the new specs to these new iPhones, that would be great.