Home > Smartphone processors comparison > A17 Pro vs A16 Bionic – what's better?

A17 Pro vs A16 Bionic

A17 Pro
VS
A16 Bionic
A17 Pro
A16 Bionic

We compared two 6-core processors: Apple A17 Pro (with Apple A17 GPU graphics) and A16 Bionic (Apple A16 GPU). Here you will find the pros and cons of each chip, technical specs, and comprehensive tests in benchmarks, like AnTuTu and Geekbench.

  1. Review
  2. Differences
  3. Benchmarks
  4. AnTuTu v10
  5. GeekBench 6
  6. Specs
  7. Comments (8)

Review

General comparison of performance, power consumption, and other indicators
CPU Performance
Single and multi-core processor tests
Gaming Performance
GPU performance in games and OpenCL/Vulkan
Battery life
Efficiency of battery consumption
NanoReview Score
Overall chip score

Key Differences

Main differences and advantages of each chip
Pros of Apple A17 Pro
  • Has a smaller size transistor (3 versus 4 nm)
  • Performs 20% better in floating-point computations
  • Announced 1 year later
  • 9% higher CPU clock speed (3780 vs 3460 MHz)
  • Shows better (up to 6%) AnTuTu 10 score – 1528K vs 1446K

Benchmarks

Performance tests in popular benchmarks
SoC:
A17 Pro
vs
A16 Bionic

AnTuTu 10

The AnTuTu Benchmark measures CPU, GPU, RAM, and I/O performance in different scenarios
A17 Pro +6%
1528179
A16 Bionic
1446983
CPU 388177 396674
GPU 530610 471025
Memory 267182 237167
UX 342310 342117
Total score 1528179 1446983
Submit your AnTuTu result

GeekBench 6

The GeekBench test shows raw single-threaded and multithreaded CPU performance
Single-Core Score
A17 Pro +12%
2953
A16 Bionic
2627
Multi-Core Score
A17 Pro +9%
7441
A16 Bionic
6838
Asset compression 260.8 MB/sec 236.7 MB/sec
HTML 5 Browser 169.6 pages/sec 156.7 pages/sec
PDF Renderer 178.5 Mpixels/sec 162.1 Mpixels/sec
Image detection 173.5 images/sec 155.8 images/sec
HDR 232.4 Mpixels/sec 207.5 Mpixels/sec
Background blur 27.9 images/sec 26.5 images/sec
Photo processing 79.1 images/sec 77.6 images/sec
Ray tracing 7.58 Mpixels/sec 6.85 Mpixels/sec
Promotion

3DMark

A cross-platform benchmark that assesses graphics performance in Vulkan (Metal)
3DMark Wild Life Performance
A17 Pro +1%
10008
A16 Bionic
9874
Stability - 79%
Graphics test 59 FPS 59 FPS
Score 10008 9874

Specifications

Full list of technical specifications of A17 Pro and A16 Bionic

CPU

Architecture 2x 3.78 GHz – Everest
4x 2.11 GHz – Sawtooth		 2x 3.46 GHz – Everest
4x 2.02 GHz – Sawtooth
Cores 6 6
Frequency 3780 MHz 3460 MHz
Instruction set ARMv8.6-A ARMv8.6-A
L1 cache 256 KB 256 KB
L2 cache 16 MB 16 MB
Process 3 nanometers 4 nanometers
Transistor count 19 billion 16 billion
TDP (Sustained Power Limit) 8 W 8 W
Manufacturing TSMC TSMC

Graphics

GPU name Apple A17 GPU Apple A16 GPU
Architecture Apple Bionic GPU Apple Bionic GPU
GPU frequency 1398 MHz 1398 MHz
Execution units 6 5
Shading units 128 128
Total shaders 768 640
FLOPS 2147.2 Gigaflops 1789.4 Gigaflops

AI Accelerator

Neural processor (NPU) Apple Neural Engine Apple Neural Engine
NPU theoretical performance 35 TOPS 17 TOPS

Memory

Memory type LPDDR5 LPDDR5
Memory frequency 3200 MHz 3200 MHz
Bus 4x 16 Bit 4x 16 Bit
Max bandwidth 51.2 Gbit/s 51.2 Gbit/s
Max size 8 GB 6 GB

Multimedia (ISP)

Storage type NVMe NVMe
Max display resolution 2796 x 1290 2796 x 1290
Max camera resolution 1x 48MP 1x 48MP
Video capture 4K at 60FPS 4K at 60FPS
Video playback 4K at 60FPS 4K at 60FPS
Video codecs H.264, H.265, AV1, VP8, VP9, Motion JPEG H.264, H.265, VP8, VP9, Motion JPEG
Audio codecs AAC, AIFF, CAF, MP3, MP4, WAV, AC-3, E-AC-3, AAX, AAX+ AAC, AIFF, CAF, MP3, MP4, WAV, AC-3, E-AC-3, AAX, AAX+

Connectivity

Modem Snapdragon X70 -
4G support LTE Cat. 24 LTE Cat. 24
5G support Yes Yes
Download speed Up to 7500 Mbps Up to 7500 Mbps
Upload speed Up to 3500 Mbps Up to 3500 Mbps
Wi-Fi 6 6
Bluetooth 5.3 5.3
Navigation GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo, QZSS, NAVIC GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo, QZSS

Info

Announced September 2023 September 2022
Class Flagship Flagship
Model number APL1V02 APL1W10

Cast your vote

So, which SoC would you choose?
1412 (60.6%)
917 (39.4%)
Total votes: 2329

Related Comparisons

1. Apple A17 Pro vs Apple M1 (iPad)
2. Apple A17 Pro vs Apple A15 Bionic
3. Apple A17 Pro vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3
4. Apple A17 Pro vs MediaTek Dimensity 9300
5. Apple A17 Pro vs Google Tensor G3
6. Apple A16 Bionic vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2
7. Apple A16 Bionic vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
8. Apple A16 Bionic vs Apple A15 Bionic
9. Apple A16 Bionic vs Apple A14 Bionic
10. Apple A16 Bionic vs MediaTek Dimensity 9200
Compare other chipsets (170+)

Comments

Please give your opinion on the comparison of A16 Bionic and A17 Pro, or ask any questions
Avatar
Khalid June 4, 2024 at 02:56 PM
It is natural for the A17 Pro to defeat the A16 Bionic because the tech was developed by Apple in different years, and Apple improved its processors more in everything.
0 Reply
Avatar
Daine the Snapdragon Fan June 12, 2024 at 04:28 AM
The A17 Pro is just an overclocked A16 Bionic manufactured in 3.5nm, you know?
+1 Reply
Avatar
Daine the random Qualcomm Snapdragon lover May 19, 2024 at 01:19 PM
I choose the Apple iPhone 15 Plus 128GB Variant btw, it could be a good decision Even if the Apple A16 Bionic is from 2022 and performs just under the new Apple A17 Pro, it's still MORE than enough for everyday use!
+12 Reply
Avatar
Daine the random Qualcomm Snapdragon lover April 28, 2024 at 03:13 AM
Apple A17 Pro = Overclocked Apple A16 Bionic is 3nm hence the overheating issues the Apple iPhone 15 Pro models have been facing.
+22 Reply
Avatar
Hmu2 March 2, 2024 at 08:38 AM
This is ridiculous, ima switch to android if apple get’s this shitty
+18 Reply
Avatar
Hmu February 11, 2024 at 01:16 PM
At this rate, I might just switch to Android, which has more innovation.
+20 Reply
Avatar
ZhYaR December 27, 2023 at 06:52 PM
13Max > 14Max > 15Max. Nice strategy! 🙂 Opt for the 14Max. It's not worth buying the 15Max or even upgrading from the 13Max. It uses the same chipset with an overclocked CPU & GPU, and iOS 17, which causes overheating and drains performance. #iPhone 15ProMax.
+41 Reply
Avatar
Boris December 31, 2023 at 08:37 PM
Yes, the 15 Pro is essentially the same as the 14 S Pro - a very uninspired model, lacking uniqueness. The 13 Pro is my favorite, closely followed by the 14 Pro.
+19 Reply
Avatar
reviewer November 5, 2023 at 06:25 AM
Wrong instruction set of a16 bionic (Arm v8.6A not v9).
+57 Reply
Avatar
InvaderZen October 7, 2023 at 11:46 PM
A17 Pro is literally the A16 Bionic with its 2 performance cores overclocked by 320Mhz lol. The efficiency cores are still the same 2.02Ghz, and are still based on ARMv9-A cores. Memory bus is the same, RAM speed & bandwidth is the same, the only difference there is support for an additional 2GB total RAM. GPU gained an additional EU/core on the A17, hence the slightly better graphics performance but in pretty much every aspect it is far from what I’d call a meaningful “upgrade”. The real kicker is that thus far no one has ever complained about thermal throttling on the A16, so in a laughably ironic twist of fate the two likely perform almost identically in heavily single/multi-threaded workloads due to the A17’s inability to run full tilt without thermals impacting its peak performance. I suppose that’s why even when benchmarked, the difference in single/multi-core scores is negligible at best. Either way, Apple’s silicon is still some of the best hardware around for an ARM-based device. Qualcomm has come a long way with the SD Gen 1, 1+, 2, etc but still can’t seem to manage to close the gap with Apple’s modern Bionic SoCs (even with the latter having a 2 core deficit). Don’t even get me started on Samsun—I mean “Google’s” Tensor chips. I used a Pixel 7 for about 6 months, and the Tensor G2 is hardly worth calling a “flagship” SoC. Perhaps the G3 will rectify the atrocious idle battery drain & improve the on-board GPU so that gaming can be more than just an afterthought. As well as the mediocre Exynos modem that they’ve insisted on using in the first two iterations of the Tensor line. After all, there’s a reason Samsung has all but abandoned its Exynos chips in favor of Qualcomm…
+64 Reply
Avatar
Boris October 10, 2023 at 04:43 PM
A few things here are incorrect. The E-Cores are overclocked, not to 2.02GHz, but to 2.11GHz. Additionally, both SoCs are ARMv8.6, not version 9. Furthermore, there's an added GPU core and an entirely new GPU architecture that supports hardware ray tracing, mesh shaders, and so on.
+90 Reply
Avatar
ak32 June 23, 2024 at 07:51 AM
Boris, yet 98% of what he said is correct ...a17 pro is a16, with juuuuust .1ghz diff like you said, both are even arm v9. not new model at all A17 sounds likw woah must be so different than a16, but its literally same, no other fair arg sadly
0 Reply
EnglishРусский