After today here is what it look like in the US- is this enough?

[Beijendorf]

I'm really not sure where you are seeing benchmarks showing the Snapdragon 800 or 801 is better than the A8 other than perhaps some synthetic benchmarks where a quad core would beat a dual core. I have not seen any direct benchmarks tests on the 1520 vs iPhone 6 + but at Anaddtech they have several ADroid Snapdragon 801 vs the iPhone 6 + comes out on top in everything but 3DMark physics which is due to the quad vs dual core here. I can't post a link but its on their front page under iPhone 6 preliminary results.

iPhone 6 A8 GPU benchmark suggests it's behind the curve - GSMArena.com news

Results from Basemark X.

If you're talking about the AnandTech test here, their battery test seem to completely contradict the battery life test by PhoneArena which places it far lower. The Apple chip has always scored high in browser tests, but they always fall into the general criticism-pit for why browser tests aren't very good for general performance testing. If you want "synthetic benchmarks", then those are it.

And I'm not saying you can't like whatever you like. I'm just telling you not to fool yourself into thinking you've bought the iPhone because you wanted the best specifications on the market. If you did, you've fallen victim to the Apple marketing.

 

[SpartanJet]

And I'm not saying you can't like whatever you like. I'm just telling you not to fool yourself into thinking you've bought the iPhone because you wanted the best specifications on the market. If you did, you've fallen victim to the Apple marketing.

Unfortunately Basemark X is the only benchmark that is multi platform available on Windows Phone or we could see other tests in action many benchmarks can favor different platforms. As you know the Basemark test will favor quad cores and many applications do not take advantage of all 4 cores making it very synthetic.

I was just re-reading what I had typed out I don't believe I ever stated that Apple had the best performance at all! I did state the 1520 is too old, is not supported by my carrier, and has no WiFi calling, and lacks the apps I need. Why would I pay 600 or so for the old 1520 when I can get a brand new phone with good performance and compatibility with my carrier and WiFi calling along with all the apps I need?

Its a shame Microsoft is dragging their feet I would have jumped on a 1525 without a doubt as long as it had the Snapdragon 805 apps or not.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

And then there's TMO. Many of us love the carrier mostly for financial reasons. But their support of WP is abysmal. The once upon a time flagship 810 got kicked to the curb pronto, not even getting WFC that the ugly sister 521 did. At this time the 925 is STILL waiting for an official 8.1 and Cyan update, three months after ATT 925 users got theirs.

Yes, the 635 is a nice low end phone. But I want more than what it offers.

 

[SpartanJet]

^ This

Honestly though if I were to switch to Verizon or ATT it came out to something like $32 more a month for a sort of equivalent plan. That is basically my iphone payment ($31x24) extra for nothing. No phone is worth that even though I really want a Windows phone I'm not going to pay more for equal service.

 

[dallasb86]

So still no updates or rumors on any new flagship models? I picked up an iphone 6 but I would rather not stick with it, I want to switch to WP. I can use an old 521 I have on a prepaid plan for a while but I don't want to have to wait 6+ months for a flagship WP model to come out.