We bring you our review of the iPhone 16 Pro and our review of the iPhone 16 Pro Max Simply put, it is a very powerful silicon, but don't take our word for it, as we have the numbers to back up that assessment

Last year's iPhone 15 Pro and A17 Pro chips were already quite powerful, helped by the change to a 3-nanometer process But this year's A18 Pro promises at least 15% more CPU performance and 20% more graphics performance while offering “unprecedented efficiency,” according to Apple

Thanks to the efforts of Tom's Guide's testing team, we have five different benchmark sets for the iPhone 16 Pro iPhone 16 Pro lags behind in graphics, but it is clear that this is a beast of a phone

Geekbench measures overall CPU performance in single-core and multi-core tests, and recent Android phones with the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 chipset beat Apple's A17 Pro by a wide margin Samsung's Galaxy S24 Ultra provided better multi-core benchmarks than the iPhone 15 Pro, but single-core results were still inferior [However, the iPhone 16 Pro outperformed the S24 Ultra, being 47% faster in the single-core test and 15% faster in the multi-core test On the other hand, the Google Pixel 9 and Pixel 9 Pro's Tensor G4 has yet to catch up to the performance of rival chipsets

3DMark's Solar Bay benchmark test is designed to test ray-traced graphics, while Steel Nomad tests non-ray-traced graphics performance The higher the frame rate and overall score, the better the device performs in both tests Apple's A18 chip fell behind Qualcomm's Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 chip in this test

The A18 Pro shows a marked improvement over the A17 Pro in the iPhone 15 Pro, but still cannot keep up with Samsung's Galaxy S24 Ultra the Pro's ray tracing performance is 15% lower than the S24 Ultra, averaging 5 fps lower in the process

Not much worse for Steel Nomad, the iPhone 16 Pro still scores 87% lower than the S24 Ultra and 1 frame/sec slower However, it still offers significantly better performance than the Tensor G4, which should surprise no one

The Adobe Premier Rush test is a benchmark of our own devising that is supposed to give a more realistic textual indication of a phone's performance In this test, each device uses the Adobe Premier Rush app to transcode 4K video to 1080p resolution and measures how long the entire process takes The faster this process is, the better

Here we see that there is a significant difference between the iPhone 16 Pro and the Galaxy S24 Ultra The Samsung flagship model took 42 seconds to transcode the video, while the 16 Pro transcoded it in half, 21 seconds Even the standard iPhone 16 beat the Samsung alongside both the iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 15 Pro Max

Sadly, however, these results cannot be compared to the Pixel 9 Pro's Tensor G4, as Google's latest model was unable to complete the transcoding process

The iPhone 16 Pro's screen is arguably a less impressive feature and has changed little since last year In fact, we recorded slightly lower brightness compared to the iPhone 15 Pro - which is not a good sign However, Apple has outperformed the Galaxy S24 Ultra, even if it can't match the super-actual displays of the Google Pixel 9 Pro and 9 Pro XL

DCI-P3 and Delta-e scores are similar: the iPhone 16 Pro and Pro Max have lower DCI-P3 percentages and higher Delta-E accuracy (the lower the score, the better) scores compared to last year In other words, the color accuracy of this year's iPhone 16 Pro display is slightly less accurate

When compared to the Android flagships, results were mixed: the Galaxy S24 Ultra recorded significantly higher DCI-P3 scores in both Natural and Vivid display modes On the other hand, the Pixel 9 series' natural display mode deteriorated by a significant margin, although the Pixel outperformed when switched to Vivid

The S24 Ultra's Delta-E score was slightly lower than this year's iPhone, which is a slight victory for Samsung, while the Google Pixel 9 series lost to both Samsung and Apple, with the highest scores listed

Finally, we turn to charging speeds, which have never been Apple's strong suit: despite rumors that the iPhone 16 series might support 45W charging, the Pro model in our tests did not exceed 30W speeds - which is the same as the iPhone 15 Pro It is

In other words, Samsung's 45W charging capability is well ahead of Apple's, with the S24 Ultra achieving 71% charge in 30 minutes of charging, compared to 56% for the iPhone 16 Pro The standard-sized Pixel 9 Pro fell short of Apple, recording 49% on a 30-minute charge, but the larger Pixel 9 Pro XL jumped ahead, reaching 63% While not as fast as Samsung's, the smartphone was definitely helped by its newfound 45W charging speed

And also, the iPhone 16 Pro Max logged 18 hours in our battery life test To see how each new iPhone compared to the competition, we encourage you to read our full article on the iPhone 16's battery life

Benchmarks can only tell us so much about a phone's real-world performance But on paper, the iPhone 16 Pro seems to be in good shape to compete with the next wave of Android flagships powered by Qualcomm's Snapdragon 8 Gen 4 The iPhone 16 Pro has made some major improvements, but apparently Samsung has done a little more seem to be doing well These results show some places where Apple has stumbled, especially with regard to display brightness and charging speeds

The iPhone 16 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro Max are arguably the most powerful phones on the market right now, although that could all change when the Snapdragon 8 Gen 4 arrives in the next few months