A dramatic battery improvement gives the iPhone 18 Pro Max an immediate practical advantage that is far easier to appreciate than several of its headline features. Under the creator’s medium-to-high-intensity test, it lasts 12 hours and 32 minutes, comfortably exceeding the smaller 18 Pro, the 17 Pro Max, and Samsung’s S26 Ultra. The smaller 18 Pro nearly matching the previous Pro Max is arguably just as notable, while charging gains are more modest: both new models improve substantially over their predecessors after 20 minutes, but neither catches Samsung. These tests establish a useful theme for the review, with everyday improvements proving more consequential than some of Apple’s more elaborate engineering.
Thermal testing initially produces a counterintuitive result that becomes one of the best explanations in the presentation. Despite its much larger vapor chamber, the 18 Pro Max does not maintain a cooler exterior during simultaneous 4K recording and charging; repeated testing actually leaves it hotter than the comparison phones by the end. Rather than simply declaring the cooling system ineffective, the creator connects those temperatures to sustained performance and cooldown behavior. The proposed explanation is that the vapor chamber is moving heat away from the chip and into the chassis more effectively, allowing the A20 Pro to sustain much higher performance even though the device feels warmer externally. That interpretation is persuasive within the tests shown, although internal component temperatures are not directly presented.
The gaming results give that thermal argument considerably more weight. In the repeated 3DMark Extreme stress test, the 18 Pro Max reaches a best score of 9,024 and maintains a lowest score of 6,153, putting it well ahead of the other phones tested even after sustained load. This is a much more meaningful demonstration than simply citing a peak benchmark because the creator specifically examines how performance changes as heat accumulates. The combination of stress testing, thermal imaging, repetition, and cooldown observations turns what initially looks like an embarrassing temperature result into an interesting examination of the difference between keeping a phone’s exterior cool and keeping its processor performing efficiently.
A20 Pro’s claimed AI gains are treated with considerably more skepticism. Geekbench AI shows roughly a 30% increase rather than the two-times improvement attributed to Apple, while Genmoji, photo cleanup, and Siri shortcut creation fail to provide a consistent real-world advantage for the newest phone. A third-party image-generation test does show a much larger benefit, with the 18 Pro completing the workload around 1.8 times faster than the 17 Pro. That distinction is valuable: the hardware may have substantially greater capability under workloads able to exploit it, but the demonstrations here do not support treating that capability as a broadly noticeable improvement throughout normal iPhone use.
The smaller Dynamic Island provides a surprisingly engaging engineering detour. Moving part of the Face ID system behind the display requires a reduced pixel density over the infrared camera, rearranged pixels, increased brightness, and a transition intended to hide the boundary between display regions. Face ID continues to work normally in the creator’s experience, making the implementation technically impressive even if the altered area can apparently become visible with the screen off at certain angles. It is a good example of the review slowing down to explain how a seemingly minor cosmetic change was achieved rather than merely pointing out that the cutout is smaller.
Variable aperture receives the most nuanced criticism. The camera intelligently shifts from its usual F1.8 setting to F4.0 when subjects occupy different depths, keeping both people sharp in a situation where the 17 Pro leaves the rear subject blurred, while F1.4 becomes useful in low light and can produce anything from subtle improvements to substantially more visible detail. Yet the creator finds that the camera spends most of its time at F1.8, making the elaborate variable mechanism feel disproportionately complex for the relatively narrow circumstances in which it changes the result. The argument that a permanently wider aperture might capture most of the benefit is plausible based on the examples shown, but it remains the creator’s conclusion rather than something the comparisons definitively establish. A lengthy ESR sponsorship at the end also interrupts an otherwise focused examination, particularly because claims such as 28% faster charging and improved longevity are presented without the same comparative testing applied to the phones themselves.
Pros
- Battery testing demonstrates a major, immediately useful improvement, particularly for the 18 Pro Max.
- Repeated thermal and stress tests provide unusually good context for why a hotter exterior does not necessarily indicate worse chip cooling.
- Sustained-performance figures make the A20 Pro’s gaming advantage more meaningful than a simple peak benchmark would.
- AI testing distinguishes theoretical or application-specific gains from improvements users can actually notice in everyday tasks.
- The smaller Dynamic Island receives a clear technical explanation rather than being treated as a purely cosmetic change.
- Variable aperture is demonstrated in situations where both its genuine advantages and its limited practical usefulness become visible.
Cons
- The explanation of the vapor chamber’s behavior is convincing but lacks direct internal temperature measurements that could more firmly establish where the heat is moving.
- Camera conclusions rely primarily on selected examples rather than a broader range of controlled photographic comparisons.
- The suggestion that a fixed wider aperture could deliver nearly all the benefits of variable aperture goes beyond what the demonstrations conclusively prove.
- ESR’s sponsored charging and longevity claims do not receive the same testing scrutiny applied to Apple and Samsung hardware.
Strong comparative testing makes the practical gains in battery life and sustained performance far more interesting than the more heavily promoted camera and AI changes. The review is particularly effective when an unexpected result leads to deeper investigation, although a few conclusions extend beyond what the demonstrations can fully establish and the sponsorship is held to a noticeably lower evidentiary standard. Overall, it is a detailed and useful assessment that separates meaningful improvements from engineering changes whose everyday value remains harder to justify.
