Related
Look at this (from 1:44 on):
It's a quadrant benchmark run on a android port on the HD2. Graphics are really bad, but in the end it has approximately the same score as the benchmarking score of the Galaxy with the original firmware. I mean what is in a score? If I look at the beginning of the movie, the UI is very slow and not as responsive as the Galaxy
(BTW i got 55.7 FPS with the neocore benchmark on JM2)
This is not to say that I don't have deep respect for what the HD2-android development team is doing. Really amazing job. I just can't wait to get my HD2 back from repair.
appelflap said:
Look at this (from 1:44 on):
It's a quadrant benchmark run on a android port on the HD2. Graphics are really bad, but in the end it has approximately the same score as the benchmarking score of the Galaxy with the original firmware. I mean what is in a score? If I look at the beginning of the movie, the UI is very slow and not as responsive as the Galaxy
(BTW i got 55.7 FPS with the neocore benchmark on JM2)
This is not to say that I don't have deep respect for what the HD2-android development team is doing. Really amazing job. I just can't wait to get my HD2 back from repair.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant scores have been criticized for their non-descript breakdowns, at least on their free suite. Also, the fact that they chose the weighting of the scores, so should they chose 2D is equal to 3D weight, I don't know their formula (and for all I know, they give equal weighting to all or they give equal weighting to all test where the CPU has 12 tests and the 3D graphics has 4), but the fact that we, as users don't have access to their formula on their website is a bit unnerving.
Add to that the fact that many reviews and videos rely on it so heavily leaves users a bit misinformed. In reality, and thorough review should definitely run a custom test suite to give individual scores to:
CPU
Memory
I/O
2D graphics
3D graphics
That way users can compare what's important to them. The Galaxy S suffers from terrible I/O and the hacks that have given the fixes typically boost Galaxy scores to nearly double their rates, and it's majorly attributed to improving a bunk I/O score.
Totally agree. In addition, it would be really nice to know which benchmarked factors are responsible for which functions. For example it is really interesting to see how the hd2 performs before the user is running the tests. When the user is scrolling through the setting menu there is a very noticible lag. Given the fact that the total score is nearly the same as the scrore for the SGS, and thar the graphic score of the hd2 is bad in comparisson to the SGS, I would conclude that graphic performance is very important for the way the ui responds.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
appelflap said:
Totally agree. In addition, it would be really nice to know which benchmarked factors are responsible for which functions. For example it is really interesting to see how the hd2 performs before the user is running the tests. When the user is scrolling through the setting menu there is a very noticible lag. Given the fact that the total score is nearly the same as the scrore for the SGS, and thar the graphic score of the hd2 is bad in comparisson to the SGS, I would conclude that graphic performance is very important for the way the ui responds.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I can tell, the HD2 got a decent score 'cos it was running Froyo. When we get bumped up to an official froyo build with JIT fully optimized, We should be top of the pile.
don't forget, android isn't working 100% on the HD2.
I personally think it's pointless comparing to a not complete port.
woops dbl post
alovell83 said:
Quadrant scores have been criticized for their non-descript breakdowns, at least on their free suite. Also, the fact that they chose the weighting of the scores, so should they chose 2D is equal to 3D weight, I don't know their formula (and for all I know, they give equal weighting to all or they give equal weighting to all test where the CPU has 12 tests and the 3D graphics has 4), but the fact that we, as users don't have access to their formula on their website is a bit unnerving.
Add to that the fact that many reviews and videos rely on it so heavily leaves users a bit misinformed. In reality, and thorough review should definitely run a custom test suite to give individual scores to:
CPU
Memory
I/O
2D graphics
3D graphics
That way users can compare what's important to them. The Galaxy S suffers from terrible I/O and the hacks that have given the fixes typically boost Galaxy scores to nearly double their rates, and it's majorly attributed to improving a bunk I/O score.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even then though, it's possible to write a benchmark which wins constantly for any phone.
In regards to "terrible I/O", that might even be due to a bug in the FAT32 drivers. Yes you can benchmark it, but it wont mean much. The best way is to actually TEST the applications you need, rather than select a phone based on benchmarks. However, you are possibly best off looking at the component specs, because they ignore software bugs.
scrizz said:
don't forget, android isn't working 100% on the HD2.
I personally think it's pointless comparing to a not complete port.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But the topic is about "what's in a score". Maybe one can generally say that is pointless to compare devices this way. I think that such benchmark scores are only (a bit) relevant at the two poles of the benchmark score spectrum. Everything in between can be neglected due to the uninformed way sub-scores are evaluated.
You got 55.7 FPS on Neocore as the sgs has vertical sync enabled, the refresh rate on the sgs'es screen is 56 fps and thus you can only go up to 56 fps as the v-sync is on. This proves that the sgs is indeed a much more powerful device that is actually being held back. If you can disable the v-sync then you can get a higher fps score
appelflap said:
But the topic is about "what's in a score". Maybe one can generally say that is pointless to compare devices this way. I think that such benchmark scores are only (a bit) relevant at the two poles of the benchmark score spectrum. Everything in between can be neglected due to the uninformed way sub-scores are evaluated.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just read in a post that the Galaxy S gets a 0 on the 2D score:
"JIT isn't fully enabled in the current froyo versions, and quadrant, frankly, is bull**** (for exmple, 2d acceleration gets the same weight in the final result as 3D. Due to the fact that the SGS doesn't have a dedicated 2D accelerator, quadrant doesn't try to use the cpu- it just gives a round zero in that part)"
I can't confirm this, but that definitely seems like a terrible set-up, seeing as how I'm pretty sure I have games run in 2D, so to say that it can't do it just seems wrong regardless of if the SGS has a dedicated 2D accelerator or not (so if you aren't testing the way it performs in real-world, why are you testing?)
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=737787&page=3
Qazz~ said:
You got 55.7 FPS on Neocore as the sgs has vertical sync enabled, the refresh rate on the sgs'es screen is 56 fps and thus you can only go up to 56 fps as the v-sync is on. This proves that the sgs is indeed a much more powerful device that is actually being held back. If you can disable the v-sync then you can get a higher fps score
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It isn't really being held back - the screen can't display more than 56 fps as you say, and it wouldn't really be visible even if it could. Disabling v-sync isn't really that important, we need a benchmark that can actually use the advanced features in the SGS GPU (Neocore just pushes a fairly small amount of polygons with no real extras.) Using current 3D benchmarks to benchmark the SGS is like using quake 1 to benchmark the brand new ATI/nVidia cards.
The benchmark is what is at fault here, not the device
RyanZA said:
It isn't really being held back - the screen can't display more than 56 fps as you say, and it wouldn't really be visible even if it could. Disabling v-sync isn't really that important, we need a benchmark that can actually use the advanced features in the SGS GPU (Neocore just pushes a fairly small amount of polygons with no real extras.) Using current 3D benchmarks to benchmark the SGS is like using quake 1 to benchmark the brand new ATI/nVidia cards.
The benchmark is what is at fault here, not the device
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't want to speak for the other poster, and I agree with your premise, however, it isn't actually solving the issue at hand. Better FPS wouldn't be noticed, however, it would give a better score and, more importantly, indicate it's potential. So, getting 56FPS isn't doing the phone any justice within the score, which is what reviews are using, giving it an artificially low score, and putting it more in line with units that can't compete on higher end games. So, when a site like anand pushes 150FPS on a game, I know that means that their rig is entirely too powerful for the game in question, but it still means something when you compare it to the lower end graphics card that only gets 90...then when they run Crisis you see these results play out more with differences that we can notice with the eye.
I think the HD2 gets that score because, as I can see in the video, the CPU tests run faster compared to my SGS, probably because of Froyo, and I know, from the time I had the Diamond and the HD2, that the internal memory and RAM are very fast. Sadly SGS has a slow internal memory, atleast when used by the phone`s software, when copying from PC is faster than my class 6 microSD. Luckily, we have mimocan`s fix. Hope this will be fixed in future FW`s.
NexusHD2 with-FRG83D V1.7 with hastarin r8.5.1 On my HD2 got 1920 in quadrant,31.5 on neocore, and 37 on linmark.
The lag might be because you are using launcher pro, I use launcher pro and sometimes it makes the the lock lag on my phone but it doesn't happen when I use the default lock also if you have alot of Widgets on your screen it will cause lag also
appelflap said:
Look at this (from 1:44 on):
It's a quadrant benchmark run on a android port on the HD2. Graphics are really bad, but in the end it has approximately the same score as the benchmarking score of the Galaxy with the original firmware. I mean what is in a score? If I look at the beginning of the movie, the UI is very slow and not as responsive as the Galaxy
(BTW i got 55.7 FPS with the neocore benchmark on JM2)
This is not to say that I don't have deep respect for what the HD2-android development team is doing. Really amazing job. I just can't wait to get my HD2 back from repair.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
same galaxy s scores 6000+ in quadrant with custem roms
The HD 2 is a better fit for quadrent then the sgs as quadrent was made for the snapdragon processor which the hd2 has and the sgs does not. Comparing apples to orenges in an apple juice contest doesn't really prove much. Use real life feel. If you care about the scores a rom can be made to get you over 3000 quad score but is laggy as hell. Don't believe me? Look at my sig
interesting... I was using quadrant to see how a stock xxjvo and gingerreal compared. Surely that would indicate a real speed difference and not just be some kind of "hack" ?
zelendel said:
The HD 2 is a better fit for quadrent then the sgs as quadrent was made for the snapdragon processor which the hd2 has and the sgs does not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's right.
HD2 uses two android OS :
- Cyanogenmod, that is faster than our samsung os..
- Nexus one's port to HD2, greatly optimized by google...
It's really fast. I upgraded my father's HD2 last month, replacing windows in the NAND with CM7. It really makes a big change, the phone is like brand new ^^
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1012556
Quadrant is pretty flawed. And I say that being someone who had a phone (before modifications) that was mid-range in Quadrant (Galaxy S), and having a phone that's right top of the heap (Galaxy S II)
The purpose of this post is to inform people of all the major benchmarks, pros/cons or each and what each of them do.
Quadrant Standard/Advanced - This benchmark is made for phones using the Snapdragon proccessor such as the g2/droids/evo etc. Please do not rely on this benchmark for the Epic as the Epic has a Hummingbird.
SmartBench - This benchmark was made to show fair scores for the actual speed of the phone. The developer of this app works very hard to work out "cheats" and bugs. This benchmark seperates the speed in games from the speed in doing other, non-game, tasks.
Linpack - This benchmark, like Quadrant, is mainly for Snapdragon. It shows floating point speed that does not really determine real life performance. Phones like the Evo and G2 get scores way higher than the Epic even though the proccessor on the Epic is faster.
0xBench - This benchmark is a combonation of different benchmarks. The purpose of this benchmark is to find out how fast your phone is for many different things.
Total Benchmark - This benchmark is a FULL benchmark. It not only measures speed but it measures many other things such as accelerometer, display, multitouch, etc.
An3dBench - This benchmark does a wide variety of tests to determine 3d speed
SQLight - This benchmark measures the time it takes to complete a series of non-gaming/non-media tasks.
SetCpu - If you didn't know, SetCpu has 3 different benchmarks included in it. These benchmarks show proccessor speed improvements from your overclock/kernal or rom change.
Nenamark - A GPU benchmark
Neocore - Another GPU benchmark. Made by Qualcomm to showcase their GPU. Since our GPU isnt Qualcomm, you cant fully trust it, but it seems pretty legit.
Did I miss any? Please send me a PM telling me. I know there are alot more but I think I got all of the major ones.
It would be great if this could be stickied.
Reserved for later use
A few others I've got on my phone:
Benchmark Pi: I don't recommend, since all it really does is test one function of the CPU, hardly a comprehensive benchmark.
GLBenchmark: Pretty decent benchmark, all things considered. Lots of options.
NenaMark1: Primarily a GPU benchmark, provides FPS (frames per second) score.
Neocore: Same as the above, mostly tests GPU performance. Created by Qualcomm to showcase their Adreno GPU, so take the FPS scores with a grain of salt.
Another I've heard of, BaseMark. AFAIK its currently only available to software developers. Looking to get my hands on it... looks to be pretty full-featured.
I still recommend SmartBench2010 over anything else right now, mostly because it seems to be accurate and the developer has shown himself to be very dedicated.
Also note AnTuTu. It's comprehensive, and gives a very good breakdown of what goes into its scores.
Added Nenamark and Neocore
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA Premium App
GLbenchmarks
Its one of the best. I personally only really care about benchmarks that Anandtech uses since they give the most detailed and comprehensive reviews and testing of new phones and devices. I would check out there site to make sure you got what they use. I know for a fact that GLbenchmarks is one of them. Its a graphical benchmark that tests the GPU. There are also a benchmark to test browser performance, java and i think one other one that they use.
You can get all these on the market?
No, some of these you have to get outside of the market. GLbenchmarks for example is downloaded from their website.
Now before people start rushing in here and saying "well duh, once is 1.9ghz and one is 2.3ghz" you do have to keep in mind it's different architecture. I'm still putting my money on the snapdragon though but I was looking in the 3dmark app and looking at other devices. The snapdragon version clearly beat the exynos version by a few thousand points, almost 3000 to be exact.
The interesting thing I noticed is that looking at the physics/cpu benchmarks, the exynos beats the snapdragon by a decent amount, we're not talking a difference of .5 fps or anything. Looking at the unlimited score, the exynos version is 6fps faster which makes me wonder. Is the exynos cpu better engineered? Or is it because 3dmark is designed to utilize all cores hence 8 slightly slower cores beats out 4 faster cores?
I'm just asking all this since I like having a portable emulator around with me (ppsspp and running fpse with opengl) and am deciding which of the two versions has the better cpu. The graphics department will be good enough for me on either device, and the rest of the specs are identical, so it boils down to the cpu.
TLDR: 3dmark benchmark shows exynos cpu scores are better than snapdragon cpu scores. Which one truly has the faster cpu?
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=45783875
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013...rking-adjustments-inflate-scores-by-up-to-20/
Sent from my SCH-I535 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Search before posting.
Use one of our search functions before posting, whether you have a question or something new to share, it's very likely someone already asked that question or shared that news.
Thread Closed, please search before opening new threads
I know that the Note 3 got the Snapdragon 800 8974AA(GPU clocked at 450 MHz).
So i ran the latest GFXBench 3.0(Manhattan offscreen) and got a score of 11.1, which is even better than the scores the Snapdragon 800 8974AB(GPU clocked at 550/578MHz) got.
How can this be?
mull54 said:
I know that the Note 3 got the Snapdragon 800 8974AA(GPU clocked at 450 MHz).
So i ran the latest GFXBench 3.0(Manhattan offscreen) and got a score of 11.1, which is even better than the scores the Snapdragon 800 8974AB(GPU clocked at 550/578MHz) got.
How can this be?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
maybe its caused by throttling down due temperature
Maybe memory of Note 3 is faster and larger than other phone, which shouldn't be Samsung because S5 uses AC version. I think Note3 has very fast RAM and if other phone has slower (read cheaper) RAM it could bottleneck there. Also, as the other poster said the other phone could be thermally throttling, especially if the benchmarks were run multiple times to get average. You figure people running benchmarks would know better, but who knows.
Hundsbuah said:
maybe its caused by throttling down due temperature
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah maybe that's the case.
pete4k said:
Maybe memory of Note 3 is faster and larger than other phone, which shouldn't be Samsung because S5 uses AC version. I think Note3 has very fast RAM and if other phone has slower (read cheaper) RAM it could bottleneck there. Also, as the other poster said the other phone could be thermally throttling, especially if the benchmarks were run multiple times to get average. You figure people running benchmarks would know better, but who knows.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The thing is that, other Note 3 get's around 9-10 FPS, which is normal for a 8974AA SoC. So either some Note 3's got the AB(which is unlikley) or Samsung is cheating again and overclocking the GPU to AB levels only for the Bench.
mull54 said:
Yeah maybe that's the case.
The thing is that, other Note 3 get's around 9-10 FPS, which is normal for a 8974AA SoC. So either some Note 3's got the AB(which is unlikley) or Samsung is cheating again and overclocking the GPU to AB levels only for the Bench.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung never overclocked anything, what they did in the past is ramp up frequency to maximum before benchmark started running, so there was no delay to get CPU/GPU to full speed, like you have with on demand governor. I don't believe it's cheating because you can set the governor to run full click yourself (if rooted) and benefit from this as well with any game/ benchmark. It also shows how inefficient ondemand governor is and maybe we should be using different governor setting which is interesting topic all by itself. I remember there was similar "scandal" few years ago in graphic card business, where drivers were optimized for particular benchmarks. Well, now all video drivers are optimized for specific, mostly graphic intensive games and we all benefit from it by having better performance, from lesser hardware. Maybe this could also benefit all of us by giving us better governors, so the phones can run faster with the same hardware, instead of being artificially slowed down with poor choice of governor settings. As far as other Notes running slower, thermal throttling due to multiple benchmark runs to get average would be my wild guess. Or maybe you deleted factory bloatware and change settings to make your phone faster, but no, you don't have AB version.
I will buy a galaxy s7 edge next week, but for now in stores only the exynos version is available in my country. Is it a good soc? Or should I wait more for the snapdragon phone?
On my note 3 the exynos chip was considered pretty bad, on both performance and battery life.
Exynos = Better CPU, Battery drain mostly from radio cell.
Snapdragon = Better GPU. Battery drain mostly from Android system (not sure is it fix able by update. )
If you're that person that love installing AOSP ROM. Snapdragon is your choice.
bibiner said:
Exynos = Better CPU, Battery drain mostly from radio cell.
Snapdragon = Better GPU. Battery drain mostly from Android system (not sure is it fix able by update. )
If you're that person that love installing AOSP ROM. Snapdragon is your choice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will definetly root, most likely on day one, but I doubt I will be using AOSP roms.
Gaming on a phone isn't for me as well, I have my iPad or ps4 for that.
So the exynos runs better for day to day tasks?
For day to day tasks, there's no difference
For me I would prefer SD, cuz the ROM, kernel and mod development is much much better and I'm a flashaholic but in Europe only the exynos is available. And I'm scared there won't be so much to flash\development...
Am I right? How was the ROMs, kernels ect. on s6 edge exynos? Will devs come support us?
lvnatic said:
I will definetly root, most likely on day one, but I doubt I will be using AOSP roms.
Gaming on a phone isn't for me as well, I have my iPad or ps4 for that.
So the exynos runs better for day to day tasks?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
According to tests i've seen, yes.
Thanks for the replies, I'm going with the exynos then and I will preorder it as well, so I can get that vr.
CuBz90 said:
According to tests i've seen, yes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
These tests being?
If your in Europe then it's not worth the hassle to get the snapdragon version IMO. That being said, the snapdragon has the better GPU, modem, higher single threaded performance, and more than likely a better ISP, DSP, etc and other blocks of the SOC. The exynos will have better multithreaded performance, just due to the fact that it has 8 cores vs the snapdragons 4, even though per core the snapdragons are faster. Like others have said developement will be noticeably less on the exynos. You will still get custom Roms but I wouldn't expect cm or aosp within a year, or ever. In dqy to day performance I would expect the snapdragons 4 very fast cores to be more responsive than the 4 slow cores and 4 fast cores of the exynos, especially considering most of the normal ui is processed on the slow cores and has to migrate to the fast cores when it needs it.
Xileforce said:
If your in Europe then it's not worth the hassle to get the snapdragon version IMO. That being said, the snapdragon has the better GPU, modem, higher single threaded performance, and more than likely a better ISP, DSP, etc and other blocks of the SOC. The exynos will have better multithreaded performance, just due to the fact that it has 8 cores vs the snapdragons 4, even though per core the snapdragons are faster. Like others have said developement will be noticeably less on the exynos. You will still get custom Roms but I wouldn't expect cm or aosp within a year, or ever. In dqy to day performance I would expect the snapdragons 4 very fast cores to be more responsive than the 4 slow cores and 4 fast cores of the exynos, especially considering most of the normal ui is processed on the slow cores and has to migrate to the fast cores when it needs it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is your basis for these arguments? Seems like most people in this thread are just making stuff up without quoting any real-world tests. Even Anandtech stated that the SoCs are pretty much equal (as far as they currently know, and they have already written pretty extensively about both SoCs), and that efficiency is what is going to set them apart. I wouldn't draw any conclusions without actually reading a comprehensive comparison of the two.
I just pulled the trigger on an Exynos version, despite living in the U.S.
Reasons you might consider the Exynos over the SD820:
1) LTE Bands, the Exynos version has far more LTE Bands for use around the world. If you travel around a bit, then it makes a bit of sense to have a phone that can receive data, regardless of the network you're on.
2) Battery drain: it looks like both SoC's are plagued with one thing or another that saps battery life, but the SD820 has an alarming amount of drain from the Android system. It still has great SoT (screen on time), but it's still a worry nonetheless.
3) Carrier lock: If you find yourself on one network, then this shouldn't be an issue. But within the past 2 years, I have been on a AT&T, then a business T-Mobile line, then Google Fi, and now on an AT&T business line. If the phone locks to a carrier, then you might have to wait longer or pay to get it unlocked.. which can be a drag.
That being said, I'm sure the development for the SD820 version will be immense. However, I'm coming from a Nexus 6P, and feel like the stock S7E ROM performs so well, that I won't need to root or anything. Android has reached a level of smoothness that was not found on earlier versions, especially in tandem with TouchWiz of old (older Notes and S phones were laggy, really). So stock ROM with the ability to use Android Pay/Samsung Pay will be nice.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
I just pre ordered the UK S7 Edge, hoping it'll be Exynos.
In the benchmark thread people are getting virtually identical Antutu scores across chips. It looks like the Snapdragon is throttling earlier than the Exynos though, they always have ran hotter.
cepheid46e2 said:
These tests being?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In singel core performance, the SD is a few % better. But in multi core, the exynos is about 20% ahead. So it does seem to run better with the CPU. Also it seems to run cooler, so throttling should be better.
TeamSlayr said:
In singel core performance, the SD is a few % better. But in multi core, the exynos is about 20% ahead. So it does seem to run better with the CPU. Also it seems to run cooler, so throttling should be better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We need someone to run consecutive 3dmark runs on the exynos in order to know whether the gpu throttles or not, and if so after how many runs. We already know neither will throttle the cpu in geekbench, but the SD820 throttles the gpu a bit after two 3dmark runs.
Toss3 said:
We need someone to run consecutive 3dmark runs on the exynos in order to know whether the gpu throttles or not, and if so after how many runs. We already know neither will throttle the cpu in geekbench, but the SD820 throttles the gpu a bit after two 3dmark runs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes we should await further testing. Since the SD is released in America for some already, the benchmarks for exynos are hard to find.
Toss3 said:
What is your basis for these arguments? Seems like most people in this thread are just making stuff up without quoting any real-world tests. Even Anandtech stated that the SoCs are pretty much equal (as far as they currently know, and they have already written pretty extensively about both SoCs), and that efficiency is what is going to set them apart. I wouldn't draw any conclusions without actually reading a comprehensive comparison of the two.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm pulling this from past experience with exynos 7420 kernel development, and every article ive read on the 820 and the exynos 8890, in addition to benchmarks on both and my own device. Qualcomm leads the world in modem technology. The one in the 820 supposedly has achieved parity with wifi. In addition we have the hexagon DSP and spectra ISP all of which can operate in a sort of HMP configuration to accelerate tasks. I would find it hard to believe that Samsung has caught up to qcom in these misc blocks of the SOC. But that's why I said most likely for that portion as I'm just making an educated guess. Single threaded performance is quantifiably higher on the snapdragon, all the benchmarks shows this, just as they show that the 8 core exynos scores higher in multithreaded scenarios. The rest about development etc is because Samsung doesn't release the proprietary hardware blobs we need to get a proper aosp/cm port working. Meaning we have to write them from scratch which takes forever. Qcom has always provided these in the past. The GPU also performs better in benchmarks, whether there's a noticeable difference in real life remains to be seen, still from all evidence the snapdragon beats out the exynos GPU. And my experience with the 7420 taught me that the small cores can have trouble keeping the ui smooth at all times, and we see the same cluster again on the exynos, only on a slightly improved node. Hopefully this explains the logic behind my post better.
Xileforce said:
I'm pulling this from past experience with exynos 7420 kernel development, and every article ive read on the 820 and the exynos 8890, in addition to benchmarks on both and my own device. Qualcomm leads the world in modem technology. The one in the 820 supposedly has achieved parity with wifi. In addition we have the hexagon DSP and spectra ISP all of which can operate in a sort of HMP configuration to accelerate tasks. I would find it hard to believe that Samsung has caught up to qcom in these misc blocks of the SOC. But that's why I said most likely for that portion as I'm just making an educated guess. Single threaded performance is quantifiably higher on the snapdragon, all the benchmarks shows this, just as they show that the 8 core exynos scores higher in multithreaded scenarios. The rest about development etc is because Samsung doesn't release the proprietary hardware blobs we need to get a proper aosp/cm port working. Meaning we have to write them from scratch which takes forever. Qcom has always provided these in the past. The GPU also performs better in benchmarks, whether there's a noticeable difference in real life remains to be seen, still from all evidence the snapdragon beats out the exynos GPU. And my experience with the 7420 taught me that the small cores can have trouble keeping the ui smooth at all times, and we see the same cluster again on the exynos, only on a slightly improved node. Hopefully this explains the logic behind my post better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could very well be that the sd820 endas up faster than the exynos 8890 in day to day tasks, but the sd820 seems to be using a lot of mW in comparison to other SoCs(check anandtech's look at the mi-5). Its single thread performance is better, but on average there's only a 10% difference and the exynos is clocked lower than reference (2.7ghz and 2.4ghz). Both modems achieve the same speeds so the only thing that is going to matter in the end is efficiency. Still need to take a look at the GPU throttling on the 8890, as we only know the sd820 GPU throttles at this point in time. Personally I would have preferred the sd820, but if the 8899 brings better battery and better audio quality the difference in performance is worth it. Looking forward to anandtech's in-depth comparison! Don't really get why we haven't seen any reviews yet even though people have the phones already.
Toss3 said:
Could very well be that the sd820 endas up faster than the exynos 8890 in day to day tasks, but the sd820 seems to be using a lot of mW in comparison to other SoCs(check anandtech's look at the mi-5). Its single thread performance is better, but on average there's only a 10% difference and the exynos is clocked lower than reference (2.7ghz and 2.4ghz). Both modems achieve the same speeds so the only thing that is going to matter in the end is efficiency. Still need to take a look at the GPU throttling on the 8890, as we only know the sd820 GPU throttles at this point in time. Personally I would have preferred the sd820, but if the 8899 brings better battery and better audio quality the difference in performance is worth it. Looking forward to anandtech's in-depth comparison! Don't really get why we haven't seen any reviews yet even though people have the phones already.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also awaiting the deep dive on both. Keep in mind though, that 2 of the 820s cores are clocked at 1.6 and have less l2cache to save power, and 2 of them are at 2.2ghz, so clock for clock they have very high performance. As for the power draw comparison, it was only an estimate to begin with, and ones got 4 little and 4 small and if it was only using the 4 small during the test that alone would be a noticeable power draw difference. It gets pretty complex with these big.little setups. I've also noticed the snapdragon version has a pretty high load average which should be able to get lowered with some modifications to the kernel.
AhsanU said:
I just pulled the trigger on an Exynos version, despite living in the U.S.
Reasons you might consider the Exynos over the SD820:
1) LTE Bands, the Exynos version has far more LTE Bands for use around the world. If you travel around a bit, then it makes a bit of sense to have a phone that can receive data, regardless of the network you're on.
2) Battery drain: it looks like both SoC's are plagued with one thing or another that saps battery life, but the SD820 has an alarming amount of drain from the Android system. It still has great SoT (screen on time), but it's still a worry nonetheless.
3) Carrier lock: If you find yourself on one network, then this shouldn't be an issue. But within the past 2 years, I have been on a AT&T, then a business T-Mobile line, then Google Fi, and now on an AT&T business line. If the phone locks to a carrier, then you might have to wait longer or pay to get it unlocked.. which can be a drag.
That being said, I'm sure the development for the SD820 version will be immense. However, I'm coming from a Nexus 6P, and feel like the stock S7E ROM performs so well, that I won't need to root or anything. Android has reached a level of smoothness that was not found on earlier versions, especially in tandem with TouchWiz of old (older Notes and S phones were laggy, really). So stock ROM with the ability to use Android Pay/Samsung Pay will be nice.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup my SD820 is running full on SPay, Bluetooth, WIFI, NFC, Always On Display all without power saving mode and I get 8h SOT in 24h. Listening to a few posts of people beginning to learn the phones quirks within the first few days is not evidence of anything other than the phone being broken in. Spreading information like this gets people buying devices for unsubstantiated reasons. Please provide evidence if you're going to post stuff like this. You guys are just starting an echo chamber quoting each other with no evidence supporting your rumors.
cepheid46e2 said:
Yup my SD820 is running full on SPay, Bluetooth, WIFI, NFC, Always On Display all without power saving mode and I get 8h SOT in 24h. Listening to a few posts of people beginning to learn the phones quirks within the first few days is not evidence of anything other than the phone being broken in. Spreading information like this gets people buying devices for unsubstantiated reasons. Please provide evidence if you're going to post stuff like this. You guys are just starting an echo chamber quoting each other with no evidence supporting your rumors.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never believe people when they say they get 8 hours of screen on time.
And if you read my post carefully, you'll see the fact that I stated the SD820 still has great SoT, but just that there are issues with the Android system draining an alarming amount of battery percentage. This is not some baseless claim, there are multiple posts in the battery life thread showing the android system taking up 35%< of the battery.
Edit:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=3321547
In case you were wondering which thread.
Again, it's just a strange thing that can maybe be fixed by a software update.
And while we're at it, how about you show screenshots of your supposed 8 hours of SoT?
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk