Database Users

Quadrant benchmark for Android on HD2 compared to SGS (What's in a score)

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)

Quadrant Benchmark on Vibrant 2600???

One of my coworkers has a tmobile vibrant with some lag fix according to him.. he did a quadrant benchmark right in front of me and it was showing 2500 plus everytime.. Im very curious as to what is making his phone so fast. And can it be dont to ours. Hes not running a custom rom or overclocking. Im only getting 1030 with mine clocked at 1.2ghz. Any Ideas? I couldnt get into too much details with him yesterday and I dont know whens the next time ill see him..

If you were to look at a test break down you would see generally all the scores are identical or the epic a little ahead except in the read/write area. The scores from their read/write are just inflating their overall score. It's a issue with quadrant and how it handles its overall score. Basically it just makes the system easy to abuse/cheat. So I wouldn't worry much about the difference in your score and his.
Sent from my Samsung Epic

The reason other Galaxy S phones score high in quadrant is because of the lag fix they use. The lag fix mounts a different file system on the phone with DRAMATICALLY increases read-write times. That portion of the quadrant benchmark gets inflated beyond reason. Using this game technique, Cyanogen was able to score more than 3000 on a snapdragon phone.
All of the Galaxy S phones have the same processor. Also, quadrant is a terrible benchmark. It's the most over-quoted and abused benchmark for android phones

Ahh ok.. thats good to know.. so what would be a better benchmark to use? Linpack?

jok3sta said:
Ahh ok.. thats good to know.. so what would be a better benchmark to use? Linpack?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Linpack is good for measuring raw CPU processing power... but only on devices running the same version of android. Phones with 2.2 will score insanely high due to the JIT compiler. For example, a snapdragon phone with Froyo can score ~40 Mflops. A snapdragon phone with eclair scores around 7 Mflops. Does Froyo make the phone run 5-6X faster? Hell no. In some cases, the difference is almost unnoticeable to the human eye.
Here is a rundown of what I believe to be the pros and cons of various benchmarks:
Linpack
Pros:
- Good for measuring CPU processing power on the same version of Android
- Great tool for measuring the performance gain from overclocking
Cons
- Scores are boosted unreasonably by Froyo's JIT compiler on snapdragon phones
Quadrant
Pros:
- Great tool for measuring the performance gain from overclocking
- Decent tool for measuring 3D graphics performance (just pay attention to FPS, not the end result)
- Decent tool for measuring 2D graphics performance (again, look at FPS)
- The paid version ("Quadrant Pro" I believe) shows which parts of the benchmark contributed to the score. Easier to spot the inflated CPU or I/O inflation
Cons:
- I/O portion isn't valued as much as others, but can boost scores beyond reason via exploits, hacks, fixes, etc.
- CPU portion is inflated on phones running 2.2. A Nexus One is not faster than any Galaxy S, Droid X, Droid 2, etc.
Neocore
Pros:
- Good tool for measuring graphics processing power
Cons:
- Graphics are not intense enough to push the power of very fast GPU's. Some phones will hit their FPS limit
- Only measures graphics processing power.
Nenamark1
Pros:
- Great tool for measuring graphics processing power
- Effects are advanced enough to show the performance of faster GPUs in relation to phones with lesser GPUs.
Cons:
- Only measures graphics processing power.

Sweet thanks for all the info man..

Agreed, this is great info thanks. I think the quadrant score is the most quoted becuase it provides a very easy to read graph built in with it for instant comparing/gratification. I guess I am gonna start going by linpack and nenamark1.

hydralisk said:
Linpack is good for measuring raw CPU processing power... but only on devices running the same version of android. Phones with 2.2 will score insanely high due to the JIT compiler. For example, a snapdragon phone with Froyo can score ~40 Mflops. A snapdragon phone with eclair scores around 7 Mflops. Does Froyo make the phone run 5-6X faster? Hell no. In some cases, the difference is almost unnoticeable to the human eye.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Linpack is ok for when your using same CPU comparison, different CPU's can cause issues...The reason why snapdragon gets scores of 5-6x is for some reason the snapdragon utilizes the VFP rather then using raw processing power..aka snapdragon cheats on the Linpack.
In reality our I/O scores should be a lot higher then it is as even in the Epic some of samsung's crappy file system still exists. But not as high as the lagfixed Vibrant of course.
Quadrant Pro is probably best indicator out of them all(The non-pro version is pretty much useless unless your comparing the same phone)...the con of having 2.2 show is higher is expected as it is a measure of efficiency of JIT in comparison to the current. The OS always played a role in Benchmarks so it is expected.

it can be faked by using a different partition to test on. IIRC the data partition making the speeds much faster than they should be so be careful when accepting those high scores

rjmjr69 said:
it can be faked by using a different partition to test on. IIRC the data partition making the speeds much faster than they should be so be careful when accepting those high scores
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is not exactly faking it..as you are increasing performance..thing is you cannot see at what it performs well at unless you see the individual scores from the Pro version....

Benchmarks

Tegra got smoked
http://androidcommunity.com/galaxy-s-iii-quad-core-benchmarks-blow-us-away-20120503/

Hm.. Tegra 3 seems to win the GPU bench?
Quadrant sucks though. Will be waiting for more benchs.

Here are some other benchmarks (next to quandrant also SunSpider and browsermark)

Quadrant scores -
sgs3
cpu - 12781
memory - 4652
io - 7606
2d - 1000
3d - 2171
total - 5642
S4
cpu - 8505
memory - 7547
io - 6394
2d - 990
3d - 2204
total - 5128
tegra3
cpu - 12493
memory - 3472
io - 4769
2d - 962
3d - 2346
total - 4804
they seem pretty even in cpu/gpu capability. the s4 gets smoked in cpu performance according to those quadrant scores. interesting.. i thought it was faster.

Wow, the S3 doesn't seem to smoke the competition.

im interested about the antutu...can someone bring some more benchmarks?

Even if Tegra got smoked games will look better, so i'm really thinking how the S3 will be better in general use except for benchmarks...
Sent from my Quad Core Monster the HTC One X using Tapatalk v 2

GPU performance gap between Tegra3 and Exynos4 Quad is huge
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5810/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-performance-preview
Faster than iPhone4S' powervr sgx543mp2

LOL quadrant sucks so hard. the new mali 400 is killing tegra 3. according to http://www.anandtech.com/show/5810/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-performance-preview

The benchmarked result http://www.icsforums.com/news/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-gets-benchmarked-shows-plenty-promise.html

bocautrang.pt said:
The benchmarked result http://www.icsforums.com/news/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-gets-benchmarked-shows-plenty-promise.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
um no
That's stolen straight out of engadget and they have recorded the lowest performance out of any of these tech blog/news sites

Antutu Benchmark available here:

ph00ny said:
um no
That's stolen straight out of engadget and they have recorded the lowest performance out of any of these tech blog/news sites
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the video above it's got 5324 Quadrant and 11492 Antutu. Not much different from HOX.

Here are some results from the Swedish androidsite "Swedroid". It's in swedish (doh!) but you should be able to look thru the scores anyway
http://www.swedroid.se/hands-on-med-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-forhandsitt/#disqus_thread
In my humble opinion. To say that the exynos "kills" the Tegra 3 is just...plain...wrong.
They seem to be very capable CPUs in both of these beasts!

umd said:
In the video above it's got 5324 Quadrant and 11492 Antutu. Not much different from HOX.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you see the gpu scores. Kills tegra 3.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

Imo they are very close to eachother, i would say exynos wins by a little margin could be just the software dragging it down, would love to see a pure ICS build doing the test.

Benchmarks mean squat.. it comes down to user experience.. if u can really feel the difference.. also, apps need to be fine tuned for quad core too.. so I guess u won't feel an actual difference..
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA

jits1988 said:
Benchmarks mean squat.. it comes down to user experience.. if u can really feel the difference.. also, apps need to be fine tuned for quad core too.. so I guess u won't feel an actual difference..
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
good benchmark do shows the raw power of the mobile, its never meant to test the user experience.

jits1988 said:
Benchmarks mean squat.. it comes down to user experience.. if u can really feel the difference.. also, apps need to be fine tuned for quad core too.. so I guess u won't feel an actual difference..
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All the hands-on video clip made it seemed as if s3 is doing great in general ui transitions. It was noticeably quicker when used side by side.

Always astounds me how people are judging by benchmarks. I mean, its a phone, not a server station.
I wont be running virtual machines for rendering movies on it. I wont be playing Crysis 3 on it.
I`ll phone, message, watch clips, pictures, surf and use navigation. Even the single core phones can do that perfectly.

OnePlus X Benchmarks

Here are the various benchmark results from the OnePlus X device.
AnTuTu Benchmark score:38132
AnTuTu HTML5 test: 18219
Geekbench 3 score: Single-Core: 918
Multi-core: 2433
3DMark Score: SlingShot using ES 3.0 : 701
I've attached the screenshots of all the test result for reference.

38132 Antutu makes no sense. My OnePlus One with the same CPU/GPU gets almost 50K

XblackdemonX said:
38132 Antutu makes no sense. My OnePlus One with the same CPU/GPU gets almost 50K
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Reaches upto 40K+ for mine in an tu tu.
And OPO has 2.5Ghz CPU but OP X has 2.3Ghz that differs the score.

I had 50k with my oneplus one and 39k with my oneplus x.
But, the htc one m8 had 2.3ghz s801 with 2gb of ram and had 45k antutu...

PoloB49 said:
I had 50k with my oneplus one and 39k with my oneplus x.
But, the htc one m8 had 2.3ghz s801 with 2gb of ram and had 45k antutu...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I know op x uses the least powerful 801 and m8 used the more powerful sd801 2.3ghz cpu.

Legolas.X said:
As far as I know op x uses the least powerful 801 and m8 used the more powerful sd801 2.3ghz cpu.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, the X has the AA variant which has a lower clocked CPU and GPU hence the differences between other SD801 chips.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7846/...-snapdragon-800-and-801-clearing-up-confusion

kinghu said:
Yup, the X has the AA variant which has a lower clocked CPU and GPU hence the differences between other SD801 chips.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7846/...-snapdragon-800-and-801-clearing-up-confusion
View attachment 3538054
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, enough for UI animations and Fruit Ninja. I think that's a reasonable expectation for a $250 device with an awesome build.

CafeKampuchia said:
So, enough for UI animations and Fruit Ninja. I think that's a reasonable expectation for a $250 device with an awesome build.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
U could say that. Putting sd801 doesn't mean that u can always expect the top notch performance. Not everyone does hardcore gaming on mobile leave that to pc. Looking at price point it's kinda perfect.
I knw some ppl would tell sd615 performs better but that's a newer chip.

Those scores really don´t do the OnePlus X justice. The device runs so smooth and fast it´s an incredible device for 250$! I had no lags at all since using it.

The oneplus x uses sd 8974AA
but the gpu is clocked at 578mhz just like AB and AC version

^ Interesting.
Specs and benchmarks aside, it's a really smooth and fluid experience. I can't tell the difference between the OPX and OPO regardless of the extra 5k or so in Antutu. They did a really good job with the hardware and software for a nice user experience.

Agreed with everyone!
I dont know why antutu benchmark is low on this device, it runs smooth and neverlags till now, even tough i have filled my device with all the daily apps i need ,
If u ask me, i guess oxygen os is again to be blamed here,
I m not sure about this, but on my previous device some custom rom offers a difference of almost 5-6 k. So i believe an update or custom rom might enhance the score,
But still antutu benchmark dosent matter to me if my device is running smoothly??

Yup ur right Oxygen OS is the enemy here... Can't wait for custom ROMs

do the benchmarks change after flashing the custom kernel? If so, can someone upload a pic of the new benchmarks and see how it compares?

NekoXiu said:
do the benchmarks change after flashing the custom kernel? If so, can someone upload a pic of the new benchmarks and see how it compares?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here you go on default settings of blu_spark v25 kernel

loveboy_lion said:
Here you go on default settings of blu_spark v25 kernel
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, seems like benchmark didn't go up by much but the performance definitely is better !

41k

My antutu benchmark was 40801 with the stock kernel and stock cpu&gpu governor.
Changing both the CPU and GPU governors (on stock kernel) let me reach 43375.
I think there's room for further optimization.
By the way, the SOC version is nether AA or AB, since the complete code is
MSM8974PRO-AA,
just as this is a sort of "pro" version. In the table, the AA GPU frequency is 400 MHz, whereas in the OPX it is 578 MHz. I looks like qualcomm produced a newer version of the SOC, unsurprisingly the cited article, more than 1.5 years old, may didn't notice this.

Wow, my LG G2 is slightly faster? Disappointing because I got an invite and was going to buy one. Hmmmmm.

len_smith said:
Wow, my LG G2 is slightly faster? Disappointing because I got an invite and was going to buy one. Hmmmmm.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't hold to much stock in what the benchmarks have to say. On my one plus one some of the laggiest kernel's gave the best scores.
Though having said that has anyone looked in to the voltage tables and CPU binning? I suspect there is more useful information there than a whole bunch of benchmark scores.
I have always regarded CPU benchmarks to be more about management of heat and thermal throttling than user performance.
For example my old lg g2 would let the CPU bake at about 72° where as on my one plus one the CPU is pretty much brick walled at about 60°, thanks to my kernels very conservative thermal profile.
The result is disappointing benchmark scores of around 32-38 antutu's. But in day to day use the one plus one is much smoother than my old g2.
I could install the original cm12s and start scoring about 51 antutu's, but in day to day use that ROM is a lag monster in comparison to what I have now. Also I prefer not to thermally stress my phone to much with hot CPU's. That's what killed my g2.

SD865 performance throttled to match Exynos990

It seems that Samsung might be throttling the SD865 performance to decrease the gap between it and the Exynos version. Check this video to see how the SD S20ultra compares to other SD865 phones in the market right now, such a gap indeed.

Deleted.

Also check out this Antutu benchmark score from my Exynos S20U.

mohammed510 said:
Also check out this Antutu benchmark score from my Exynos S20U.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is this a freezer job?

mohammed510 said:
Also check out this Antutu benchmark score from my Exynos S20U.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
how did you get such a high score? mine doesn't go higher than 527k

This is pretty ordinary if Samsung is throttling the s20 865... Definitely a dog act
I just ordered a G9880 from hong kong... Maybe I should cancel my order..
---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 PM ----------
Any throttling will be via the kernel wont it? Can any developers tell us if there is anything that we should know about???

cheetah2k said:
This is pretty ordinary if Samsung is throttling the s20 865... Definitely a dog act
I just ordered a G9880 from hong kong... Maybe I should cancel my order..
---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 PM ----------
Any throttling will be via the kernel wont it? Can any developers tell us if there is anything that we should know about???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most likely a kernel thing. Some, if not all bootloaders in the SD version can't be unlocked, so nothing can be done about it (like flashing a custom kernel that won't throttle the chip)..

Then the gap of battery life will be even bigger. 865 will be even more efficient after throttling

I think you guys being paranoid on the throttling thing. But me and another guy ran 3dmark benchmark on my Snapdragon vs his Exynos and my scores were better. So if they are throttling the SD it still kicking Exynos butt! Get the 3dmark app off playstore and run slingshot extreme and post your scores.

Paul_Deemer said:
I think you guys being paranoid on the throttling thing. But me and another guy ran 3dmark benchmark on my Snapdragon vs his Exynos and my scores were better. So if they are throttling the SD it still kicking Exynos butt! Get the 3dmark app off playstore and run slingshot extreme and post your scores.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have no clue about the results compared to the 865.....but here are mine.....

lch920619x said:
Then the gap of battery life will be even bigger. 865 will be even more efficient after throttling
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If it's true. Then it might be hard to tell when exactly they started doing it. Might be from the very beginning. Or right after people started signing the petition to stop using Exynos.

Aezhyr said:
how did you get such a high score? mine doesn't go higher than 527k
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How did you get such a high score? Mine doesn't go higher than 474k

[/COLOR]
Kjam33 said:
How did you get such a high score? Mine doesn't go higher than 474k
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
photoshop

Duncan1982 said:
Have no clue about the results compared to the 865.....but here are mine.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hate how you can't just upload a photo directly. Anyway I don't have a photo website where I can link to my screenshot so will just type this out manually.
SM-G988U1
April 4, 2020 23:19
Overall score 9251
Graphics score 12477
Graphics test 1 (FPS) 72.60
Graphics test 2 (FPS) 43.30
Physics score 4856
Physics test 1 (FPS) 84.90
Physics test 2 (FPS) 53.20
Physics test 3 (FPS) 28.90

I don't think Samsung is intentionally throttling performance of Snapdragon 865 units. Samsung has been traditionally conservative (aka "non-aggressive") in performance tweaking. That means they uses the reference best Q (energy efficiency) tweaks from Qualcomm. However some OEMs (like Xiaomi, Realme and Oneplus) are known to be more aggressive in performance tweaking. They are more willing to sacrifice thermal/energy efficiency to get better perf/scores. It is unfair to compare Samsung devices with them and say "Samsung throttle Snapdragon to make Exynos not to look so bad". (You will probably get the same results when comparing Samsung's older devices with other OEM's older devices.)
Plus, Samsung devices get some crappy special security additions which impair performance and their software quality is kinda mediocre when it comes to performance optimization.
BTW, for S20 series, "Optimized" power mode is actually a power saving mode. Only "High Performance" mode enables full power of the phone.

Some say, if you get the Exynos S20U then what you're really getting is just a S20U "Lite". But we can now see the same on the SD865 version. What they are getting is a SD865 "Lite". Regardless if Samsung is intentionally doing it or not. Seems we are all on the same boat.

Thank you for this post. Haven't laughed so hard in ages. Enjoy your phone, speed tests are absolutely [emoji817] percent worthless!!!
Sent from my SM-G988U1 using Tapatalk

Another video. But this time the SD S20ultra score is even lower at 534k! Wow!

If you like score buy a red magic!

mohammed510 said:
Some say, if you get the Exynos S20U then what you're really getting is just a S20U "Lite". But we can now see the same on the SD865 version. What they are getting is a SD865 "Lite". Regardless if Samsung is intentionally doing it or not. Seems we are all on the same boat.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My SD Ultra Lite still faster than a EXYNOS Ultra Lite. Plus it runs cooler and battery life is better. So no I'm not in the same boat. Waving to Mohammed as I leave his boat in my wake.