Database Info

[Q] Samsung Galaxy S2: t989 or i9100

I live in Canada and I just bought (finally bought) a Samsung Galaxy s2. The version I bought is with Telus, which is identical to the T-Mobile version - t989- in the US.
The phone is great and all but I do notice that at some times it can be a LITTLE laggy here and there. I have also read that the Exynos processor on the international version (i9100) is a lot better then the Snapdragon processor on mine.
Luckily Bell, a carrier in canada, got a version of the Galaxy S2 identical to the international version but is called i9100m instead of i9100.
I just got the phone so I can return my t989 and go buy the i9100, but I want to know if it is really worth it. The most important thing on a phone for me would have to be a phone that runs smooth as possible, this mean no lag.
Basically which is better in your opinion: Exynos or Snapdragon CPU?
Thanks for any help you can provide

If a .2" extra screen size doesn't matter to you, the i9100 is much better. It's thinner, and has the physical home button. While the hardware on both are capable, the T989D is bottlenecked by the lack of a dedicated lane for the GPU and hence the slower UI rendering.

t989 is much better ...im have 2 phones and really t989 is better

push101 said:
I live in Canada and I just bought (finally bought) a Samsung Galaxy s2. The version I bought is with Telus, which is identical to the T-Mobile version - t989- in the US.
The phone is great and all but I do notice that at some times it can be a LITTLE laggy here and there. I have also read that the Exynos processor on the international version (i9100) is a lot better then the Snapdragon processor on mine.
Luckily Bell, a carrier in canada, got a version of the Galaxy S2 identical to the international version but is called i9100m instead of i9100.
I just got the phone so I can return my t989 and go buy the i9100, but I want to know if it is really worth it. The most important thing on a phone for me would have to be a phone that runs smooth as possible, this mean no lag.
Basically which is better in your opinion: Exynos or Snapdragon CPU?
Thanks for any help you can provide
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have the AT&T SGS2 (Exynos CPU) and it's butter smooth, with no lag at all. Snapdragon CPU's can't hold a candle to the Exynos. Some people rave about the Hercules, but I don't get why. It's slower, has a cheaper CPU, pixelated graphics (bigger screen with same resolution as 4.3"), heavier, thicker...the Exynos equipped SGS2's has a slightly smaller screen (0.2") but is packed with top hardware. IMHO, it's a much better device. Who cares about LTE anyways? (major selling point of the 2nd gen SGS2's) There are no unlimited data plans anymore, so you really can't use it much. Not only that, but LTE is only available in a small handfull of markets. Get the 9100...you won't regret it.
Sent from my Sexynos SGH-i777 using XDA Premium.

galaxy s2 or Skyrocket

What i mostly wanna know is about data seeds. Which ice is better, and pictures a are a must. Speedtest

I was on the same boat as you, an eventually decided to get the SG2 because of the reviews,faster processor, an the Custom ROM's.
This video can help you out, both phones are great an fast just Google this.
Samsung Galaxy S II vs. Skyrocket – Smartphone Smackdown! (Video)

i bought samsung galaxy s2 skyrocket and i returned it and got sgs2 only because of the pictures.. For me I think the picture quality in sgs2 is way better than skyrocket its more crisp and not pixilated.. oh by the way another reason is its hard to text in one hand on skyrocket.

Skyrocket the best!!!!!

They are generally the same phone but the skyrocket is at&t's version of the Samsung Galaxy S II

canyon789 said:
They are generally the same phone but the skyrocket is at&t's version of the Samsung Galaxy S II
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, this is like the 4th thread you commented on and you clearly don't know what you are talking about. The Skyrocket is not AT&Ts version of the SGSII. That would be the I777. The Skyrocket is the LTE version of the SGSII which coincidentally is the same phone (hardware wise) as the T-mobile hercules. OP, if you live in an area that supports LTE, get the skyrocket...if not, get the regular SGSII.

lowandbehold said:
Ok, this is like the 4th thread you commented on and you clearly don't know what you are talking about. The Skyrocket is not AT&Ts version of the SGSII. That would be the I777. The Skyrocket is the LTE version of the SGSII which coincidentally is the same phone (hardware wise) as the T-mobile hercules. OP, if you live in an area that supports LTE, get the skyrocket...if not, get the regular SGSII.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really, T-Mobile's GSII is lacking the LTE bits of the Skyrocket (which makes both not the same hardware-wise), which is AT&T's version for the SGSII LTE.

lolstebbo said:
Not really, T-Mobile's GSII is lacking the LTE bits of the Skyrocket (which makes both not the same hardware-wise), which is AT&T's version for the SGSII LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually the LTE Radio is tucked away in there. Devs are working on the radio situation with that phone. They are the exact same phone. Same body, same guts, different branding. They can flash each others ROM's and radios, but they havent figured out a way to unlock the LTE radio inside of the hercules.

lowandbehold said:
Actually the LTE Radio is tucked away in there. Devs are working on the radio situation with that phone. They are the exact same phone. Same body, same guts, different branding. They can flash each others ROM's and radios, but they havent figured out a way to unlock the LTE radio inside of the hercules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really? [citation needed]

Yes really

galaxy s2 or the note are better than the Skyrocket

2020legig said:
galaxy s2 or the note are better than the Skyrocket
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Better when it comes to screen resolution.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using XDA App

hi there. I have a Samsung Galaxy S2 and would like to Root my device. I downloaded the DXKL3 insecure and original file. I would like to know if it will work as mine is I900DXKF4? it is the closest i could find to my Kernel.
Please advise
D Schrader

Agree, galaxy SII . hands down

definitely Samsung Galaxy S2 for me, way superior

[Q] Admin? Galaxy S III Forums

Aren't there just two models of the SGS3? The International Version and the version with the Qualcomm S4 SoC with 2GB of RAM?
If this is correct, couldn't we have consolidate into two forums (or one with subforums.) You could still have subforums to cover threads for Carrier specific CDMA radios, etc.
I'm worried that I'll miss some good ROMs/kernels and treads from the other 5 fourms if I just hang in the Verizon GS3 forum when my device arrives.
Thanks!

Is the Exynos a waste of time / money?

The legendary Exynos (formerly Orion) we all read so much about a year and a half ago has been on store shelves for quite some time now. While SAMSUNG continues to develop the Exynos architecture - I don't see it catching on to other phones.
Plenty of phones sold by SAMSUNG don't even use the Exynos. It was even stripped from the T-Mobile version of the GS2...
So, is it a complete failure? Should we expect SAMSUNG to just stop development after the GS3 is released worldwide?

whitecrane said:
The legendary Exynos (formerly Orion) we all read so much about a year and a half ago has been on store shelves for quite some time now. While SAMSUNG continues to develop the Exynos architecture - I don't see it catching on to other phones.
Plenty of phones sold by SAMSUNG don't even use the Exynos. It was even stripped from the T-Mobile version of the GS2...
So, is it a complete failure? Should we expect SAMSUNG to just stop development after the GS3 is released worldwide?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Umm, how about no?
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

I hope Samsung will continue to develop their architecture because from what I have seen, it is quite powerful. So do I think it was a complete failure? No.
The thing these days is that it is probably easier and cheaper for companies to just use each other's technology, like the Tegra or TI series, than invest in their own R&D. The majority of phone users are not power users and do not care about specs. If it works well then that is good enough. It is not about pushing boundaries for some.

Exynos is actually one of the best SoC's a phone can have (subject to debate). Samsung doesn't put Exynos in every phone because it's a high-end SoC, so they use it in high-end devices such as the Galaxy S line and the Galaxy Note. Apple's Ax processors are even based on Exynos.
The T-Mobile Galaxy S II, as well as all US Galaxy S III's, have Snapdragons because Exynos does not support LTE nor T-Mobile's HSPA+ 42 and 84 Mbps technology, which US carriers strive to make available to customers. Samsung is working on supporting LTE in future Exynos chips though!
As for other manufacturers not implementing Exynos, I'm just going to make an assumption that Samsung's competitors (Motorola, HTC, etc.) would rather use Nvidia, TI, or Qualcomm's chips instead since they don't sell phones.
So no, Exynos isn't a complete failure at all if you ask me!

But didn't anyone else think that they would be more common by now?
What does the wireless band have to do with SOC? Can't this SOC run any algorithms we want it to?
To me, that's like telling someone they need an AMD CPU to use DSL, and an Intel CPU if they want FiOS. Isn't it just a matter of writing a program to do something?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

whitecrane said:
But didn't anyone else think that they would be more common by now?
What does the wireless band have to do with SOC? Can't this SOC run any algorithms we want it to?
To me, that's like telling someone they need an AMD CPU to use DSL, and an Intel CPU if they want FiOS. Isn't it just a matter of writing a program to do something?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Radio hardware consists of physical transistors. We're not quite at software-defined radio yet.
You DO need different hardware to run DSL vs fios. If Intel built DSL hardware onto its CPU, then you're starting to understand what a SoC is.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using xda app-developers app

ferrocene said:
Radio hardware consists of physical transistors. We're not quite at software-defined radio yet.
You DO need different hardware to run DSL vs fios. If Intel built DSL hardware onto its CPU, then you're starting to understand what a SoC is.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right. Computers aren't built with DSL/FIOS/VDSL/etc. modems in them. That's why we use a DSL modem box and connect to it via ethernet. However, the Exynos SoC has a modem integrated on to it that supports certain bands and technologies. The Snapdragon SoC found in the GS2 and US GS3s does not contain an integrated modem, so there is a modem chip separate on the motherboard that supports the carrier's bands and technologies.
There's a bit of a gray area with this though. Sprint's GS2 has a WiMax modem built onto it even though it still has an Exynos chip. Why we don't do that for LTE and T-Mobile's HSPA+ 42/84 is something I'd like to know lol.

whitecrane said:
The legendary Exynos (formerly Orion) we all read so much about a year and a half ago has been on store shelves for quite some time now. While SAMSUNG continues to develop the Exynos architecture - I don't see it catching on to other phones.
Plenty of phones sold by SAMSUNG don't even use the Exynos. It was even stripped from the T-Mobile version of the GS2...
So, is it a complete failure? Should we expect SAMSUNG to just stop development after the GS3 is released worldwide?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow. Short-sighted/simple-minded enough? :silly:
1) Exynos is not a failure. It's been shipped in literally millions of phones. In-house consumption alone probably makes it one of the most popular SoC's on the market right now.
2) Samsung is the world's largest manufacturer of phones. I doubt they even have the fabrication facilities to make enough Exynos chips to put in all the phones they make. Also remember that although Samsung Semiconductor and Samsung Mobile are both owned by Samsung Electronics, they don't always have completely overlapping goals or business interests. And Samsung Semiconductor is also busy making many other things... like the SoC for the iPhone 3G/3GS/4/4S. Or say the vast share of the world's NAND chips.
3) Samsung has a vested stake in not relying totally on another SoC manufacturer for all their phones. It allows them better leverage with other SoC companies, and prevents them from being "blackmailed" by any one company as a source of mobile CPUs. Even if they only shipped the Exynos in 5% of their devices, it would be enough to help leverage Texas Instruments, Qualcomm, etc.
4) While many of the U.S. variants of Samsung phones don't have the Exynos chip, that's mostly for technical reasons (lack of LTE support in the currently released chips), and probably also partially to increase total yield of produced phones. That's just the U.S. market. There is in fact a world outside the United States, with people, and people who buy phones.
So... long story short: The Exynos is not a failure. And I very much doubt Samsung will be dropping development anytime soon.

Moving this to a correct board (nothing to do with the AT&T SII)...

marcocore said:
Sprint's GS2 has a WiMax modem built onto it even though it still has an Exynos chip. Why we don't do that for LTE and T-Mobile's HSPA+ 42/84 is something I'd like to know lol.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is exactly what I was talking about. When something is missing you simply add it on, as with anything else in computing. I just hope this doesn't go the way of Glide from 3dfx.
Anyway, I'm more "put at ease" with the responses here. Thanks xda.

whitecrane said:
But didn't anyone else think that they would be more common by now?
What does the wireless band have to do with SOC? Can't this SOC run any algorithms we want it to?
To me, that's like telling someone they need an AMD CPU to use DSL, and an Intel CPU if they want FiOS. Isn't it just a matter of writing a program to do something?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK here's my understanding. First all quad core processors are having issues with lte. Second SoC stands for system on a chip. Its how cell phones are so small and thin. But for some reason they are not playing nice to gether. Now Samsung was able to release a variant of sgsiii with its quad core and lte in korea because they kept them separate. But because of this the phone is a little bit thicker then usual.
So they did treat it like a PC and added it like a pci card for desktops. If that helps you understand.
The overall goal is to get it all on one chip. That way it eats up less power and slims down your phone but it is not yet possible. It is being looked into.
Sent from my DROID X2 using XDA

marcocore said:
Exynos is actually one of the best SoC's a phone can have (subject to debate). Samsung doesn't put Exynos in every phone because it's a high-end SoC, so they use it in high-end devices such as the Galaxy S line and the Galaxy Note. Apple's Ax processors are even based on Exynos.
The T-Mobile Galaxy S II, as well as all US Galaxy S III's, have Snapdragons because Exynos does not support LTE nor T-Mobile's HSPA+ 42 and 84 Mbps technology, which US carriers strive to make available to customers. Samsung is working on supporting LTE in future Exynos chips though!
As for other manufacturers not implementing Exynos, I'm just going to make an assumption that Samsung's competitors (Motorola, HTC, etc.) would rather use Nvidia, TI, or Qualcomm's chips instead since they don't sell phones.
So no, Exynos isn't a complete failure at all if you ask me!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not true any more seeing as the Korean GSIII will have a quad core Exynos and LTE.

tbaker077 said:
That's not true any more seeing as the Korean GSIII will have a quad core Exynos and LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was true until Samsung produced their new chip within the past month. A quad core exynos with LTE capabilities.
So, his statement as to why t-mobile didn't use the exynos in the GSII and GSIII is 100% correct.

As I understand more, I have more concerns. Let me just say, I know what a SOC is. I'm not that much of a newbie.
I must wonder why the Exynos couldn't handle the T-Mobile HSPA+ network... It's just not that special. It's just 3G on steroids, and from what I see in the real world benchmarks, it is only a hair faster than AT&T's inferior on paper HSPA+ network. I realize it is a technical limitation (by design?), but wonder why SAMSUNG wasn't able (willing?) to design the Exynos SOC to accept it without a magic modem.
I also wonder how serious SAMSUNG is about Exynos if they're ignoring T-Mobile (shipping their flagship phone with an inferior SOC), and completley ignoring LTE up to only recently in one device that will only sell in one market. If SAMSUNG is serious about Exynos, I would think they woulod at least make it available in every market, accepting every type of radio. Traditional 3G, Wimax (we still have a huge Wimax network in the states that isn't going anywhere soon), LTE, and HSPA+. Does any other SOC standard have radio limitations?
I do not expect SAMSUNG to bundle a seperate modem outside the SOC in every market. In fact, I would think they would only do that in Korea and Japan, where they will likely sell more Exynos devices.
I have one more huge concern then. The GS2 i777 was phased out of most AT&T stores (corporate and otherwise) within 2 months of its release in favor of the GS2 "Skyrocket" with its far inferior SOC. Didn't that thing ship with a SOC based on the Cortex A8? Not even an A9?
It almost seems like my carrier did not want me to have a Galaxy S2 (with an Exynos, anyway). I bought mine on clearance at Best Buy... for $50. Within a month of its release, best buy was selling it for just $50 with a contract renewal - down from $200 just a month sooner? I think they wanted to get ride of the GS2 asap so they could order more Skyrockets.
I just don't think companies are taking Exynos seriously in the USA. Ignoring T-Mobile, ignoring Verizon. The only thing they have done right?? Sprint. Adding the Wimax modem without adding bulk to the phone was a brilliant move. That's how they're gonna sell this thing.

whitecrane said:
I have one more huge concern then. The GS2 i777 was phased out of most AT&T stores (corporate and otherwise) within 2 months of its release in favor of the GS2 "Skyrocket" with its far inferior SOC. Didn't that thing ship with a SOC based on the Cortex A8? Not even an A9?
It almost seems like my carrier did not want me to have a Galaxy S2. I bought mine on clearance at Best Buy... for $50. Within a month of its release, best buy was selling it for just $50 with a contract renewal - down from $200 just a month sooner? I think they wanted to get ride of the GS2 asap so they could order more Skyrockets.
I just don't think companies are taking Exynos seriously in the USA. I'm just glad I own one.
Does anyone know if OMAP's are cheaper to produce? It seems to me that there are far more OMAP devices than anything else out there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When it comes to the carrier they don't care about the hardware, because 99% of the consumers have no clue what exynos, snapdragon or tegra mean. What the normal consumer can comprehend is "Hey, this skyrocket has faster internet". So, LTE has become the selling factor.

lowandbehold said:
When it comes to the carrier they don't care about the hardware, because 99% of the consumers have no clue what exynos, snapdragon or tegra mean. What the normal consumer can comprehend is "Hey, this skyrocket has faster internet". So, LTE has become the selling factor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fair enough, I agree with you. But why clearance the GS2? My market has no LTE, and probably won't for years to come.
My post above this has been edited quite a bit... in case you want to give it a second read... it's entirely related to the subject matter here.

whitecrane said:
Fair enough, I agree with you. But why clearance the GS2? My market has no LTE, and probably won't for years to come.
My post above this has been edited quite a bit... in case you want to give it a second read... it's entirely related to the subject matter here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, but the previous generation exynos processors were not compatible with the AWS frequencies which T-mobile uses. That is why there has never been a T-mobile phone with an exynos. The Skyrocket and the T-mobile GS2 were in production at the same time, so it just seemed right to make 2 of the same exact phone (radios can be flashed on both to work on either network) to save money. Then, AT&T (through the eyes of the average consumer) had a GSII that gets slow internet, and a GSII that gets fast internet. They had to phase one out...it just happened to be the I777. It really makes sense from a business stand point, considering chips are so good these days that one can hardly tell a difference between a snapdragon or an exynos, or even quad core from dual core.

Exynos being crippled?

I understand Exynos doesn't work with US CDMA and that is why the Qualcom versions exist. Is Samsung intentionally crippling it's own CPU to keep things the even? Verizon is EOL on their CDMA network next year really only leaving Sprint. Sprint is the 4th carrier now and only has a 12% market share. Canada is already sunsetting their CDMA too. Sprint has 12% (52 million) market share. Samsung has a 25% of that. At most that's 12 million people and much less since Samsung sales low end phones too.
Kind of silly to have to produce two models to cater to that especially with licensing and the fact that it is their chip.
I ask because I saw a thread suggesting that the camera could shoot much higher speeds on the Exynos, but was software limited.
I just want the best I can get!
Has anyone verified NextRadio and the FM antennae yet?

I'd say there are skeptical things with Qualcomm. They must have some impact on this to sell their chips in the US

ls3mach said:
Has anyone verified NextRadio and the FM antennae yet?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On Snapdragon versions, yes. Exynos versions no (I believe).
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

Exynos 9810 has no modem built in, and CDMA compatibility has nothing to do with why the U. S. market gets the Snapdragon. Luckily Snapdragon 845 is a better SOC than the Exynos 9810 and you can rest assured you are not screwed.

This really ticks me off to hear if it is true. I am from Canada and purchased the international version this time because I read so much that bragged the Exynos version was so much faster than the Snapdragon version. Paid a pretty penny for it too! I do like my phone but my ANTUTU scores don't seem to be as good as those running SD SOC's.

Samsung apparently has a marketing agreement with Qualcomm to not sell phones with Exynos in the U.S. Otherwise, Samsung could certainly build Exynos based phones with CDMA support if they wanted to.

Guys,
Enjoy your phones, they are both more or less equal with Exynos being very slightly faster in CPU intensive tasks and Snapdragon being slightly faster in GPU (gaming) related tasks. In real world, this difference is almost unnoticeable. (0.5 to 1 second faster game launch on SD).
The good thing is that Exynos is only going to get better due to unlocked bootloader and open source development that will follow.

meyerweb said:
Samsung apparently has a marketing agreement with Qualcomm to not sell phones with Exynos in the U.S. Otherwise, Samsung could certainly build Exynos based phones with CDMA support if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How long is that in place?

I was pretty sure samsung would not nerf their own processor but now I'm sure they did. We can all claim it is for battery reasons or something, but I believe that it is so that it can be neck and neck with the snapdragon.
These screenshots were taken a few minutes ago, after I flashed a custom kernel and unrestricted the 4 big cores so they are able to hit 2.9ghz and the little ones 2.0ghz. I believe that 2.7ghz is what was running for most of the benchmarks, but it hits 2.9ghz on the CPU scaling Log.
Exynos is, in fact the second best processor on a smartphone right after the A11 and would most likely match it on geekbench (surpasses it on antutu even stock) if I could lock the frequency at 2.9ghz but minimum can only be set to 2.0ghz and so it goes up and down and there is only the stock governor to choose from and that is utter crap.
Any doubts I'll help as best as I can.

ls3mach said:
How long is that in place?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No idea, I'm afraid.