Related
So we all know the Nexus S has a 1Ghz Cortex A8 Hummingbird CPU, which sounds unimpressive considering the Nexus One has a 1Ghz Snapdragon QSD 8250, but it's a known fact that clock speed often has little to do with actual computational power. Qualitative previews have said that the Nexus S "flies," but I'd like to see something more in the numbers. If anyone has a demo device, could you run a few benchmarks? Or perhaps comment on performance after quick opening/closing several computationally intensive applications?
QuacoreZX said:
So we all know the Nexus S has a 1Ghz Cortex A8 Hummingbird CPU, which sounds unimpressive considering the Nexus One has a 1Ghz Snapdragon QSD 8250, but it's a known fact that clock speed often has little to do with actual computational power. Qualitative previews have said that the Nexus S "flies," but I'd like to see something more in the numbers. If anyone has a demo device, could you run a few benchmarks? Or perhaps comment on performance after quick opening/closing several computationally intensive applications?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1gb humingbird is fast as galaxy S and iphone 4. both which are like 30% or more faster then snapdragon
I think the key improvement is in graphics performance. Here is a comparison.
QuacoreZX said:
So we all know the Nexus S has a 1Ghz Cortex A8 Hummingbird CPU, which sounds unimpressive considering the Nexus One has a 1Ghz Snapdragon QSD 8250, but it's a known fact that clock speed often has little to do with actual computational power. Qualitative previews have said that the Nexus S "flies," but I'd like to see something more in the numbers. If anyone has a demo device, could you run a few benchmarks? Or perhaps comment on performance after quick opening/closing several computationally intensive applications?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The S5PC11x (Hummingbird) has 2x the memory bandwidth of the MSM8250.
The MSM8250 gets about 2x the floating point performance of the S5PC11x.
I believe the SGX540 GPU in S5PC11x is on the whole a bit faster than the GPU in the 8250, but I don't have hard numbers on that in front of me. They're architecturally different GPUs and will have different strengths and weaknesses.
It's really hard to do a good apples to apples comparison of different SoCs -- memory interconnect, cache sizes, ARM architecture version, GPU, etc, etc all play into overall system performance.
Gingerbread, overall, tends to be faster than Froyo on the same hardware.
Not really too familiar with this stuff, but will the JIT compiler being optimized for snapdragon instruction set make a huge difference still? My Vibrant plays games way better than the MT4G (imo) but scores terribly on Linpack and is terribly slow at opening applications and things vs. the MT4G.
Read the post above you. Linpack is mainly a benchmark for numerical performance(floating point etc), where the Snapdragon chips are MUCH better.
But the Hummingbird(PowerVR) GPU is better than the Adreno GPU found in the Snapdragon line. That's why the gaming performance of your Vibrant is better than the MT4G.
Ronaldo_9 said:
1gb humingbird is fast as galaxy S and iphone 4. both which are like 30% or more faster then snapdragon
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
PhoenixFx said:
I think the key improvement is in graphics performance. Here is a comparison.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, just anecdotally, hummingbird is MUCH faster than snapdragon IMHO
galaxyS/NS SGX540= 90 million triangles/sec
HTC G2 Adreno 205 =44 million triangles/sec
Nexus one = Adreno 200 = 22 million triangles/sec
nexus S is running on the fastest GPU out now. And another good thing about running on power VR GPU is that iphone runs on one also so when lazy iphone porting happens you will have optimal performance running on that GPU than you would on Adreno
Ive noticed this especially on gameloft games
Trust me im on a vibrant and came from nexus one with out a doubt the nexus S GPU smokes nexus one GPU even out performance 2nd gen snapdragon
Hummingbird > all atm.
Orion will be the same.
Don't make pre-assumptions about the dual core chips.. Orion has good competition from the TI OMAPS line.. Qualcomm looks like they'll stay behind GPU wise though.
Plus the Sound Quality of the Hummingbird chip is awesome. MUCH better than the Snapdragon chips.
Also, you have to be cautious of manufacturer specs for GPU pixels/sec and triangles/sec -- the "box numbers" are always under optimal conditions and often not representative of real workloads.
For modern non-fixed-pipe GPUs (gl ES 2.x, etc) compute capabilities (how many shader ops / pixel/ etc you can get away with) factor in as well.
Depending on what your workload is like (geometry heavy? fill heavy? texture heavy? shader heavy?) you will see different strengths and weaknesses when comparing GPUs.
All that said, the SGX540 is indeed quite snappy.
chip
I agree the sound chip is good in the NS, as is the GPU
I am sick of everyone thinking the upcoming dual-core devices will blow away tegra 2.
Tegra 2 vs Dual Core A5 (Ipad 2)
A lot of talk about Andntech OpenGL benchmark trumping Tegra 2, but what about Stockfish and Benchit Pi where A5 got slaughtered (PC Magazine)? With half the RAM and lower clock I don't see this thing smoking Tegra 2 in all benchmarks, or real life CPU situations.
Tegra 2 vs Exynos (Some Galaxy S2)
Lower benchmarks in Smartbench Gaming. Plus there is early benchmarks of Quadrant scores of 2100 tablets running the Exynos 4210. There is a reason why Samsung Galaxy S2 is including Tegra 2 in some regions.
Androidevolution.."One negative surprise on the S2 so far has been the level of GPU performance. So far, most of the early benchmark shows that Exynos 4210 isn’t up to par when it comes to the GPU performance. This is strange given that Samsung was leading the market when they introduced the previous generation SoC ...... Smartbench 2011 GPU numbers are once again, very disappointing"
Tegra 2 vs Dual Core-Snapdragon (HTC Pyramid)
This thing got smoked in Smartbench with gaming and productivity.
" Their tests confirm that the Pyramid indeed houses a dual-core chip, but the popular Smarbench 2011 shows a CPU and GPU that simply don’t hold up to the Tegra 2 chip found in the LG Optimus 2X and Motorola Atrix 4G"
Something to remember, Tegra may be the fastest, but........ Just like a computer in your house the slowest component is the driver or the memory storage is usually the one that slows it down or the motherboard. So having the fastest cpu makes your bench look good but in practical use it is not better performance.
If the sole purpose is to game then, yeah ok that may be a winner, but get real, using the phone for gaming is such a waste of technology
Mind you synthetic benchmarks aren't the best way to show performance, quadrant and linpack are both easy to inflate scores just by changing a single value. As for ram, it's hard to compare ram seeing that Ios and Android handles memory differently.
vbetts said:
Mind you synthetic benchmarks aren't the best way to show performance, quadrant and linpack are both easy to inflate scores just by changing a single value. As for ram, it's hard to compare ram seeing that Ios and Android handles memory differently.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1. Synthetic benchmarks are not a good indicator of real world performance.
ive done so many benchmarks on htc sensation nd gs2..but i still find the gs2 win by a huge margin...but on the other hand..the anandtech benchmark on 1.5ghz msm 8660 showed that it beats all the other gpu's such as mali 400 with its adreno 220...but still y cant it cant beat up the gs2? what is the main reason for this?? and is the msm 8660 on cdma evo 3d is jus d same as 8260 except for cdma connectivity? or it has its differences?? will there b a better benchmark on msm8260 anywhere soon?? even the latest smartbench 2011 which supports dual cores also lists the 8260 at lower benchmark!!! sum1 plz explain,,,...and y msm 8660 is way powerfull than exynos though it shows low benchmarks??
The Exynos is IMO an overall better processor than any Qualcomms. The Exynos is a ARM Cortex-A9 processor while the Sensation's is from what I understand similar to ARM Cortex-A8 architecture. The only advantages the Sensation's processor has over the GS2's are on paper: the Adreno 220 GPU is supposedly better, and the Sensation has asynchronous cores, which the GS2 doesn't have. Otherwise, I don't really know what makes the Exynos better, and I also don't know what the difference is between the Sensation and Evo 3D units.
the 8660 is the CDMA version of the 8260
I don't put alot of stock into benchmarks, and very few are accurate because they can't truly read dual cores.
To the two noobs in post 1 and post 2
The Sensation processor really isnt inferior compared to the SGS2
Why do i say that, because your sensation at this moment in your time in your hand is probably ONLY using one core. the 2nd core will be in an idle state and only activate when you need it.
THE SGS2 no matter what u do, both cores will work together, even when your just looking at touchwiz you are using two cores, even with the screen off in your pocket your using two cores, there is no way to turn one off, thus consumes a little more battery.
With the sensation the 2nd core kicks in when you need the power. they do not work together. Currently if you are looking at the dev thread in the development section you will see the progress.
SImpler term
think of a turbocharger
SGS2 uses two turbos continuously,
Sensation uses one turbo but when it needs more power the 2nd turbo kicks in
I'm well aware that no one has really been able to push the Sensation's processor to what it's capable of. That said, I have done my research on the SGS2 and Sensation processors and still believe that the Exynos is superior to the Qualcomm. I am excited to see what the Sensation can do when we can explore its power, but I still think that it will fall a little short of the Exynos because of the similar to A8 vs. A9 architecture. My prediction is that once proper dual-core support comes for us, we will easily be able to get better performance than the SGS2 has stock, but when it comes to fully modded out Sensation vs. fully modded out SGS2, the SGS2 will still be faster.
To use another car analogy, it's like saying "my car isn't inferior" just because if you throw on some bolt-ons you will be able to get marginally better performance than a stock competitor. But, if both cars were to be fully modded (bolt-ons, FI'd, proper custom engine management, better rubber, etc.), the other car would pull ahead. Essentially, I think that the ultimate the SGS2 can achieve is greater than the ultimate that the Sensation can achieve (but it won't be by much once proper support comes out).
Exynos's A9 has shorter pipelines and is fully out of order and the Sensation's Adreno, despite being faster, has to render at a higher resolution.
Sure, the Qualcomm may win some synthetic benchmarks, but the A9 is still faster due to a better architecture. Same way how K8 was better than Netburst despite the latter having higher clocks, cache, etc, but its deep pipeline was ultimately one of its bigger flaws.
The A9 will always have a 20-25% performance benefit over the A8 if they are running at the same clock speed. The Scorpion architecture is based off of the A8, but it also has some A9 elements because there's so such thing as a dual-core A8 processor. The performance of the Scorpion is somewhere in between an A8 and an A9 because of this. The Exynos at its current state inside of the GSII is clocked at the same speed as the MSM8x60 inside of the Sensation and EVO 3D which is why it has a performance advantage. If it were clocked at 1.5 GHz, then the MSM8x60 would probably have the same type of performance, if not better.
Anand Tech said:
From a CPU standpoint, Apple has a performance advantage at the same clock speed, but Qualcomm runs its cores at a higher clock. NVIDIA claimed that the move to an out-of-order architecture in the A9 was good for a 20% increase in IPC. Qualcomm has a 20% clock speed advantage. In most situations I think it's safe to say that the A5 [ARM Cortex-A9] and the APQ8060 [dual-core Scorpion] have equally performing CPUs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hope that helped.
thank u so much to all of u guys out here...!! nd from wat ive studies...as u all said the msm8660 in sensation nd evo 3d uses only 1 core and the 2nd strts oly wen needed thanks to the asynchronous architecture of the 8660..!! and the cpu nd gpu of sg2 is jus "ordinary" as compared to 8660 though it has a9 architecture...and 8660 isnt a a9 nor an a8..its different..it may resemble a8 but its different..i has the advantages of both a8 nd a9....check the anandtech review of 8660 along with the review of exynos side by side then u will know what really has the power...the latest optimus 3d's chipset matches to that of qualcomm with a great score in GLegypt.. thanks alot for all of u guys..
I really feel the benchmarks are pointless as they never relate to real world use. Who here could possibly use the CPU like the benchmark can?
After the 2.3.4 update, my phone is faster. The web browsing is twice as fast for me!
I eagerly await CM7 but really dont think it can improve my phone that much more. I am stock, rooted, S-OFF and use ADW EX along with Sense 3.0 FROZEN solid. My battery life (chichitec) is more than I need with moderate use. I like to charge my phone at night while I sleep, so if it lasts me until I am done for the day...GREAT!
At this point, when I look at the SGS2, I feel my phone works just as well but looks 100 times better!
I do feel that the Sensation CPU will wind up outperforming the SGS2 once it is used like it should be...
Matt
It doesnt matter if msm8260 is better than exynos or adreno 220 is better than mali 400, the only thing that matters is real life performance and Samsung optimized their devices better than htc. If only htc take the time to better optimized their drivers and such it would be a faster and better device than samsung. HTC already wins hands down when it comes to design and choice of materials,too bad they are too lazy to optimize for a more superior experience.
brusko1972 I agree with your point that Samsung hardware and software collaboration that makes Samsung efficient than HTC. HTC need to work on hardware and software match to improve their performance specially with power efficiency and distribution. HTC Sense UI is quite heavy and more power and hardware consuming where as Touchwiz is very light UI. That may be also the reasons for low benchmarking results.
Seems with every smartphone that comes to the USA it gets some sort of Snapdragon Processor by Qualcomm and people do nothing but complain. So how does this Snapdragon S4 processor compare to every other dual-core processor out there and even the Tegra 3? Looked up some benchmarks and both seem to have their advantages and disadvantages. But what I really want to know is which one is better for real world performance, such as battery life, transitional effects, and launching apps. Couple people said Sense 4 is very smooth and "has LITTLE to no lag"? How does this processor display web pages in Chrome?
Read the thread "Those of your who are waiting too compare GSIII to HTC One X" in this forum. It only has about 6 pages but has a ton of information. Short answer is that the Qualcomm chip kicks serious ass.
Sent from my Desire HD using XDA
shaboobla said:
Short answer is that the Qualcomm chip kicks serious ass.
Sent from my Desire HD using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
After reading through that thread I'm still not entirely clear. Seems the Tegra is better for gaming?
MattMJB0188 said:
After reading through that thread I'm still not entirely clear. Seems the Tegra is better for gaming?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes and no, the tegra 3 does have a better gpu so in theory, better games. however, game makers cater to the mass. most androids that are active are mid-range, android 2.2 or 2.3, have a resolution of 480x800, and last years (or older) processors. although most will be made to work on the t3 and s4, it will be compatibility issues, not optimization. nvidia will have a couple games "t3 only" but even those will be made to work on other phones. now that ics is cleaning up some of the splintering of apps, we'll see some better options on both fields.
in short, yes the t3 is a better gaming chip. but for the battery life, games available, and current bugs i would suggest the s4. i may change my mind when the refreshs come out q3-4, we'll see.
MattMJB0188 said:
After reading through that thread I'm still not entirely clear. Seems the Tegra is better for gaming?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct. However, most games are not optimized to utilize the Tegra to its fullest potential. That should change by the end of the year. The other point is that the S4 is just as good as the Tegra un terms of gaming performance. IMO, you should decide between these 2 processors by looking at the main area where the S4 truly has the advantage thus far, and that is battery life. So far, the battery life advantage goes to the S4. Just read the battery life threads in this forum and for the international X. It took a few updates to the Transformer Prime to start having pretty good battery life. The One X, will get better in that department with a couple more updates for battery optimization. The S4 starts with great battery life and will get even better in that department.
Sent from my HTC Vivid using XDA app
I say the snapdragon S4 is a better chip right now. The tegra 3 gpu is great and with the tegra zone games it really looks great. But he 4 cores CPU is really for heavy multitasking so you candivise the work between all four cores. They are A9 cores vs the custom qualcomm which is close to A15. It mans that for single threaded task and multi threaded task the snapdragon will whoop tegra 3' ass. Opening an app, scrolling through that app sect... also browser performance is slightly better on the qualcomm chip. Basically tegra 3 can do lots of things at the same time with decent speed vs the S4 chip which can do 1 or few more things at lighting speed.
The S4 is almost 2x faster than any other dual core out there. Anandtech did a few nice articles on the S4, including benchmarks vs tegra 3.
In real use, the S4 should be much better, because not all apps are multithreaded for 4 cores. The S4 completely kicks the Tegra 3's ass in singlethreaded benchmarks. I also expect the S4 to be better at power management, because it is made on 28nm node, instead of 40 nm, so its more compact and efficient.
About 23 I'd say
Sent from my SGH-I997 using xda premium
Here is a comparison benchmark by someone from Reddit.
Benchmark S4 Krait Tegra 3
Quadrant 5016 4906
Linpack Single 103.11 48.54
Linpack Multi 212.96 150.54
Nenamark 2 59.7fps 47.6fps
Nenamark 1 59.9fps 59.5fps
Vellamo 2276 1617
SunSpider 1540.0ms 1772.5ms
Sadly, can't do much for the formatting. Enjoy.
The difference in DMIP's is where the S4 really whomps on the T3. All the T3 has going for it at the moment is it's GPU. If you don't care about some additional gaming prowess, the S4 is the way to go.
tehdef said:
Here is a comparison benchmark by someone from Reddit.
Benchmark S4 Krait Tegra 3
Quadrant 5016 4906
Linpack Single 103.11 48.54
Linpack Multi 212.96 150.54
Nenamark 2 59.7fps 47.6fps
Nenamark 1 59.9fps 59.5fps
Vellamo 2276 1617
SunSpider 1540.0ms 1772.5ms
Sadly, can't do much for the formatting. Enjoy.
The difference in DMIP's is where the S4 really whomps on the T3. All the T3 has going for it at the moment is it's GPU. If you don't care about some additional gaming prowess, the S4 is the way to go.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to add to that and to be fair, S4 is at around 7000 at antutu benchmark while tegra 3 is at around 10000. I still prefer the S4
Eh...
It wins in 1 benchmark specifically enabled to take advantage of more than 2 cores. So if you want to play tegrazone games and have some basic lag, the T3 is for you. If you want to have a near flawless phone experience, and have decreased graphical performance in some wanna be console games, then the S4 is the way to go.
Actually you wont really notice the lack of graphics performance on the snapdragon s4. Its about 10% slower in most benchmarks but outperforms the tegra3 in a few as well. However i have a sensation xl with the adreno 205 which is only a quarter as fast as the adreno 225 and all games including deadspace, frontline, blood glory runs smoothly on it. To say the snapdragon s4 is inferior because of the slower Adreno 225 is really nit picking to me. For me bigger reason to choose one graphics chip over another is flash performance and this is where the exynos mali 400 kicks the adreno 225 in the balls. It handles 1080p youtube videos in browser without a hiccup while the 225 chokes even on 720p content.
Let me answer this. How good is it? More than good enough. Almost all apps and games are catered to weaker phones so the T3 and S4 are both more than good enough.
And my two cents, the S4 beats tegra 3
MattMJB0188 said:
Seems with every smartphone that comes to the USA it gets some sort of Snapdragon Processor by Qualcomm and people do nothing but complain. So how does this Snapdragon S4 processor compare to every other dual-core processor out there and even the Tegra 3? Looked up some benchmarks and both seem to have their advantages and disadvantages. But what I really want to know is which one is better for real world performance, such as battery life, transitional effects, and launching apps. Couple people said Sense 4 is very smooth and "has LITTLE to no lag"? How does this processor display web pages in Chrome?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let me start by saying I'm not a pro when it comes to electronics but I do have an understanding on the subject.
The thing to realize about these processors, and most other processors available today, is that the s4 is based on the cortex a15 while the tegra 3 along with the new Samsung are based on the a9. The a15, at the same Hz and die size is 40% faster than the a9.
S4 = dual core Cortex A15 @ 1.5GHz - 28NM
Tegra3 = quad core Cortex A9 @ 1.5GHz - 40NM
Exynos 4(Samsung) = quad core Cortex A9 @ 1.5GHz - 32NM
S4 so far, in theory, is 40% faster per core, but having two less. Individual apps will run faster unless they utilize all four cores on the tegra3. Because the s4 has a smaller die size, it will consume less energy per core.
The actual technology behind these chips that the manufacturers come up with will also affect the performance output, but the general idea is there. Hope that helps to understand a little better how the two chips will differ in performance.
Sent from my shiny One XL
The S4 compared to the Tegra3 says it all. dualcore that beats a quadcore in almost everything.
Intel released the first native dual core processor in 2006 and shortly thereafter released a quad core which was basically two dual cores fused together (this is what current ARM quads are like).
That was 6 years ago and these days pretty much all new desktop computers come with quad cores while laptops mostly stick with dual. Laptops make up the biggest share of PC sales so for your everyday PC usage, you'll be more than comfortable with a dual core.
You really can't assume mobile SoCs will follow the same path, but it's definitely something to consider. I think dual core A15-based SoCs will still rule the day this year and next at the very least.
I was really on the fence about the X or the XL. But the S4 got me. Not having 32GB is already bugging me. But the efficiency (and my grandfathered unlimited data paired with Google Music) is definitely worth the sacrifice. Very happy so far! Streaming Slacker, while connected to my A2DP stereo, running GPS was great. I'm not a huge gamer though. I miss Super Mario Bros being the hottest thing!
krepler said:
Let me start by saying I'm not a pro when it comes to electronics but I do have an understanding on the subject.
The thing to realize about these processors, and most other processors available today, is that the s4 is based on the cortex a15 while the tegra 3 along with the new Samsung are based on the a9. The a15, at the same Hz and die size is 40% faster than the a9.
S4 = dual core Cortex A15 @ 1.5GHz - 28NM
Tegra3 = quad core Cortex A9 @ 1.5GHz - 40NM
Exynos 4(Samsung) = quad core Cortex A9 @ 1.5GHz - 32NM
S4 so far, in theory, is 40% faster per core, but having two less. Individual apps will run faster unless they utilize all four cores on the tegra3. Because the s4 has a smaller die size, it will consume less energy per core.
The actual technology behind these chips that the manufacturers come up with will also affect the performance output, but the general idea is there. Hope that helps to understand a little better how the two chips will differ in performance.
Sent from my shiny One XL
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
correct me if im wrong but all 3 are A9 based including the S4. the first A15 will be the Exynos 5250, a dual core.
Tankmetal said:
correct me if im wrong but all 3 are A9 based including the S4. the first A15 will be the Exynos 5250, a dual core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is inaccurate.
The Exynos 4 and the Tegra 3 are based on the ARM A9 reference design.
The Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 is "roughly equivalent" to the A15, but not based on the A15. The same was true for Qualcomm's old S3 (which was equivalent to something between the A8 and A9 design)
One thing that most people don't realize is that Qualcomm is one of the very few companies that designs its own processors based on the ARM instruction set, and while S4's is similar to the A15 in terms of architecture, it's actually arguably better than the ARM reference design (e.g. asynchronous clocking of each core which is a better design than the big.LITTLE or +1 design).
Hey guys I just currently pre-ordered the Pixel and am a little worried about the benchmarks that have been released. Do you guys think these are accurate? On some of the articles I have read the clock speeds they are claiming it is running are the speeds of the 820 not the 821. I mean the 6p scored higher on benchmarks than the pixel. How can these be right with the newest processor?
Look at the hands on videos. You won't be worried about performance after that. Looks like Google has done a lot of optimization. Benchmarks don't tell the whole story.
Well, seeing as the 821 is to an 820 the same as an 801 is to an 800... i.e., its the same damned chip, not really sure why you would expect there to be a dramatic performance change?
The 821 shows a peak cpu frequency spec a bit higher than 820, but this doesn't mean that everyone who uses it is obligated to use the highest frequency.
So here is a little bit of information about CPU manufacturing;
Every CPU core is a little bit different. Some of them are stable at lower voltages and higher frequencies than others. The CPU specification indicates a MINIMUM frequency that it MUST be stable at while operating within the designed power envelope. In other words, another CPU may be able to operate at the higher frequency, but it won't do so within the designed power envelope -- it will require OVER VOLTING.
The CPUs are separated according to their levels of stability. Call that "binning". One of these CPUs that bins poorly might be called a Snapdragon 820, and one that bins well will be called a Snapdragon 821. Within each model name, there are further levels of distinction that are used to set the baseline voltages being applied, in order to minimize the voltage that they are fed, such that you can reduce the power consumption as much as possible.
So you can think of an underclocked Snapdragon 821 as a SUPER DUPER AWESOME binned Snapdragon 820, operating at a lower voltage, and therefore consuming less power.
Don't worry about benchmarks! What it matters is the SoC you have, how well disipated is the SoC, and most important, how the software is done (kernel, drivers, android, binaries, etc).
There could be many devices with same SoC and better scores, but at the end, they lag more etc.
For instance, my previous Z5 Compact (with Sony Android, which is similar to AOSP) and a much better SoC than my current N5X, imo lags more than my current Nexus 5X with a worse SoC.
There's no way you can choose a device based on the benchmark, you must try both devices by yourself (ideally with your apps) and see the difference.
Giving another example...A Nexus 5 2013, is extremely fast in KK (with ART) and even in MM (but not in Lollipop).
However, it still throttles much more than a 5X because of the frequency, nm, and many other things.
doitright said:
Well, seeing as the 821 is to an 820 the same as an 801 is to an 800... i.e., its the same damned chip, not really sure why you would expect there to be a dramatic performance change?
The CPUs are separated according to their levels of stability. Call that "binning". One of these CPUs that bins poorly might be called a Snapdragon 820, and one that bins well will be called a Snapdragon 821. Within each model name, there are further levels of distinction that are used to set the baseline voltages being applied, in order to minimize the voltage that they are fed, such that you can reduce the power consumption as much as possible.
So you can think of an underclocked Snapdragon 821 as a SUPER DUPER AWESOME binned Snapdragon 820, operating at a lower voltage, and therefore consuming less power.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There actually are some differences in the 821 vs the 820. It's not the same chip exactly. A pretty great breakdown is here: https://www.gizmotimes.com/comparison/snapdragon-821-vs-snapdragon-820/16403
But essentially, slightly better power savings, improved camera performance, and a VR SDK.
Thanks for all the replies guys. I was just confused as to why a chip the snapdragon says should have a 10% increase in performance over the 820 is benchmarking lower than most 820's.
Good info, thanks guys!
We know nothing yet, time will tell obviously. The videos in the early previews look great, but we'll see under heavy load how these perform.
jbrooks58 said:
Hey guys I just currently pre-ordered the Pixel and am a little worried about the benchmarks that have been released. Do you guys think these are accurate? On some of the articles I have read the clock speeds they are claiming it is running are the speeds of the 820 not the 821. I mean the 6p scored higher on benchmarks than the pixel. How can these be right with the newest processor?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd like it if you could actually find something that claims that the 6p is anywhere near pixel in performance benchmarks. Reality is that it is more than 2x faster across the board.
As far as comparing it with 820, there are two things you can accomplish with the "1" -- more speed, or less power. They seem to be opting for the latter.
All the benchmarks I could find show it against either apple, or samsuck. Samsuck is well known for building TO the benchmarks (sometimes even *cheating*), which causes their scores to be unnaturally high, and comparing against apple is just stupid, since there is no baseline between them due to architectural differences and a complete lack of a common software stack. In other words, in a comparison between pixel and anything made by apple, you could have a smaller number, despite *actually* being considerably higher. The number doesn't equate across platforms.
---------- Post added at 08:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------
jbrooks58 said:
Thanks for all the replies guys. I was just confused as to why a chip the snapdragon says should have a 10% increase in performance over the 820 is benchmarking lower than most 820's.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That 10% is an interesting figure.
The SD820 has clock rates of 2.15 GHz on 2 cores, and 1.59 GHz on the other 2 cores.
Multiply by 1.1 (add 10%) and you get 2.365 and 1.749 GHz.
The SD821 has clock rates of 2.34 GHz on 2 cores and 2.19 GHz on the other 2 cores.
On those first two cores, that is marginally more the 10% higher clock rate. On the other 2 cores, it is considerably more than 10%. Note that a system's performance does NOT scale linearly with CPU frequency.
The other thing to note is that the pixel specs show it operating at 2x2.15+2x1.6 GHz, just like the SD820.
So what we can read from that, is that the pixel's CPUs are **underclocked**. That will allow it to use less battery power, and run cooler, while still running *really really fast*. If you want more, unlock and clock it up to 821 spec, I think you will find that this phone is an "overclocker's" dream, even if it isn't really overclocking.
That 10% figure comes directly from Qualcomm's publications on performance for the 821 vs 820.
craig0r said:
There actually are some differences in the 821 vs the 820. It's not the same chip exactly. A pretty great breakdown is here: https://www.gizmotimes.com/comparison/snapdragon-821-vs-snapdragon-820/16403
But essentially, slightly better power savings, improved camera performance, and a VR SDK.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good read, thanks.