Database Info

Samsung Captivate -- Wrong Processor?

I hope I am wrong or got the wrong phone or maybe the phone just dynamically clocks itself down to 800 mhz instead of the advertised 1000mhz. When I use Quandrant Standard Edition my Captivate is listed at 800 mhz with a max of 1000mhz. But the cpu is ARMv7 Processor rev 2? Is that right? BogoMIPS is 797.9, and hardware is SGH-I897? is is not supposed to be SGS? Please let me know what you all are getting and what Quadrant Score...my friends Droid X destroys my quadrant score with ~1200, I get only 867. The benchmark really drags during the I/O sections. Help please and share your specs, cause I am feeling a little disappointed.

Dynamically clocking down.

nevermind...I just saw the other thread with this issue.
THREAD ENDED

If this processor is similar in it's capabilites as the qualcom Snapdragon than the processor has the ability to slow down if the higher clock speed is not needed. My N1 can switch it's frequency between 245Mhz and 1Ghz (or 1.1Ghz when overclocked with an upgraded kernel).
Or the software you are using is not reading the correct speed.

ronpinoy253 said:
I hope I am wrong or got the wrong phone or maybe the phone just dynamically clocks itself down to 800 mhz instead of the advertised 1000mhz. When I use Quandrant Standard Edition my Captivate is listed at 800 mhz with a max of 1000mhz. But the cpu is ARMv7 Processor rev 2? Is that right? BogoMIPS is 797.9, and hardware is SGH-I897? is is not supposed to be SGS? Please let me know what you all are getting and what Quadrant Score...my friends Droid X destroys my quadrant score with ~1200, I get only 867. The benchmark really drags during the I/O sections. Help please and share your specs, cause I am feeling a little disappointed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No the specifications are right .. i too ran the benchmark and was puzzled yesterday. You can find that thread in this forum.
Check this video. it explains why captivates score is less than Droid X .. In fact as per the video even though the score is less captivate is in fact a faster phone than Droid X and i am inclined to agree watching video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgoQHxy-0mM
----------------
itzz(AN)dRoiD

[INFO/Q] HTC Sensetion only 1900 points with

smartbench 2011 Productivity test
http://smartphonebenchmarks.com/ind...11:Productivity&filter_cpu=all&filter_gpu=all
gpu score i might understand why its low cos the high res but why the Productivity is so low ?
i guess HTC didnt put faster NAND ROM
Evo3D did 2000
someone maybe know what the problem or cause ?

Proz00 said:
smartbench 2011 Productivity test
http://smartphonebenchmarks.com/ind...11:Productivity&filter_cpu=all&filter_gpu=all
gpu score i might understand why its low cos the high res but why the Productivity is so low ?
i guess HTC didnt put faster NAND ROM
Evo3D did 2000
someone maybe know what the problem or cause ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The reason is...
The CPU is cortex 8.
Tegra 2 and the new Samsung processors are Cortex 9.
Coretex 9 is a PRETTY big improvement over cortex.
Once again HTC is going for garbage hardware
What is in the sensation is 2 Desire HD CPUS oC to 1.2 Ghz + better GPU.
What is in the SGS2 is 2 MUCH better Hummingbird CPUs OC to 1.2 + MUCH better GPU

the cpu is neither a cortex a8 nor a cortex a9. it will provide plenty of performance and will be competitive with other dual cores.
the adreno 220 gpu that comes with the sensation is faster than the mali gpu that comes with the sgs2 when looking at preliminary tests done by anandtech.
whether it will be the fastest or slowest dual core soc will have to wait until its released, and benchmarks often only tell part of the story. but certainly it will provide far more performance than any of the single core soc's we have right now and will provide much satisfaction from its owners.

kaiserkannon said:
the cpu is neither a cortex a8 nor a cortex a9. it will provide plenty of performance and will be competitive with other dual cores.
the adreno 220 gpu that comes with the sensation is faster than the mali gpu that comes with the sgs2 when looking at preliminary tests done by anandtech.
whether it will be the fastest or slowest dual core soc will have to wait until its released, and benchmarks often only tell part of the story. but certainly it will provide far more performance than any of the single core soc's we have right now and will provide much satisfaction from its owners.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huh? I'm confused.
Is the cpu not based on arms cortex a8? Just a slightly modified version. It is identical to the Single core Snapdragon in the Desire HD.
The benchmarks so far don't make it seem too be as competitive as the Tegra 2 OR orion.
Samsung has said that the Mali 400 is MUCH faster then the current hummingbird GPU. Current benchmarks say that it is infact SLOWER...
I doubt samsung would release the Orion with a GPU SLOWER then its previous gen... that just makes no sense. If that is the case then Tegra might be king. If the Mali 400 IS much better tho, samsung will have the best SoC.
The CPU in the Sensation is ROUGHLY... 2.4 ghz. Compare that to the Desire HD stable OC of 1.8 ghz.
What is left to be seen is how much the CPU can be OC'd.
I would think that it would be less then 1.8 ghz each core. But thats yet tooo bee seen.
Regardless of what you think... the HTC sensation CPU will be slower then the competitions.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that the Sensation CPU should have the same battery life as the current single core Snapdragon... however it is pushing more pixels sooo..

Samsung should have mated its Orion to Hummingbird gpu. Hummingbird was great
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App

Maedhros said:
The benchmarks so far don't make it seem too be as competitive as the Tegra 2 OR orion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dunno where you got your information from, but it's very competitive with the Tegra 2. (8660 is the CDMA version of the Sensation's 8260). From these benchmarks, we also know that an overclock of at least 1.5GHz will be perfectly viable--the chip was designed for that anyhow.
Debating A8 vs A9 is a trivial matter, because it's a tiny fraction of the entire picture.

Wondering if cm7 can help the score

First, that Anandtech benchmark is not a good measuring stick. Anandtech benched the MDP that had the 8660 running at 1.5 GHz and 800x480 so the results are higher than what Sensation can achieve because Sensations runs at a lower clock and higher resolution.
Second, Qualcomm 8260/8660 is A8 Cortex. Tegra 2, OMAP4 and Exynos are A9 Cortex based. Claims that Qualcomm doesn't use the ARM architecture is a lie.

Never trust smartbench. Period.
GLbenchmark is more trustworthy.
Sent via psychic transmittion.

t-mizzle said:
First, that Anandtech benchmark is not a good measuring stick. Anandtech benched the MDP that had the 8660 running at 1.5 GHz and 800x480 so the results are higher than what Sensation can achieve because Sensations runs at a lower clock and higher resolution.
Second, Qualcomm 8260/8660 is A8 Cortex. Tegra 2, OMAP4 and Exynos are A9 Cortex based. Claims that Qualcomm doesn't use the ARM architecture is a lie.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The scorpion core in snapdragon socs use the arm v7 instruction set that both the a8 and a9 use, but it is not an a8 or an a9, it is qualcomms own design.
And personally I like comparing the different chips in these phones at the same resolution to see which chip has better performance on a level playing field. But yeah the sensation will have a bit worse performance thanks to higher resolution. Like the atrix vs optimus 2x. But to me the higher resolution is completely worth the hit in performance.

TeroZ said:
Never trust smartbench. Period.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Would you care to elaborate on this please?
GLbenchmark is more trustworthy.
Sent via psychic transmittion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GLBench is a decent 3D benchmark app, but it is just that - it tests only the GPU. Smartbench was designed to test both CPU (inc. dual-core ones) and GPU, hence reporting two numbers. IMO, you are not comparing apples to apples unless you were only referring to the GPU portion of the test.

kaiserkannon said:
The scorpion core in snapdragon socs use the arm v7 instruction set that both the a8 and a9 use, but it is not an a8 or an a9, it is qualcomms own design.
And personally I like comparing the different chips in these phones at the same resolution to see which chip has better performance on a level playing field. But yeah the sensation will have a bit worse performance thanks to higher resolution. Like the atrix vs optimus 2x. But to me the higher resolution is completely worth the hit in performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Stop spreading FUD. MSM 8260/8660 is not capable of out of order execution. Cortex A9 supports this feature, A8 does not.
MSM 8260/8660 Pipeline Depth is 13 stages, therefor it's clearly a A8 Cortex.
A9 was a successor to the A8 and it's a significant improvement over it.

t-mizzle said:
Stop spreading FUD. MSM 8260/8660 is not capable of out of order execution. Cortex A9 supports this feature, A8 does not.
MSM 8260/8660 Pipeline Depth is 13 stages, therefor it's clearly a A8 Cortex.
A9 was a successor to the A8 and it's a significant improvement over it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
qualcomm disagrees with you though. they state that it is not based on the a8 and has partial out of order execution. it also has a 128 bit wide neon data path for neon instructions in comparison to the 64 bit wide path in a8 and a9 designs. while there are some similarities to the a8 as you pointed out, the scorpion is not qualcomm's implementation of an a8. and it has some advantages over both a8 and a9. and some disadvantes to an a9. overall the a9 will probably be a bit faster clock for clock, but the scorpion cores in the snapdragon dual cores are clocked faster.
this is very much the same as amd and intel. they both use the same instruction set (x86), but their processors are not the same. qualcomm simply licenses the instruction set (armv7) and builds its own processor. while other companies like nvidia, TI, and samsung buy the cortex a8 or a9 design from ARM and build a copy of it.

Acei said:
Would you care to elaborate on this please?
GLBench is a decent 3D benchmark app, but it is just that - it tests only the GPU. Smartbench was designed to test both CPU (inc. dual-core ones) and GPU, hence reporting two numbers. IMO, you are not comparing apples to apples unless you were only referring to the GPU portion of the test.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are right. But smartbench rank scorpion+adreno205 lower than DX with [email protected] is definitely nonsense.
For gpu, go glbenchmark or nenamark or an3dbench whatever but smartbench.
For cpu, crunching pi or linpack is more reliable.
Smartbench does not reflect any real world performance.
Sent via psychic transmittion.

Thracks said:
Dunno where you got your information from, but it's very competitive with the Tegra 2. (8660 is the CDMA version of the Sensation's 8260). From these benchmarks, we also know that an overclock of at least 1.5GHz will be perfectly viable--the chip was designed for that anyhow.
Debating A8 vs A9 is a trivial matter, because it's a tiny fraction of the entire picture.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Based on glbenchmark score the anand tests might be suspect. It was score 6% higher than tegra 2 not double like anand's test. Or qcomm might be monkeying with things.If that is the case I am going to have a big problem with qcomm products.

Maybe smartbench is right and the nand quality is poor?

The sense experience on it wasn't done. It would have to score higher than the mytouch and previous devices its dual core. Most likely a crappy engineering build on it.
Sent from my HTC Glacier using XDA Premium App

TeroZ said:
You are right. But smartbench rank scorpion+adreno205 lower than DX with [email protected] is definitely nonsense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are other benchmark apps that rank your combo in the same order as Smartbench in graphical tests. Plus, please do look at the productivity tests for Smartbench 2011 more carefully. Typical Scorpion based phone score slightly higher results on Scorpions than DX. Even games like Dungeon Defender (a graphically heavy game) ranks both as "mid-range", while ranking Galaxy S series as "high-end".
For gpu, go glbenchmark or nenamark or an3dbench whatever but smartbench.
For cpu, crunching pi or linpack is more reliable.
Smartbench does not reflect any real world performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Calculating Pi is a very very simple, narrow, and one-dimensioned test. Linpack is heavy on floating point calculations. If that is what you want to know, then I have no issues with that. But do your day-to-day tasks on your phones translate to pure floating point calculations on your phones? They don't. That's why I've included several tests and will be including more as new versions are updated in the future. Plus, I believe none of them uses more than 1 core.
I'm open to suggestions and criticisms - but please do provide more details.

Latest benchmarks made by a retail GSII which has an ORION Exynos talks by themselves
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=13096662&postcount=383
Exynos at "only" 1.2Ghz is even better than adreno 220 SCORPION 1.5Ghz chip as it score 41 fps whereas the latter is scoring 38 fps in GLBenchmark EGYPT standard test
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4243/36161.png
http://nsa25.casimages.com/img/2011/04/21/110421112944690206.png
So the HTC Sensation which is underclocked to 1.2Ghz and have a bigger resolution will look like shayt, SGSII With Exynos will rule for a long long time...

touness69 said:
Latest benchmarks made by a retail GSII which has an ORION Exynos talks by themselves
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=13096662&postcount=383
Exynos at "only" 1.2Ghz is even better than adreno 220 SCORPION 1.5Ghz chip as it score 41 fps whereas the latter is scoring 38 fps in GLBenchmark EGYPT standard test
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4243/36161.png
http://nsa25.casimages.com/img/2011/04/21/110421112944690206.png
So the HTC Sensation which is underclocked to 1.2Ghz and have a bigger resolution will look like shayt, SGSII With Exynos will rule for a long long time...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for this.
Looks like this is another HTC phone with a disappointing CPU & GPU

First independent ARM A15 Benchmark - Exynos 5250

Some exciting news, the first real-world benchmark has appeared for an ARM A15 chip, in this case the Samsung Exynos 5250, which has been launched in the latest Chromebook.
Chip Info - dual-core A15 @ 1.7 GHz & Mali T604 GPU.
http://www.samsung.com/global/busin...t/application/detail?productId=7668&iaId=2341
The benchmark is Sunspider, which is not multi-threaded, i.e. does utilise multiple cores, so you can evaluate the actual performance (javascript) of a single-core., now we can see the performance improvement ARM has baked into their latest hardware
Courtesy of Gigacom, Sunspider on the ARM version of Google Chrome that comes installed on the Chromebook = 660ms (Lower is better). Compared to the current King of the Hill ARM A9 device the Galaxy Note 2 (Exynos 4412), which is clocked at 1.6 GHz, it achieves 972 ms accorded to GSM Arena, other sites have similar figures.
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_note_ii-review-824p5.php
LOWER IS BETTER
Exynos 5250 - A15 @ 1.7 Ghz = 660 ms
Exynos 4412 - A9 @ 1.6 Ghz = 972 ms
The 5250 is clocked 6% higher than the 4412, so if we adjust the results for CPU frequency parity
Exynos 5250 = 660 ms
Exynos 4412 @ 1.7 Ghz = 914 ms
This is not an exhaustive performance test!, but we can see that in this one popular benchmark that ARM A15 is ~30% faster than the A9 architecture when adjusted for clock speed.
To sweeten the deal further A15 SoC will run at a higher clock than A9s, Tegra 4 (T40) is stated to run @ 1.8 GHz with a bump to 2 GHz after a couple of quarters, just like Tegra 3. Samsung has the even mightier 5450, a quad-core variant of the chip in this test, rumored to run @ 2 GHz, combined with much more powerful GPU, and Android's software optimisations 2013 is going to be one hell of year for tech fans:victory:
Source:
http://gigaom.com/mobile/video-hands-on-with-googles-new-249-chromebook/

Nice find. I am also looking for Mali-T604 results. GLbenchmark results will be interesting. 72GFLOPs does sound very good.
EDIT: I think he says 620ms in video. Also, I am sure it will get better as the Chrome OS code is optimized for ARM. This is just first release. Exynos 4 has been optimized to limit. They can't push it any further now, at least not by a big margin.

hot_spare said:
Nice find. I am also looking for Mali-T604 results. GLbenchmark results will be interesting. 72GFLOPs does sound very good.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You may have to wait a while, ChromeOS can't run Android apps like GLbenchmark, only webapps. The reason Sunspider is a good test in this case, is that they both use the ARM version of Chrome, which uses the same underlying technology (Webkit & V8 Javascript engine)
Edit, there some unverified benchmarks from ES 2.0 Taiji, but there are v-sync limited to 60 fps, so we don't know how powerful the T-604, from that bench.
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Sams...i-T604-graphics-pops-up-in-benchmarks_id34681

True. I think have to wait for SGS4 for those benchmarks. More interested in browsermark, peacekeeper, google octane numbers. google itself mentioned that sunspider is outdated.
http://sunspider-mod.googlecode.com/svn/data/hosted/sunspider.html

hot_spare said:
EDIT: I think he says 620ms in video. Also, I am sure it will get better as the Chrome OS code is optimized for ARM. This is just first release. Exynos 4 has been optimized to limit. They can't push it any further now, at least not by a big margin.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the video he mentions 620 ms, but in the comments he states 660 ms for Sunspider when asked the question, I chose the 660 ms to be conservative.

Antutu benchmark!
I kept looking, and found something interesting now.
"Supposedly" first Antutu benchmark for Exynos 5250. Now the values show it's running at 1.5GHz. For a dual-core SoC, 14185 score sounds very good.
The most interesting part is the 3D graphics numbers. This is 3x compared to 4412 SoC.
Source: http://www.antutu.com/view.shtml?id=2718
With more optimization, this can be really powerful.

Looks like this chip will also end up in the Nexus 10

Turbotab said:
Looks like this chip will also end up in the Nexus 10
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's going to be a monster tablet.

Peacekeeper browser benchmark for Exynos 5250 gets more than 1200:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JoeWilcox/posts/8LrBK9CKJG4
Better than any other mobile SoC so far.

This chip rapes every other chip out there, even the s4 pro and apple a6. look here- http://www.androidauthority.com/exynos-5-dual-benchmarks-125134/

prajju123 said:
This chip rapes every other chip out there, even the s4 pro and apple a6. look here- http://www.androidauthority.com/exynos-5-dual-benchmarks-125134/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude please don't use the word rape, an ugly word. But we must wait for the a GL Benchmark results of the Mali T-604 against the Apple A6 & A6X, I hope it beats them, but it won't be easy Apple used a lot of die space to create them.

Hoping for a Exynos 5450 (5 Quad) by March or April of 2013

Is it the same chip they use in the new Chromebook?

lz2323 said:
Is it the same chip they use in the new Chromebook?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly the same, dual-core Exynos 5250 - Mali T-604.

Adreno 418 gpu turn off

Why did they go with adreno gpu when nexus 6 that came out 1 year ago has adreno 420 already

Will you really be able to tell the diference? I doubt it. Its just a number game really
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

They had no choice. They could choose the 805, the 808, or the 810. If they chose the 805, everyone would complain that it's a processor from 2014. If they chose the 810, everyone would complain that it will overheat and get crappy battery life. The 808 is the best choice for the least number of complaints. Yeah, it has a slightly slower GPU than the 805, but the CPU is much faster than the 805, and even faster than the 810 in demanding situations because the 810 will completely turn off its BIG cores if it gets too warm, whereas the 808 doesn't get hot enough that it needs to turn off the BIG cores and switch to little.

Geordie Affy said:
Will you really be able to tell the diference? I doubt it. Its just a number game really
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cool story. If I use that logic my old lg g2 should be enough.
Sent from my LG-D800

gtg465x said:
They had no choice. They could choose the 805, the 808, or the 810. If they chose the 805, everyone would complain that it's a processor from 2014. If they chose the 810, everyone would complain that it will overheat and get crappy battery life. The 808 is the best choice for the least number of complaints. Yeah, it has a slightly slower GPU than the 805, but the CPU is much faster than the 805, and even faster than the 810 in demanding situations because the 810 will completely turn off its BIG cores if it gets too warm, whereas the 808 doesn't get hot enough that it needs to turn off the BIG cores and switch to little.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah but it sucks that the whole android ecosystem has to depend on qualcomm. Imagine if next year they screw up again... It seems like samsung cpu rock this year and apple too..
Sent from my LG-D800

ambervals6 said:
Cool story. If I use that logic my old lg g2 should be enough.
Sent from my LG-D800
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point exactly lol. Whatever phone you buy it will be an upgrade in some way ... all this numbers game is becoming a tad OTT.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

ambervals6 said:
Yeah but it sucks that the whole android ecosystem has to depend on qualcomm. Imagine if next year they screw up again... It seems like samsung cpu rock this year and apple too..
Sent from my LG-D800
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, it does suck. And it is a shame that Qualcomm could have made a great SOC instead of two meh ones. If they were smart, they would have put the Adreno 430 GPU in the 808 and marketed it as their flagship phone SOC, and marketed the 810 as a tablet only SOC, because tablets can better dissipate the heat. But none of that is Motorola's fault. I think Motorola chose wisely between the not so great choices they had.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using XDA Forums Pro.

gtg465x said:
Yep, it does suck. And it is a shame that Qualcomm could have made a great SOC instead of two meh ones. If they were smart, they would have put the Adreno 430 GPU in the 808 and marketed it as their flagship phone SOC, and marketed the 810 as a tablet only SOC, because tablets can better dissipate the heat. But none of that is Motorola's fault. I think Motorola chose wisely between the not so great choices they had.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using XDA Forums Pro.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well as long as there is no serious competition out there, qualcomm will continue not to give a single **** and unfortunately upgrades will come in lame increments.
Sent from my LG-D800

I think it's funny how all the new 810 soc have the cores down clocked to 1.8ghz.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

ambervals6 said:
Well as long as there is no serious competition out there, qualcomm will continue not to give a single **** and unfortunately upgrades will come in lame increments.
Sent from my LG-D800
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Competition is coming. Qualcomm should be worried. http://www.androidpolice.com/2015/0...qualcomm-begun-a-long-slow-fall-from-the-top/

gtg465x said:
They had no choice. They could choose the 805, the 808, or the 810. If they chose the 805, everyone would complain that it's a processor from 2014. If they chose the 810, everyone would complain that it will overheat and get crappy battery life. The 808 is the best choice for the least number of complaints. Yeah, it has a slightly slower GPU than the 805, but the CPU is much faster than the 805, and even faster than the 810 in demanding situations because the 810 will completely turn off its BIG cores if it gets too warm, whereas the 808 doesn't get hot enough that it needs to turn off the BIG cores and switch to little.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this isn't the full story + its a little misleading. here are the technical details:
the 418 is as good, if not better than the 420 for the following reasons:
1. The 418 has the same "system specs" as the 420, minus the down-throttling.
2. The 418 was fabbed on smaller architecture (20nm) vs. the 420 (28nm). This means greater power savings and less heat.
3. The 418/420 is to the 430 like the NVIDIA 960 is to the 980 GTX, but you wont get the 430 unless you get the 810.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adreno#Variants

640k said:
this isn't the full story + its a little misleading. here are the technical details:
the 418 is as good, if not better than the 420 for the following reasons:
1. The 418 has the same "system specs" as the 420, minus the down-throttling.
2. The 418 was fabbed on smaller architecture (20nm) vs. the 420 (28nm). This means greater power savings and less heat.
3. The 418/420 is to the 430 like the NVIDIA 960 is to the 980 GTX, but you wont get the 430 unless you get the 810.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adreno#Variants
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure I trust that Wikipedia article. There are no references cited for the 418 information. Looking at Anandtech, the Adreno 418 is slower in EVERY graphics benchmark than the Adreno 420, even though it has the advantage of being paired with a faster CPU.
Here's a quote from Anandtech: "In GFXBench, we can see that the Adreno 418 GPU is a definite step up from the Adreno 330 in the Snapdragon 801, but not quite at the level of the Snapdragon 805's Adreno 420."
Look at the benchmarks for yourself here. The Nexus 6 and Note 4 (SD 805 / Adreno 420) both beat the LG G4 (SD 808 / Adreno 418) in every single graphics and gaming test performed. http://www.anandtech.com/show/9379/the-lg-g4-review/7
So I think it's safe to say the 420 is a little better than the 418. I don't think they would have named it the 418 if it was just a die shrunk 420. Usually a die shrink allows for faster clock speeds, and if a die shrink was the only difference, you would expect the 418 to match the performance of the 420, or even surpass it because the clock speed could go higher. That isn't the case, so I think there are some architectural differences as well that aren't shown in the Wiki article. I think Qualcomm naming it the 418 instead of the 422 even though it's newer is a pretty good indication that Qualcomm knows it isn't as good as the 420.

gtg465x said:
I'm not sure I trust that Wikipedia article. There are no references cited for the 418 information. Looking at Anandtech, the Adreno 418 is slower in EVERY graphics benchmark than the Adreno 420, even though it has the advantage of being paired with a faster CPU.
Here's a quote from Anandtech: "In GFXBench, we can see that the Adreno 418 GPU is a definite step up from the Adreno 330 in the Snapdragon 801, but not quite at the level of the Snapdragon 805's Adreno 420."
Look at the benchmarks for yourself here. The Nexus 6 and Note 4 (SD 805 / Adreno 420) both beat the LG G4 (SD 808 / Adreno 418) in every single graphics and gaming test performed. http://www.anandtech.com/show/9379/the-lg-g4-review/7
So I think it's safe to say the 420 is a little better than the 418. I don't think they would have named it the 418 if it was just a die shrunk 420. Usually a die shrink allows for faster clock speeds, and if a die shrink was the only difference, you would expect the 418 to match the performance of the 420, or even surpass it because the clock speed could go higher. That isn't the case, so I think there are some architectural differences as well that aren't shown in the Wiki article. I think Qualcomm naming it the 418 instead of the 422 even though it's newer is a pretty good indication that Qualcomm knows it isn't as good as the 420.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did anyone else notice how high the 2014 moto x was in those benchmarks. Motorola must really optimize the kernel.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

Positive spin time!
The 808's gpu handles games fine and consumes less power than the 7420's gpu (S6 & Note 5). I would rather have a GPU that handles games as is, rather than drains more battery and prefer a more power economical GPU for a portable device. There is a reason you see a lot of complaints about the S6 battery life and others do not. Most correlates to those that use apps that are GPU heavy.

rushless said:
Positive spin time!
The 808's gpu handles games fine and consumes less power than the 7420's gpu (S6 & Note 5). I would rather have a GPU that handles games as is, rather than drains more battery and prefer a more power economical GPU for a portable device. There is a reason you see a lot of complaints about the S6 battery life and others do not. Most correlates to those that use apps that are GPU heavy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lmao this guy
Sent from my A0001

What was comedic besides my awareness it is spin? True that games perform fine on the 808 and the 7420 gpu consumes more power. As far as bigger fancier games that need even more power, not very practical on a portable device so kind of moot with a small battery.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

If it's a concern you should wait for the nexus to drop with its rumored snapdragon 820 and next gen adreno.
Also for the issue of this year's qcom products sucking, remember that market pressure forced them to release chips with generic ARM cores because their in-house 64 bit designs weren't ready. The 820 ditches the octocore big.LITTLE architecture for a quad core qcom design. Lots to look forward to.
And I think the 808 is probably the best chip they could have picked for the X this year.

ambervals6 said:
Cool story. If I use that logic my old lg g2 should be enough.
Sent from my LG-D800
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is, but you're all too spoiled to make it out

SchmidtA99 said:
I think it's funny how all the new 810 soc have the cores down clocked to 1.8ghz.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think 810 is way better than 808. Adreno 430 vs 418. The 430 is WAY BETTER. And if the 810 gets too hot, you can always turn off 2 high performance cores. But you can never have an adreno 430 in the 808

gtg465x said:
I'm not sure I trust that Wikipedia article. There are no references cited for the 418 information. Looking at Anandtech, the Adreno 418 is slower in EVERY graphics benchmark than the Adreno 420, even though it has the advantage of being paired with a faster CPU.
Here's a quote from Anandtech: "In GFXBench, we can see that the Adreno 418 GPU is a definite step up from the Adreno 330 in the Snapdragon 801, but not quite at the level of the Snapdragon 805's Adreno 420."
Look at the benchmarks for yourself here. The Nexus 6 and Note 4 (SD 805 / Adreno 420) both beat the LG G4 (SD 808 / Adreno 418) in every single graphics and gaming test performed. http://www.anandtech.com/show/9379/the-lg-g4-review/7
So I think it's safe to say the 420 is a little better than the 418. I don't think they would have named it the 418 if it was just a die shrunk 420. Usually a die shrink allows for faster clock speeds, and if a die shrink was the only difference, you would expect the 418 to match the performance of the 420, or even surpass it because the clock speed could go higher. That isn't the case, so I think there are some architectural differences as well that aren't shown in the Wiki article. I think Qualcomm naming it the 418 instead of the 422 even though it's newer is a pretty good indication that Qualcomm knows it isn't as good as the 420.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's slower because Qualcomm halved the memory bus from 128-bit to 64-bit. The S810/A430 has the same bandwidth as the S805 because they doubled the speed of the RAM. So, 128-bit LPDDR3-800 (1600MHz effective) is equal to LPDDR4-1600 (3200MHz effective): 25.6 GB/s
Unfortunately, Qualcomm limited the S808 to LPDDR3-933 (1866MHz effective): 14.9 GB/s
The 418 and 420 are the same GPU, architecturally. The 418 could probably be slightly faster in non-bandwidth limited scenarios (low resolution 3D).
Memory bandwidth dropped from 25.6 GB/s to 14.9 GB/s. That's nearly a 25% loss and about equal to the real world performance losses. Hence, it's a 418.

Does Android prefer cores or clock speed?

Sorry if this has been asked in the past, but I'm a bit curious. I'm asking in context of the same IPC/Instructions per clock(same processor architecture, so that the actual speed of say, 1GHz is identical).
For example, for gaming PCs, its generally optimal to have a 4 core processor, with a higher clock speed(usually thru overclocks) such as say 4GHz, rather than say, an 8 core processor at 2GHz, or maybe a dual core processor at 8GHz(even tho 8GHz is kinda not that practical and/or possible ATM).
So for Android, what would be preferred? Of course, it does depend on what the main focus of the device is(like above, gaming). Would say, an 4 core 2.6 GHz processor be better in general, or an 8 core 1.3GHz? I feel that the clock:core ratio isn't exactly proportional, and so the 4 core processor would probably be better.
Are there any videos/articles with this comparison?
If it's possible, could someone test this out? Downclock all the cores by half for the first time, and the second time, disable half the cores on the second time.

YeshYyyK said:
Sorry if this has been asked in the past, but I'm a bit curious. I'm asking in context of the same IPC/Instructions per clock(same processor architecture, so that the actual speed of say, 1GHz is identical).
For example, for gaming PCs, its generally optimal to have a 4 core processor, with a higher clock speed(usually thru overclocks) such as say 4GHz, rather than say, an 8 core processor at 2GHz, or maybe a dual core processor at 8GHz(even tho 8GHz is kinda not that practical and/or possible ATM).
So for Android, what would be preferred? Of course, it does depend on what the main focus of the device is(like above, gaming). Would say, an 4 core 2.6 GHz processor be better in general, or an 8 core 1.3GHz? I feel that the clock:core ratio isn't exactly proportional, and so the 4 core processor would probably be better.
Are there any videos/articles with this comparison?
If it's possible, could someone test this out? Downclock all the cores by half for the first time, and the second time, disable half the cores on the second time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is kinda difficult to answer.
Number of cores and clock speed are not everything.
There are examples of fewer cores with lower clock being faster than more cores with higher clock.
I DO NOT PROVIDE HELP IN PM, KEEP IT IN THE THREADS WHERE EVERYONE CAN SHARE