Database Info

More powerful Exynos chipset coming soon from Samsung

Samsung have the luxury of making their own chips and they are quick to put out new and better versions of them. The Exynos chipset, which debuted with the Samsung Galaxy S II at a 'mere' 1.2GHz is getting a 1.5GHz version, called the Exynos 4212.
Samsung also has a pair of high-end mobile cameras headed for the production line. One is a 16MP main shooter with a back illuminated sensor for better low-light performance (expected to ship in November) and the other is a 1.2MP module with [email protected] capture capabilities for front-facing cameras.
We can't quite make out the Google-translated press release but it seems the front facing camera will have 1/8.2 sensor (that sounds pretty small, but we'll see) and the ISO of the main shooter goes up to 1,600.
Going back to Exynos, it's built using the 32nm process and was designed with 3D performance in mind. Gameloft is apparently showing interest and will offer several titles to put the new SoC to good work.
The Korea-bound Galaxy S II LTE and Galaxy S II HD LTE will sport Exynos chipsets with the CPU clocked at 1.5GHz, which makes them the most likely candidates for being the first phones with the new chipset.
Samsung already has a 1.4GHz version of Exynos that's powering the Galaxy Note and the Galaxy Tab 7.7, but there's no info what kind of change in performance we can expect in the 3D department (beyond the obvious gain from the faster clock speed).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_announces_15ghz_exynos_chipset_16mp_camera-news-3200.php
FWAP FWAP FWAP at the highlighted bits. One thing Samsung is perfectly good at making is chips.
I think this might mean I'll give the Nexus Prime a miss and wait for the Galaxy S III. Probably jizz in my pants when I hold it.

Should be epic, loving the Samsung processors. iPhone5 should be feeling scared. Hopefully ICS will be a hit as well.
Let's see what Apple can do and whether it tempts away current galaxy users.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App

http://pocketnow.com/android/samsung-unveils-new-dual-core-exynos-4212-processor
50% increase in 3D performance. Something to rival the A5 perhaps?
I hope they put this in the Galaxy Note.

Killer Bee said:
http://pocketnow.com/android/samsung-unveils-new-dual-core-exynos-4212-processor
50% increase in 3D performance. Something to rival the A5 perhaps?
I hope they put this in the Galaxy Note.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The SGX 543mp2 is a lot faster than 50% compared to the Mali400. Really hoping for Kal-El in the SGS3.

Killer Bee said:
http://pocketnow.com/android/samsung-unveils-new-dual-core-exynos-4212-processor
50% increase in 3D performance. Something to rival the A5 perhaps?
I hope they put this in the Galaxy Note.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Something to crash the A5 for sure.The Galaxy S II's Exynos 4210 rivals the A5.
Toss3 said:
The SGX 543mp2 is a lot faster than 50% compared to the Mali400. Really hoping for Kal-El in the SGS3.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
W-wa-wait.What?****in' ****.Where did you see this?Go check the Anandtech review.It shows the high-end mobile GPUs' performance in cold numbers and shows technical specs clearly.The 543MP2 might be 50% faster than the Adreno 220,not the Mali MP-400.

Killer Bee said:
http://pocketnow.com/android/samsung-unveils-new-dual-core-exynos-4212-processor
50% increase in 3D performance. Something to rival the A5 perhaps?
I hope they put this in the Galaxy Note.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe this is a simple die shrink from 45 to 32nm. So it still has the Mali-400 GPU but clocked at 400MHz instead of 267MHz (i e 50% clock increase). The very subtle name change from Exynos 4210 to Exynos 4212 almost confirms this.

Until the Mali-400 can compete with the SGX543MP2 in GLBenchmark at the same resolution, I'm going to wait for a Kal-El phone.

tolis626 said:
Something to crash the A5 for sure.The Galaxy S II's Exynos 4210 rivals the A5.
W-wa-wait.What?****in' ****.Where did you see this?Go check the Anandtech review.It shows the high-end mobile GPUs' performance in cold numbers and shows technical specs clearly.The 543MP2 might be 50% faster than the Adreno 220,not the Mali MP-400.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4686/samsung-galaxy-s-2-international-review-the-best-redefined/17
Check the GLBenchmark numbers again; the SGX 543mp2 is over 100% faster than the Mali mp-400.

Toss3 said:
Check the GLBenchmark numbers again; the SGX 543mp2 is over 100% faster than the Mali mp-400.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And it's driving over twice the resolution. The GPU in the iPhone 5 is going to blow away the competition, as it's at a lower resolution compared to the iPad 2. I'm actually kind of jealous. I refuse to use a device with a lower performing GPU than an Apple product! Hope the GPU in the Kal-El will actually be competitive.

YOUCANNOTDENY said:
And it's driving over twice the resolution. The GPU in the iPhone 5 is going to blow away the competition, as it's at a lower resolution compared to the iPad 2. I'm actually kind of jealous. I refuse to use a device with a lower performing GPU than an Apple product! Hope the GPU in the Kal-El will actually be competitive.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No it is not; both were running the benchmarks at 1280x720. Kal-El is a lot faster than both the Mali MP-400 and SGX 543mp2 while having a lot more features let alone having five cores.
"GLBenchmark 2.1 now includes the ability to render the test offscreen at a resolution of 1280 x 720. This is not as desirable as being able to set custom resolutions since it's a bit too high for smartphones but it's better than nothing." Anandtech
EDIT: Apple might decide to cut back the A5 running inside the iPhone 5 to just one 543, or a lower clocked version, as having two doesn't really make any sense on a mobile phone at least when battery life is taken into consideration.

tjtj4444 said:
I believe this is a simple die shrink from 45 to 32nm. So it still has the Mali-400 GPU but clocked at 400MHz instead of 267MHz (i e 50% clock increase). The very subtle name change from Exynos 4210 to Exynos 4212 almost confirms this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This sounds plausible.
YOUCANNOTDENY said:
And it's driving over twice the resolution. The GPU in the iPhone 5 is going to blow away the competition, as it's at a lower resolution compared to the iPad 2. I'm actually kind of jealous. I refuse to use a device with a lower performing GPU than an Apple product! Hope the GPU in the Kal-El will actually be competitive.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is a developer tablet called ODROID-A that uses the Exynos 4210 SoC and it benches pretty well with an even higher resolution than the iPad 2 (1366x768 vs 1024x768).
Comparison for reference.
With a 50% increase, the Mali-400 (assuming they keep this GPU) will be comparable to the SGX-543MP2.

Toss3 said:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4686/samsung-galaxy-s-2-international-review-the-best-redefined/17
Check the GLBenchmark numbers again; the SGX 543mp2 is over 100% faster than the Mali mp-400.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well,for all I know,the CPU in the iPad 2 is larger(The chip itself is larger),which instantly translates in more transistors being placed in the same space.I can only suspect that same goes for the GPU.But even if it does not,it's most likely that the version in the iPhone 5/4s/whatever won't be the same.Will it be underclocked?Smaller?I don't know.
By the way,I personally believe manufacturers **** all over their tablets when they put phone SoC's in them.There should be a different,more powerful(albeit more power-hungry) variant of each SoC for tablets.But that's just me.
As for the iPhone part,don't mistake me as a hater(I hate it btw,but I won't flame it or anything.If it's better than what I have,I'll just admit it.It's not the hardware I hate).In fact I wish it's THAT powerful,so that the competition will drive performance up for everyone.And that,for us,is a win.

Exactly how good is this Qualcomm Processor?

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).

Exynos 5 Octa and Snapdragon 800

Does anyone else think that the new-generation Exynos SoC will support 802.11ac and LTE-A? Or playing back 1080p video at 60 fps and 2k quality at 30 fps? These are features which were never really discussed about the chipset itself.
The Snapdragon 800 was confirmed to have compatibility and capability of all of the aforementioned. It sounds as if the Snapdragon 800 series will be the superior chipset, while the Exynos Octa will likely provide better power efficiency in some regard. It would be pretty disappointing if the Galaxy S IV got stuck with a Snapdragon 600 processor, given the date it's likely going to be pushed out on. It might make me consider the Note this time around.

i really hope all these rumors are fake, samsung should use Exynos on there flagship Galaxy S line ! if not the octa, maybe the Exynos 5 Quad Core 1.8-2.0GHz !

All the Snapdragon 600 happens to be is a mid-tear SoC, which improves upon the same GPU and performance of the S4 Pro. Real A15 architectures should blow this chipset out of the water. People seem to think that what they see now is good. But when the Snapdragon 800 and other A15-based chips start making their debut, this will feel dated quickly in the coming months.

megagodx said:
All the Snapdragon 600 happens to be is a mid-tear SoC, which improves upon the same GPU and performance of the S4 Pro. Real A15 architectures should blow this chipset out of the water. People seem to think that what they see now is good. But when the Snapdragon 800 and other A15-based chips start making their debut, this will feel dated quickly in the coming months.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
clock-per-clock a15 is just 15% faster than krait, dont think that there's so much differences between the two.
they are both really solid performers and the batle is all on the maximum clock/power required rateo.

The SD800 will also feature Quick Charge 2.0, which is supposed to charge your battery 75% faster than other SoC chipsets without that same function. SD600 doesn't feature that either. I'm pretty sure if you seen the initial Tegra 4 benchmarks (based off of real A15 architecture) - they wipe the floor with the HTC One's SD600. Being 75% increased in performance over the Snapdragon S4 Pro (last year's best mobile SoC), the SD800 should bring comparatively the same or better results than the T4 mentioned. That's kind of going to be a disappointment if the S IV ends up with a SD600 and no Exynos 5 Quad/Octa, at least.

Octa core Exynos no better than snapdragon, so no more whining/boasting

http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/06/samsung-galaxy-s4-octacore-review/
The A15 in the octa-core isn't any better or worse than the krait in the snapdragon, either in performance or benchmarks. The extra four helper cores you get doesn't improve battery life. In fact, with the four a15 cores, it is actually WORSE than the more efficient krait cores. All those people bragging about how much the A15 is better than the krait based on thin air speculation really need to shove it up their butt.
It was already expected that the four extra low power cores in an octa core would not make much difference in battery life and actually be worse off than a regular quad-core processor. History has already shown with the Tegra 3's helper core that utilizing low power helper cores is a tricky and inefficient affair. It's not easy to switch between them, to prioritize when to use what, and instead of making a more efficient A15 design, Samsung relied too much on the chip's switching capabilities instead of making an overall better processor.
So if you want LTE, BETTER BATTERY LIFE, rom compatibility and dev support with the most widespread SoC, actual availability in stores everywhere, then stop waiting or worrying about the Exynos octa-core and pick the widely available snapdragon version of the S4. Anyone still spouting how great the octa-core version will be and still lies about it being EIGHT WHOLE CORES! when there's really only four are the biggest trolls in the S4 forum.

this video show more real compasion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt5im3WAZYc

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2258519

Heh, load of bullcrap.
If you do video battery tests you do them on Wi-Fi, congratulations on testing modem battery life. (Same carrier? Same tower? Same time of day? Bravo on apples vs oranges Engadget)
The benchmarks ARE faster on the 9500. Let's not mention that Engadget are incompetent fools who don't understand benchmarking. The Linpack scores are a joke as is CF-bench, one because the benchmark literally takes 0.3s and if you're idling before you press the start button that's not even though time for the CPU to ramp up to highest speed. CF-bench fails due to thermal throttling. At least that's a valid negative point, but not performance, scores are far beyond the 30k mark. I'm also getting funny more realistic results on the other benches: 661ms vs 732 SunSpider, 10% higher Vellamo score, 300 more 3D rating, and I'm sure there's others. Funny how they suddenly don't use GeekBench.
Matter of fact: the 9500 is undoubtedly faster and that's a technical reality. They even state so in their subjective comparison.
As for battery life: I've already mentioned how the early firmware is unfinished. I'm getting roughly 10% per hour usage; right now at 61% and 3h30 screen, and that's with doing benchmarks for the last half hour which ate 9%.
The only correct *video* battery life tests I've seen came from GSMArena (9505) and Russian mobile-review who got 12h.
You're going to have to wait for AnandTech to do a review in a few months to be able to use it as argumental material in such discussions.
Engadget is the pinnacle of ignorance and technical non-reporting, and as they've proved in their botched S3 review last year, the benchmarking seems to be done by the principal of their local baboon academy.

katamari201 said:
All those people bragging about how much the A15 is better than the krait based on thin air speculation really need to shove it up their butt.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think people thought that devices using Octa vs. S-600 wouldn't perform comparably. It would make no sense for Samsung not to optimize both to the best of their ability and S-600 is a powerful and efficient chip. You can't help but get the feeling that the s/w isn't "done" on either version based on comments on all the SGS4 forums about lag and display driver issues. That's echoed by some of AndreiLux's comments from looking at the code. Octa is literally the first public implementation of big.LITTLE. All of ARM’s future designs will be based on it. That means Qualcomm’s next generation of chips after S-800 will be based on it also as they license ARM’s designs. I'd expect over time that updates will continue to improve Octa's performance (power and efficiency) whereas S-600 is simply a massaged version of S4 Pro and the OEMs have a lot more experience working with it so there's less upside potential. I'd still buy the i9500 over the i9505 if I were going to get a SGS4 (I'm waiting for the N3) as I think its long-term potential is greater than S-600 and, going forward, I'd expect it to be used in more Samsung devices once Qualcomm's RF360 universal LTE baseband becomes available. Once that happens, unless there's production capacity issues, there no reason Octa wouldn't be Samsung go-to high-end chip. Just my opinion of course.
P.S. - The i9500 has about 250MB more free RAM (13%) than the i9505 as Adreno reserves 500MB for itself while PowerVR reserves a little over 200MB.

matheus_sc said:
this video show more real compasion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt5im3WAZYc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Funny thing is you do the same comparison on another I9505 or I9500 and it will most probably yield different results... they are too close to compare
---------- Post added at 11:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------
BarryH_GEG said:
P.S. - The i9500 has about 250MB more free RAM (13%) than the i9505 as Adreno reserves 500MB for itself while PowerVR reserves a little over 200MB.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really? Where is the source for this? Anyone like to show free ram comparisons between both devices? I am sitting around 750mb free ram,I am Stock Rooted, I have 5 active applications open... And I still have most of the samsung bloat

BarryH_GEG said:
P.S. - The i9500 has about 250MB more free RAM (13%) than the i9505 as Adreno reserves 500MB for itself while PowerVR reserves a little over 200MB.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
None of that memory on neither SoCs is allocated to the GPUs. Video memory is reserved on-the-fly from user-space. That unavailable memory is dedicated to camera controllers, image processors, video decoder, and a bunch of other smaller buffers.

katamari201 said:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/06/samsung-galaxy-s4-octacore-review/
The A15 in the octa-core isn't any better or worse than the krait in the snapdragon, either in performance or benchmarks. The extra four helper cores you get doesn't improve battery life. In fact, with the four a15 cores, it is actually WORSE than the more efficient krait cores. All those people bragging about how much the A15 is better than the krait based on thin air speculation really need to shove it up their butt.
It was already expected that the four extra low power cores in an octa core would not make much difference in battery life and actually be worse off than a regular quad-core processor. History has already shown with the Tegra 3's helper core that utilizing low power helper cores is a tricky and inefficient affair. It's not easy to switch between them, to prioritize when to use what, and instead of making a more efficient A15 design, Samsung relied too much on the chip's switching capabilities instead of making an overall better processor.
So if you want LTE, BETTER BATTERY LIFE, rom compatibility and dev support with the most widespread SoC, actual availability in stores everywhere, then stop waiting or worrying about the Exynos octa-core and pick the widely available snapdragon version of the S4. Anyone still spouting how great the octa-core version will be and still lies about it being EIGHT WHOLE CORES! when there's really only four are the biggest trolls in the S4 forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Get ornery myself some times. Trust me on this, go out, find some nice young lady, make her see God. Later when you read this and are wondering what the hell you were thinking you can apologize. Everybody wins. :good:

Well Said, AMEN
Well said Krabman.....
katamari201 said:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/06/samsung-galaxy-s4-octacore-review/
The A15 in the octa-core isn't any better or worse than the krait in the snapdragon, either in performance or benchmarks. The extra four helper cores you get doesn't improve battery life. In fact, with the four a15 cores, it is actually WORSE than the more efficient krait cores. All those people bragging about how much the A15 is better than the krait based on thin air speculation really need to shove it up their butt.
It was already expected that the four extra low power cores in an octa core would not make much difference in battery life and actually be worse off than a regular quad-core processor. History has already shown with the Tegra 3's helper core that utilizing low power helper cores is a tricky and inefficient affair. It's not easy to switch between them, to prioritize when to use what, and instead of making a more efficient A15 design, Samsung relied too much on the chip's switching capabilities instead of making an overall better processor.
So if you want LTE, BETTER BATTERY LIFE, rom compatibility and dev support with the most widespread SoC, actual availability in stores everywhere, then stop waiting or worrying about the Exynos octa-core and pick the widely available snapdragon version of the S4. Anyone still spouting how great the octa-core version will be and still lies about it being EIGHT WHOLE CORES! when there's really only four are the biggest trolls in the S4 forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

AndreiLux said:
None of that memory on neither SoCs is allocated to the GPUs. Video memory is reserved on-the-fly from user-space. That unavailable memory is dedicated to camera controllers, image processors, video decoder, and a bunch of other smaller buffers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
People were saying the i9505 has 1.5GB of available RAM while the i9500 has 1.8GB. Is that true? If it is, what's contributing to the difference?

BarryH_GEG said:
People were saying the i9505 has 1.5GB of available RAM while the i9500 has 1.8GB. Is that true? If it is, what's contributing to the difference?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it's not true. My i9505 have 1.78gb of RAM available.

BarryH_GEG said:
People were saying the i9505 has 1.5GB of available RAM while the i9500 has 1.8GB. Is that true? If it is, what's contributing to the difference?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
loollll no ... where are ppl coming up with this nonsense

Who cares really when are we gonna use the phone at max capacity? And 3 months later something better will be out so quit your *****ing and enjoy ya phone
Sent from my GT-I9505 using xda premium

By the time Verizon ships my S4, the next super phone will be out! Seriously, I've got to quit reading these forums.
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

1.78gb ram on I9505 here

In any device even low end device you will not find the full ram visible as some is reserved exclusively of the system.
Also the post was on difference between Octa and Quall why would you expect a significant different as if that happens samsung would be trouble because they are the same device right S4 so samsung would tuned both in a way that the performance battery life is almost the same that hows it should be right you cannot say my s4 is slower then yours bec I purchased it from US ????

BarryH_GEG said:
People were saying the i9505 has 1.5GB of available RAM while the i9500 has 1.8GB. Is that true? If it is, what's contributing to the difference?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It really doesn't made a huge difference on Android devices. The extra memory just allows you to have more applications paused in the background before the kernel kills them to free up space. With the S3 if you're playing a game and switch to a web browser it's very likely that the game will be closed as it only has 1GB. On the S4 it will stay open in the background.

katamari201 said:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/06/samsung-galaxy-s4-octacore-review/
The A15 in the octa-core isn't any better or worse than the krait in the snapdragon, either in performance or benchmarks. The extra four helper cores you get doesn't improve battery life. In fact, with the four a15 cores, it is actually WORSE than the more efficient krait cores. All those people bragging about how much the A15 is better than the krait based on thin air speculation really need to shove it up their butt.
It was already expected that the four extra low power cores in an octa core would not make much difference in battery life and actually be worse off than a regular quad-core processor. History has already shown with the Tegra 3's helper core that utilizing low power helper cores is a tricky and inefficient affair. It's not easy to switch between them, to prioritize when to use what, and instead of making a more efficient A15 design, Samsung relied too much on the chip's switching capabilities instead of making an overall better processor.
So if you want LTE, BETTER BATTERY LIFE, rom compatibility and dev support with the most widespread SoC, actual availability in stores everywhere, then stop waiting or worrying about the Exynos octa-core and pick the widely available snapdragon version of the S4. Anyone still spouting how great the octa-core version will be and still lies about it being EIGHT WHOLE CORES! when there's really only four are the biggest trolls in the S4 forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Amazing! Where were you all these days??
BTW, I don't have to wait, nor do I have to worry about getting a I9500. Stores near me don't have any Snapdragon variant. I think it's always a good practise not to take advise from a random person in the forums.
Nobody asked for your advise on what version to get. People are knowledgeable enough to make that decision.

Interesting new reviews/benchmarks N3 VS G2 VS Z1

Interesting results here. Everybody has been saying the G2 is quicker and better then Note 3 and I must say I am quite shocked with these findings so far
http://thedroidguy.com/2013/09/sams...-sony-xperia-z1-vs-lg-g2-benchmark-comparison

i dont care. n3 is the better phone.

oh i dont disagree i agree 100% that is why i have a note 3 coming and im not stopping at verizon today to see the overrated g2!

hah G2 is like a on screen buttoned Galaxy S4 LG is copying Samsung on many things these days -_-

Blackwolf10 said:
hah G2 is like a on screen buttoned Galaxy S4 LG is copying Samsung on many things these days -_-
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know right! everything almost looks the same. Its like there are a dev and just made a rooted s4 with some new ui looks!

Here's a potential difference. There are two versions of S-800; MSM8974 and MSM8974AB. Here's AnandTech's take...
Xiaomi makes the first (to my knowledge) public disclosure of MSM8974AB, which is analogous to the changes we saw between APQ8064 and APQ8064AB. From 8974 to 8974AB, Adreno 330 GPU clocks climb from 450 MHz to 550 MHz, LPDDR3 memory interface maximum data rates go from 800 MHz to 933 MHz, and the ISP clock domain (I think Xiaomi might mean the Hexagon DSP here) goes from 320 MHz to 465 MHz. 8974 comes in both a bin with the 4 Krait 400 CPUs clocked at 2.2 GHz (really 2.15 GHz) and 2.3 GHz (2.26 GHz) with slightly different pricing, while 8974AB comes with a Krait 400 clock available only at 2.3 GHz. Process is still TSMC 28nm HPM, but I suspect that the AB variant might have the high k dielectric and/or transistor mix tuned slightly differently based on a few rumblings I've heard recently.​The S-600 in the SGS4 was "AB" so the the S-800 in the N3 might be also. We'll find out when more detailed reviews start to come out.
From AnandTech discussing the SGS4's S-600 chip...
That brings us to the Galaxy S 4. It's immediately apparent that something is different here because Samsung is shipping the Snapdragon 600 at a higher frequency than any other OEM. The Krait 300 cores in SGS4 can run at up to 1.9GHz vs. 1.7GHz for everyone else. Curiously enough, 1.9GHz is the max frequency that Qualcomm mentioned when it first announced Snapdragon 600.
Samsung is obviously a very large customer, so at first glance we assumed it could simply demand a better bin of Snapdragon 600 than its lower volume competitors. Looking a bit deeper however, we see that the Galaxy S 4 uses something different entirely.
Digging through the Galaxy S 4 kernel source we see references to an APQ8064AB part. As a recap, APQ8064 was the first quad-core Krait 200 SoC with no integrated modem, more commonly referred to as Snapdragon S4 Pro. APQ8064T was supposed to be its higher clocked/Krait 300 based successor that ended up with the marketing name Snapdragon 600. APQ8064AB however is, at this point, unique to the Galaxy S 4 but still carries the Snapdragon 600 marketing name.
If we had to guess, we might be looking at an actual respin of the APQ8064 silicon in APQ8064AB. Assuming Qualcomm isn't playing any funny games here, APQ8064AB may simply be a respin capable of hitting higher frequencies. We'll have to keep a close eye on this going forward, but it's clear to me that the Galaxy S 4 is shipping with something different than everyone else who has a Snapdragon 600 at this point.​

BarryH_GEG said:
Here's a potential difference. There are two versions of S-800; MSM8974 and MSM8974AB. Here's AnandTech's take...
Xiaomi makes the first (to my knowledge) public disclosure of MSM8974AB, which is analogous to the changes we saw between APQ8064 and APQ8064AB. From 8974 to 8974AB, Adreno 330 GPU clocks climb from 450 MHz to 550 MHz, LPDDR3 memory interface maximum data rates go from 800 MHz to 933 MHz, and the ISP clock domain (I think Xiaomi might mean the Hexagon DSP here) goes from 320 MHz to 465 MHz. 8974 comes in both a bin with the 4 Krait 400 CPUs clocked at 2.2 GHz (really 2.15 GHz) and 2.3 GHz (2.26 GHz) with slightly different pricing, while 8974AB comes with a Krait 400 clock available only at 2.3 GHz. Process is still TSMC 28nm HPM, but I suspect that the AB variant might have the high k dielectric and/or transistor mix tuned slightly differently based on a few rumblings I've heard recently.​The S-600 in the SGS4 was "AB" so the the S-800 in the N3 might be also. We'll find out when more detailed reviews start to come out.
From AnandTech discussing the SGS4's S-600 chip...
That brings us to the Galaxy S 4. It's immediately apparent that something is different here because Samsung is shipping the Snapdragon 600 at a higher frequency than any other OEM. The Krait 300 cores in SGS4 can run at up to 1.9GHz vs. 1.7GHz for everyone else. Curiously enough, 1.9GHz is the max frequency that Qualcomm mentioned when it first announced Snapdragon 600.
Samsung is obviously a very large customer, so at first glance we assumed it could simply demand a better bin of Snapdragon 600 than its lower volume competitors. Looking a bit deeper however, we see that the Galaxy S 4 uses something different entirely.
Digging through the Galaxy S 4 kernel source we see references to an APQ8064AB part. As a recap, APQ8064 was the first quad-core Krait 200 SoC with no integrated modem, more commonly referred to as Snapdragon S4 Pro. APQ8064T was supposed to be its higher clocked/Krait 300 based successor that ended up with the marketing name Snapdragon 600. APQ8064AB however is, at this point, unique to the Galaxy S 4 but still carries the Snapdragon 600 marketing name.
If we had to guess, we might be looking at an actual respin of the APQ8064 silicon in APQ8064AB. Assuming Qualcomm isn't playing any funny games here, APQ8064AB may simply be a respin capable of hitting higher frequencies. We'll have to keep a close eye on this going forward, but it's clear to me that the Galaxy S 4 is shipping with something different than everyone else who has a Snapdragon 600 at this point.​
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so could be why we are seeing higher scores in the test note 3?

Why are people knocking the G2? It's the second fastest device on the market. It has an amazing screen area ratio and a very nice battery. It's camera is also one of the best. I would never consider it because I can never go back below 5.5 inches and I can't stand on screen buttons. But that phone should make a lot of people very happy.

Techweed said:
Why are people knocking the G2? It's the second fastest device on the market. It has an amazing screen area ratio and a very nice battery. It's camera is also one of the best. I would never consider it because I can never go back below 5.5 inches and I can't stand on screen buttons. But that phone should make a lot of people very happy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
im not saying its not a nice phone but nothing that "wows" me. It looks worse then Touch Wiz not a huge fan of but its ok (sense is my fav), the phone doesnt have sdcard and removable battery also a no no (why i didnt buy htc one), Note 3 has better specs with an spen and loads of new features. G2 looks like a rooted S4 running a launcher and i wasnt impressed by S4. So with that being said this is just a tad faster S4 with same look almost. Now Note 3 you may say is same look as S4 while it is, it at least carries an sdcard and removable battery and the dev support should be behind sammy. Also i do remember LG making an Intuition, revolution, lucid? whatever happened to those? oh thats right they fell through the cracks. LG just cant compete with samsung, htc, or even motorola right now

oneandroidnut said:
Interesting results here. Everybody has been saying the G2 is quicker and better then Note 3 and I must say I am quite shocked with these findings so far
http://thedroidguy.com/2013/09/sams...-sony-xperia-z1-vs-lg-g2-benchmark-comparison
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everybody? Who's saying that?
BTW, that article is useless. They are combining results from various places - PhoneArena/GSMArena etc.,
They took GN3 numbers from here: http://blog.gsmarena.com/the-first-benchmarks-scores-of-samsung-galaxy-note-3-are-in/
They also added some from PhoneArena: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBwq0iAoVzQ
One major thing everyone forgets is that running benchmark from display models in launch events is plain wrong.
A] Most phones in such events (IFA, CES, MWC) are always charging. You should never benchmark when the phones is charging.
B] Have you ever seen any 'reviewer' in those shows to reboot the phone before running benchmarks? These display phones are abused by tech-journos. Tons of things would be running in the background. Yes, nobody bothers to clear the memory by rebooting it once. What's the point of such benchmark? Not to talk about thermal envelope after using these phones continuously.
C] G2 running release firmware, rest 2 phones running pre-release version.
(IMO) AnTuTu shouldn't be considered as a good benchmark. A benchmark tool must provide consistent repeatable result. If you run AnTuTu 5 times, I guarantee you that you will get variable result most times. No wonder AT doesn't like using AnTuTu.
Benchmarks never killed a phone :angel::angel:

CLARiiON said:
Everybody? Who's saying that?
BTW, that article is useless. They are combining results from various places - PhoneArena/GSMArena etc.,
They took GN3 numbers from here: http://blog.gsmarena.com/the-first-benchmarks-scores-of-samsung-galaxy-note-3-are-in/
They also added some from PhoneArena: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBwq0iAoVzQ
One major thing everyone forgets is that running benchmark from display models in launch events is plain wrong.
A] Most phones in such events (IFA, CES, MWC) are always charging. You should never benchmark when the phones is charging.
B] Have you ever seen any 'reviewer' in those shows to reboot the phone before running benchmarks? These display phones are abused by tech-journos. Tons of things would be running in the background. Yes, nobody bothers to clear the memory by rebooting it once. What's the point of such benchmark? Not to talk about thermal envelope after using these phones continuously.
C] G2 running release firmware, rest 2 phones running pre-release version.
(IMO) AnTuTu shouldn't be considered as a good benchmark. A benchmark tool must provide consistent repeatable result. If you run AnTuTu 5 times, I guarantee you that you will get variable result most times. No wonder AT doesn't like using AnTuTu.
Benchmarks never killed a phone :angel::angel:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hate benchmarks at events and real life situations is where it's at. We just need to wait till some more note 3 make it into the wild
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

oneandroidnut said:
Everybody has been saying the G2 is quicker and better then Note 3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would anyone say that? No one even has the Note 3, so we have to default to expectations. Why would anyone expect the the similar but faster clocked phone to be slower?

dscline said:
Why would anyone say that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Show "anyone" this. All the tests were conducted by the same source; GSMArena.
Benchmark PI
AnTuTu
Linpack
Egypt (Offscreen)
T-Rex (Offscreen)
Sunspider

BarryH_GEG said:
Show "anyone" this. All the tests were conducted by the same source; GSMArena.
Benchmark PI
AnTuTu
Linpack
Egypt (Offscreen)
T-Rex (Offscreen)
Sunspider
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no g2 on that list though

oneandroidnut said:
no g2 on that list though
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Enjoy -- http://www.gsmarena.com/lg_g2-review-982p5.php

oneandroidnut said:
no g2 on that list though
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oops, I thought "anyone" was saying the N2 was faster than the N3. My bad.
Here's the G2 numbers, again all from a single source; GSMArena.
Benchmark PI
Linpack
AnTuTu
Egypt (Offscreen)
T-Rex (Offscreen)
Sunspider
In case anyone's bummed about the lower AnTuTu score here's a score taken from a production unit that was reviewed by a Russian site. GSMArena conducted their tests on demo units at the Berlin launch event. Based on these scores I'd bet anyone here the N3 is using a "AB" chip where the XZ Ultra and LG G2 aren't. So, at least for the time being, the N3's the fastest Android device on the planet.
But not to be a buzz kill, the SGS4 got fantastic benchmarks but had some lag in early s/w releases due to the ton-'O-crap Samsung had loaded on it. It improved over time and the N3 has more RAM so I'm hoping benchmarks translate in to "feel."
http://translate.googleusercontent....v.html&usg=ALkJrhha6VTm0y89eM70OxVC5rPRLSw6nw

BarryH_GEG said:
Oops, I thought "anyone" was saying the N2 was faster than the N3. My bad.
Here's the G2 numbers, again all from a single source; GSMArena.
Benchmark PI
Linpack
AnTuTu
Egypt (Offscreen)
T-Rex (Offscreen)
Sunspider
In case anyone's bummed about the lower AnTuTu score here's a score taken from a production unit that was reviewed by a Russian site. GSMArena conducted their tests on demo units at the Berlin launch event. Based on these scores I'd bet anyone here the N3 is using a "AB" chip where the XZ Ultra and LG G2 aren't. So, at least for the time being, the N3's the fastest Android device on the planet.
But not to be a buzz kill, the SGS4 got fantastic benchmarks but had some lag in early s/w releases due to the ton-'O-crap Samsung had loaded on it. It improved over time and the N3 has more RAM so I'm hoping benchmarks translate in to "feel."
http://translate.googleusercontent....v.html&usg=ALkJrhha6VTm0y89eM70OxVC5rPRLSw6nw
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks man! and i cant wait to get my hands on one! and dont know who would keep a n2 over the n3 lol

All I know is that my S4 always benches higher than my HTC One. S4 using the "higher" binned S600.
In real world use, the HTC One felt twice as fast as the S4. Even rooted and running a custom debloated rom and kernel overclocked to 2.1GHz, the S4 still was laggy and much MUCH slower than a stock HTC One. The S4 would lag and stutter all over the place despite showing the superior numbers so I now take benchmarks with a grain of salt.
I'm really hoping Samsung gets it together and instead of just showing higher benchmark numbers, actually perform in real world use like the numbers indicate.
I'm using an LG G2 right now while waiting for my GNote3, so far I am IN LOVE with the G2. It's hands down the fastest device I've ever used, Nothing slows this thing down and I have yet to encounter a hint of lag or micro stuttering. Battery life matches or exceeds my Note 2 which I thought was incredible, I'm not too worried about the non-removable battery anymore. The screen is by far the best display I have seen, and the camera is amazingly good with OIS. In my opinion the S4 is not even in the same league as the G2, hardware or software wise. I really loved my Note 2 and have my fingers crossed the Note 3 doesn't have the incredibly frustrating laggy experience that plagued both my S4's. I would really love to keep the Note 3 as my main device because I actually use the S-pen a lot.

Dan37tz said:
I'm using an LG G2 right now while waiting for my GNote3, so far I am IN LOVE with the G2. It's hands down the fastest device I've ever used, Nothing slows this thing down and I have yet to encounter a hint of lag or micro stuttering. Battery life matches or exceeds my Note 2 which I thought was incredible, I'm not too worried about the non-removable battery anymore. The screen is by far the best display I have seen, and the camera is amazingly good with OIS. In my opinion the S4 is not even in the same league as the G2, hardware or software wise. I really loved my Note 2 and have my fingers crossed the Note 3 doesn't have the incredibly frustrating laggy experience that plagued both my S4's. I would really love to keep the Note 3 as my main device because I actually use the S-pen a lot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The G2 could be considered a "next gen" phone because of S-800 and the additional features LG's provided. The One and SGS4 with S-600 are previous generation phones. Sadly for SGS_ owners, their device is released before the N_ is and Samsung learns from issues with the SGS_ what not to do in the N_. The SGS3 Exynos with 1GB of RAM vs 2GB in the N2 is a good example.
I share your fears though. The launch s/w on the SGS4 was pretty bad. But I'm hoping that 3GB of RAM, S-800 "AB," and "lessons learned" will make the N3 as big an improvement over the SGS4 as the N2 was over the SGS3. I had no issues with the stock unrooted performance of the N2.
As for "fastest" that's subjective. I don't personally get off on millisecond faster screen transitions as much as I do on 30% faster browser performance which Sunspider indicates the N3 achieves over the G2. Where Samsung phones are "fast" for me is in how, through their features, they allow me to get stuff done faster and in ways I can't with other manufacturer’s devices.
I also don't consider the G2 in anyway a competitor to the N3. One's clearly a "phone" and the other's clearly a "phablet" with S Pen/S Note making the difference even greater. And the G2's lack of expandable storage is a step back not forward. That and the non-removable battery take it off my shopping list even if I were considering a "phone."

BarryH_GEG said:
I share your fears though. The launch s/w on the SGS4 was pretty bad. But I'm hoping that 3GB of RAM, S-800 "AB," and "lessons learned" will make the N3 as big an improvement over the SGS4 as the N2 was over the SGS3. I had no issues with the stock unrooted performance of the N2."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For the "AB" thing, I think, then, Note 3 is supposed to have Adreno 330 clocked at 550 MHz. Have you find any info regarding that?
BarryH_GEG said:
I also don't consider the G2 in anyway a competitor to the N3. One's clearly a "phone" and the other's clearly a "phablet" with S Pen/S Note making the difference even greater. And the G2's lack of expandable storage is a step back not forward. That and the non-removable battery take it off my shopping list even if I were considering a "phone."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apart from your buying preference, if it were for the image stabilization how'd you see Note 3 over G2 in terms of "smart stabilization" vs OIS?