x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • AnTuTu posts the specs of Galaxy S7 with Exynos 8890, promises benchmark scores later

AnTuTu posts the specs of Galaxy S7 with Exynos 8890, promises benchmark scores later

Posted: , by Daniel P.

Tags:

AnTuTu posts the specs of Galaxy S7 with Exynos 8890, promises benchmark scores later
The Snapdragon 820 version of the Galaxy S7 edge (SM-G935A for AT&T) already popped up in the AnTuTu benchmark database, complete with specs and the whole nine yards. From there we learned that the upcoming Samsung flagship will sport a new 12 MP camera indeed, as well as 4 GB of RAM, alongside the predictable 5.1" Quad HD Super AMOLED display.

Today, however, AnTuTu's own account on Weibo spilled the beans on none other than the Exynos 8890 version of the Galaxy S7, codenamed SM-G930F. Under the phones denoted with "F," Samsung usually hides the international unlocked versions of its handsets, so that one will probably arrive with the newest Exynos on board indeed, just as it was tipped in a leaked model number list back in November.

For the G930F newcomer in their database, the folks from AnTuTu actually disclosed the same string of specs as was previously revealed for the G935A. We will apparently be getting a 5.1" 1440 x 2560 pixels screen, 12 MP rear camera, 5 MP selfie shooter, 4 GB of RAM, and 64 GB of internal storage on that particular model. Since this is reportedly the Exynos 8890 version, it would be great to know the final benchmark tally, but AnTuTu is warning that the phone is currently still in the testing phase, so they might report the specific test run scores later on. Patience we must have, young Padawans.

AnTuTu posts the specs of Galaxy S7 with Exynos 8890, promises benchmark scores later

source: AnTuTu via G4Games

67 Comments
  • Options
    Close




posted on 20 Jan 2016, 05:47

1. Shocky (unregistered)


They could have increased the screen size a little.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 05:51 6

2. WPX00 (Posts: 235; Member since: 15 Aug 2015)


Well, they probably wanted to keep the phone the same size as the S6, perhaps so that old accessories will fit?

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 06:11 1

5. Shocky (unregistered)


That's never bothered them in the past.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 20:52

62. cheetah2k (Posts: 1521; Member since: 16 Jan 2011)


12MP camera?????? huh? I thought Samsung were chasing sony for their 23MP shooter?

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 09:30 3

39. TyrionLannister (unregistered)


Old accessories won't fit as the back will be curved.

Besides, S7 is for S5 users as like every other 1 year upgrade, it won't offer much over its predecessor.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 05:53 22

3. supersume (Posts: 9; Member since: 04 Oct 2013)


No thank you. 5.1 inches is perfect for some of us

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 06:12 1

6. Shocky (unregistered)


Good for you, quite a large gap between 5.1" and 5.7" though, would be nice to have something in-between.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 06:12 8

7. keithtae (Posts: 341; Member since: 25 Mar 2015)


5.1 is the perfect size for me. I don't mine .1 or .2 inches bigger but not 5.5.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 06:15 1

10. Shocky (unregistered)


Never said it had to be 5.5".

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 09:13 1

34. AndroidBoy21 (Posts: 72; Member since: 29 Dec 2015)


Its one of my favourite sizes

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 14:43 1

56. killer7D (Posts: 264; Member since: 18 Sep 2014)


I totally agree .. 5.1 inch is perfect !

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 07:47 2

25. TyrionLannister (unregistered)


It's 5.17 inches. Benchmarks round it off to 5.1 inches.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 09:29

38. joeytaylor (Posts: 417; Member since: 28 Feb 2015)


Hey Tyrion...i have a curious question about apples a10.....with it probably bein built in the same die size...1. Will the preformace gains be drastic or just modestly. ..how much more do they have before the havento go to more cores...just wondering

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 09:34 1

40. TyrionLannister (unregistered)


I honestly have no idea. But Apple doesn't do anything drastic for regular iPhone chips(no S versions).

iPhone4 had mediocre chip, iPhone 5 had mediocre chip, iPhone 6 had mediocre chip too and I expect the same from iPhone 7.

PS. By mediocre I mean on par with competition. In comparison to the Ax chips of the S series models who slaughter the competition.

So I expect a modest perf. increase 20-30% with the regular GPU boost 70-80%.

Obviously this is just a speculation. But Apple likes to stick to their trends: upgrade the design in regular iPhone versions and the internals in 'S' models.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 09:40

42. marorun (Posts: 3366; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)


Apple A chip running android would get much lower benchmark and performance.

Its thanks to iOS thats its slaughter competition as you say.

But competition still open apps faster and better at multitasking.

but the numbers you give will probably fit with what Apple release as marketing numbers yeah.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 09:51 7

43. TyrionLannister (unregistered)


"Apple A chip running android would get much lower benchmark and performance."

No, this suggests you know almost nothing about a system on a chip

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 15:54

58. keekai05 (Posts: 116; Member since: 31 Mar 2015)


ROFL! I couldn't have said it any better. +1 sir

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 12:52 2

51. alex3run (Posts: 710; Member since: 18 May 2014)


"Apple A chip running android will get lower scores" - false, that's the statement of hardcore android fanboy with zero knowledge about hardware.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 15:00

57. BLUEBLASTER (Posts: 277; Member since: 23 Feb 2014)


So tell me Tyrion. What phone should I get this year with my upgrade?

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 22:42 1

65. TyrionLannister (unregistered)


With no phone released, i can't say anything.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 09:05 2

32. may_czos (Posts: 715; Member since: 22 Nov 2014)


No! There are enough of bloody phablets on the market.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 05:55 1

4. sphonel (Posts: 8; Member since: 24 Sep 2014)


What's the bet the Exynos won't match the A9 and will get absolutely destroyed by the A10.

The 6S will also have a better AnTuTu score, then the iP7 will blow the S7 out of the water.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 06:13 11

8. Shocky (unregistered)


Antutu favours single core performance now so it's irrelevant for Android devices.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 08:30 2

29. ibend (Posts: 3765; Member since: 30 Sep 2014)


is that so?
well maybe thats explain why score gap is so big between 5.7 and 6.0
in Antutu 5.7 -> S6 get 70k while i6s get 60k
in Antutu 6.0 -> S6 get 80k while i6s get 100k+

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 09:06 2

33. may_czos (Posts: 715; Member since: 22 Nov 2014)


Exactly that's why - new Antutu favours single core performance that's why there's a huge gap - iPhone bases its performance on few powerful cores.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 09:59 3

45. marorun (Posts: 3366; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)


Benchmark dont give real life usage.

In real life same app open faster on the S6 than iphone 6S.
In real life multitasking is faster and better on most android phone than iphone 6S.

Benchmark since a few year are starting to be crappy.
first you have OEM thats tweak phone to find out its running a benchmark and overclock itself.
Then you have company getting paid or good deal in the shadow to tweak benchmark to work better on some phone or platform.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 06:13 4

9. alaw.14 (Posts: 227; Member since: 10 Sep 2013)


Looks like i'm about to get paid.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 06:36 2

15. Avishek (Posts: 44; Member since: 25 Sep 2014)


You are one of that stupid jerks who choose their devices looking just at that number. Me and many other here ( i hope) are not only after the numbers. We choose smartphones to satisfy our needs. Not to show the scores in comparison with other. I am using a iphone 6 but i am ready to choose other one thats suit my needs with lesser scores. Lg v10, moto x style, g4, s6 any one of them. You better troll in other place.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 22:15

63. killer7D (Posts: 264; Member since: 18 Sep 2014)


You choose your device to show your friends that your are carrying iUgly ..

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 22:38

64. Avishek (Posts: 44; Member since: 25 Sep 2014)


It was a gift and I thought to give it a try. Not just to show. And now i am keen to trade it.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 06:52

18. uggman (Posts: 56; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)


and your point is?...

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 09:17 4

36. Techist (Posts: 231; Member since: 27 Jan 2015)


FYI, the LeTV Max Pro with a Snapdragon 820 has already topped the iPhone 6S on Antutu. No reason why the S7 shouldn't do likewise.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 06:18 11

11. rd_nest (Posts: 1591; Member since: 06 Jun 2010)


People here have no idea about how benchmarks work. v6 of antutu is lot different than previous versions.

1. Single core scores takes higher precedence in CPU section. Android SOCs traditionally have better multicore numbers, Apple have better single core scores.
2. On-screen fps rather than off-screen. So a phone like iphone 6s has very high numbers beacuse of lower native resolution.
3. Newer UX scores, only they know how they measure it. Nonsense in my view.

In short, I think Antutu is a over-hyped nonsense test platform. It's next to useless. And I find lot of sites (including PA using it) as complete and total nonsense. People simply don't study benchmarks and just report numbers without drawing any inference from these numbers.

Source: Your's truly, making a living by analyzing benchmarks every day. Admittedly not in these tiny phones, but multi million enterprise storage and networking solutions.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 06:24

12. Shocky (unregistered)


I would prefer they used something like 3DMark or PCMark for Android devices.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 06:31 1

13. tech2 (Posts: 3388; Member since: 26 Oct 2012)


LOL...show-off much ?

1. This article has nothing to do with how accurate is Antutu. It merely reveals S7's specs.

2. PA never solely used Antutu. They use it ALONG with other benchmarks thereby not relying on any one benchmarks completely.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 07:08 6

20. rd_nest (Posts: 1591; Member since: 06 Jun 2010)


I don't need to show off in a place where nobody even knows who I am, nor it has any significance to my career. I show what I can do infront of people where it matters.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 06:34

14. Jimrod (Posts: 1066; Member since: 22 Sep 2014)


Don't the vast majority of apps use single core though? So it's more relevant than multi-core specs until you get to heavy gaming use? I'm asking a question rather than making a statement here...

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 06:43 1

16. perry1234 (Posts: 146; Member since: 14 Aug 2012)


I was , in-fact , wondering the same. Till I scrolled down to read your comment . But , since I had made up my mind to comment something , here I am :P

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 07:10 2

21. Macready (Posts: 857; Member since: 08 Dec 2014)


No, for Android phones, practically every app uses several cores. Even Chrome and Gmail easily use all available cores (whether 4 or 8) in Android phones.
http://www.androidauthority.com/fact-or-fiction-android-apps-only-use-one-cpu-core-610352/

This is quite simple to verify with apps that monitor the core usage of your phone over time and proven by the fact that for example a Nexus 6P can keep up with an iPhone 6S in a few rounds of opening (and reopening) apps, despite the latter having cores almost twice (single core performance) as fast and having to push almost 4 times LESS pixels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5ZT9z9Bt4M

And this isn't something new either, almost 5 years ago my S2 used both cores for most apps already.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 07:34

24. Shocky (unregistered)


Probably, but the majority of app are fairly simple so it's wouldn't make any difference either way for them.

Productivity and gaming is what requires more performance and more cores are typically used.

The point being, do you make a benchmark to test performance of stupid apps like fart soundboards or productivity and gaming?

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 07:51 1

26. TyrionLannister (unregistered)


7 to 8 threads is quite common for most scenarios. So even octa core is not overkill.

Gaming is actually quite light load on CPU, mostly using 1 or 2 threads. More intensive tasks are opening an app(which executes a, well executable which may be dynamically linked to many sources), browsing, installing an app(compiles all the modules of an app).

Also all the background tasks you are running. On a multi-core machine, I can assign one core to system, one to music playback, one for foreground, one for data, and so on. So even if an app uses one thread, the background processes can take advantage of multiple cores.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 09:39

41. zeeBomb (Posts: 1834; Member since: 14 Aug 2014)


:O

What app let's you do that?

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 09:53

44. TyrionLannister (unregistered)


Chrome can easy run 7-8 threads. I guess android authority did an analysis:

http://www.androidauthority.com/exynos-7420-multitasking-multi-core-and-multiprocessing-637647/

5 threads is actually quite normal.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 10:07

47. Shocky (unregistered)


Just because it's using multiple threads doesn't mean it's any faster though.

Android does a good job of spreading load but if the application isn't optimized there are no performance gains to have.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 10:04 1

46. marorun (Posts: 3366; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)


Now most app use multicore..

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 16:25

60. Shocky (unregistered)


There are over a million apps on the play store, have you tested them all?

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 16:42

61. tedkord (Posts: 10602; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


It would matter if the app was the only thing your device was doing. But smartphones have dozens of background process, all competing for resources. If single core were the most important thing, why build multicore CPUs? Why not just a single, huge core?

It also depends on the OS. Android benefits more from multiple cores than iOS.

posted on 21 Jan 2016, 03:42

67. alex3run (Posts: 710; Member since: 18 May 2014)


Heavy gaming? They load the CPU to 20%, nothing to worry about.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 07:02 1

19. vuyonc (Posts: 990; Member since: 24 Feb 2014)


Loading...

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 07:12

22. vuyonc (Posts: 990; Member since: 24 Feb 2014)


My comment went buggy.

My original comment:
Preach! It's better to benchmark different parts of an SoC separately then use real world apps to gauge overall performance. Adding up points seems disingenuous in Antutu.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 07:55 2

27. TyrionLannister (unregistered)


Even the previous versions were crap. This one even more so. You can never assign a so called weightage to something.

For example, consider 2 phones with same Antutu score. phone number 1 is iPhone, which scores super high in single core and GPU, while phone number 2 is say, a hypothetical android phone which scores much higher in RAM and multi-core. Both phones have the same score, but in any given scenario, both will never have the same performance. One will be faster in one task while other in some other task.

You can change the weightages and the result will be completely different. That's bullcrap.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 08:14 1

28. Awalker (Posts: 1430; Member since: 15 Aug 2013)


Most apps on Android use multiple cores so single core scores are for the most part irrelevant.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 08:32

30. ibend (Posts: 3765; Member since: 30 Sep 2014)


is that so?
well maybe thats explain why score gap is so big between 5.7 and 6.0
in Antutu 5.7 -> S6 get 70k while i6s get 60k
in Antutu 6.0 -> S6 get 80k while i6s get 100k+

look like Antutu dev team love Apple now, lol

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 09:21

37. Jimrod (Posts: 1066; Member since: 22 Sep 2014)


I'd prefer benchmarks based on on-screen FPS rather than off-screen - I mean how much less relevant can a stat be? I don't use my phone as a f***ing games console. If it shows that some manufacturer's performance suffers because they're pushing an unnecessarily high number of pixels on a small screen then good.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 10:08

48. marorun (Posts: 3366; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)


i agree for onscreen fps but both should be taken into consideration.
Benchmark are suposed to show the hardware power of the phone as well as optimisations.

Making single core scoore count more than multi core is a joke.
Even iphone now use the 2 cores when running most apps.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 10:15

49. Jimrod (Posts: 1066; Member since: 22 Sep 2014)


Oh I agree, the testing should be balanced - however the balance will always favour one method of processing so there will forever be an argument about one being worthless and vice-versa from the opposite camp as we have here...

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 11:47

50. TyrionLannister (unregistered)


The issue is that games don't render in QHD. And even if some super advanced app does, you can tune down graphics/resolution.

That's like saying you shouldn't buy a 4k monitor if you want to game. That BS, as you can game at 1080p/QHD on a 4k monitor too.

On-screen benchmarks are useless, at best.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 12:57

52. Jimrod (Posts: 1066; Member since: 22 Sep 2014)


"On-screen benchmarks are useless, at best."

I must be in the minority that thinks what you see on the screen, when you're actually using the phone, is what actually matters then. What the processor can do on its own is one thing but then the 150bhp diesel engine in my car is a rocket ship when placed in a go-cart - in my 1600kg 4x4 it's not quite the same...

Don't worry anyway, the only approved tests by the majority here will be the ones Samsung wins, anything else MUST be flawed.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 13:11 1

53. TyrionLannister (unregistered)


Games don't run at QHD, smartass.

How will on-screen benchmarks matter if a QHD, a 1080p and a 720p phone all render the app/game in 720p.

Besides, you can switch resolutions anyway in games, making on-screen benchmarks completely invalid. If I want great performance, I can switch gaming resolution to 1080p or 720p on my S6(there is an app called game tuner)

Off- screen benchmarks matter as they level the playing field.

You don't measure the performance of a GPU by the monitor resolution. You adjust your gaming resolution by the amount of performance your GPU gets.

Oh, and the personal taunt in last para was a nice touch. Keep that up, you'll do great on comments section. After all, a knowledgeable debate doesn't matter on internet. The one who cusses, taunts and insults more wins.

posted on 20 Jan 2016, 16:20

59. Shocky (unregistered)


We've covered this before, but yes some games do run at QHD.

But if your lucky enough to be Samsung user you can force 1080p.

Everyone else is pretty much screwed if a game does run at QHD. :D

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories