HTC EVO 4G LTE benchmark tests
So even before diving straight into our usual benchmark routine, we’re happy to report that Sprint’s beauty performs admirably with most operations out of the box. Therefore, whether it’s a static or live wallpaper, the HTC EVO 4G LTE is able to maintain a responsive rate every single time – with barely any evidence of slowdown or choppiness. Heck, even some of its graphically intensive animations maintain such a feverish rate of operation.
After running the Quadrant benchmark three times, we’re able to come up with an average score of 5040, which is slightly better than the 4958 mark produced by AT&T’s HTC One X. Next up, the AnTutu benchmark tests gave us an average score of 6997. And again, its score is better than the 6863 average result we got out of AT&T’s version. And lastly, there’s the Nenamark2 test yielding a tally of 59.1 frames per second. Indeed, the numbers might shine over the HTC One X for AT&T, but they’re not remarkably higher. Still, it’s comforting to know that this is going to be equipped in handling even the most demanding users out there.
1. GeekMovement posted on 11 May 2012, 00:36 2 0
Nice better scores than I expected. I will check this device out at my local sprint store when it is released.
2. KingKurogiii posted on 11 May 2012, 00:39 3 4
i love how on Quadrant it destroys everything but on everything else it's barely higher than my Razr. :P
9. SuperAndroidEvo posted on 11 May 2012, 07:31 6 1
Remember the HTC Evo 4G LTE is running a 720p HD screen. Your Motorola Razr is only running a qHD screen. The benchmarks will always be better on a screen with less pixels. Imagine what the HTC Evo 4G LTE would score if it had the Motorola Razr's qHD screen. It would be WAY higher in the benchmarks. Now imagine the Motorola Razr with a 720p HD screen, the benchmarks would be WAY lower.
The Qualcomm S4 Krait on the HTC Evo 4G LTE utterly destroys the processor on the Motorola Razr by a HUGE landslide. There is just NO comparison what so ever. You are comparing a cheetah to a turtle.
10. KingKurogiii posted on 11 May 2012, 08:15 0 2
xD i think there's a lot of overestimation being done with these Krait CPUs. the Galaxy Nexus has the same Resoultion with an OMAP4460 and there's barely a difference at all between it and the Razr in benchmarks. i also realize that ICS is probably what the differntiating factor is here in these benchmarks and sure enough my ICS Razr does consistantly score higher than the Galaxy Nexus probably because of that qHD resolution so those "WAY lower" scores you theorized are Galaxy Nexus scores in reality.
11. remixfa posted on 11 May 2012, 08:20 3 7
Resolution has a minimal effect on chips. in order for it to have such an effect, the chip would have to be rather weak. they stopped being weak a while ago.
13. SuperAndroidEvo posted on 11 May 2012, 10:45 2 0
That is not true, the resolution has more than minimal effects. You are downplaying it. The S4 on the HTC Evo 4G LTE outclasses the OMAP on the Motorola Droid Razr. You can't put them on the same boat.
I am not saying your phone is not good, but you can't compare last year’s tech to this year’s tech. It just makes no sense. Your phone was great for 2011's numbers NOT 2012's. For pete's sake the S4 dual-core is almost as powerful as a quad-core Tegra 3. That says something about Qualcomm's new chips! Now imagine the S4 Krait Pro, & the quad-core S4 Krait. Those are right around the corner literally.
14. Mario1017 posted on 11 May 2012, 13:14 1 0
The S4's CPU is much better than the tegra 3's. By quite a lot. So yes, the S4 is better, not almost as good. The only place the tegra wins is in GPU performance. And that isn't by a lot.
16. SuperAndroidEvo posted on 11 May 2012, 15:09 0 1
Well that is what I mean when I say the S4 is almost as good as the Tegra 3. Thank you!
17. remixfa posted on 11 May 2012, 15:12 0 3
go find benchmarks of phones running similar chip set ups and overlays like Sense, where the only real difference is resolution. It makes a very minor dent. They did it last year with a T2 running a low resolution and QHD. It made a 1 FPS difference. Unless you are saying that the S4 is somehow less powerful than a Tegra 2, then the results are the same. Also you can look at the OneX on ATT and the OneS.. the only major difference is resolution and the scores are very similar even though the OneX is running high density LCD2 and 720p vs the OneS's lower resolution Super amoled.
18. KingKurogiii posted on 11 May 2012, 15:54 0 2
i just explained to you how dismal the resolution factor is guy. you can even see how dismal it is with the One X and One S.
i'm not blatently trying to compare the two because you're right they are two different generation chipsets but it's kind of hard to not make that observation when the numbers are like right there. do you deny what's right here on this very article? xD
it won't be around the corner litterally until they're coming off the line and judging from recent progress reports Qualcomm is having a hard enough time getting the duals out there.
22. SuperAndroidEvo posted on 12 May 2012, 08:29 0 0
Everyone knows HTC's Sense hurts any benchmark. It's such a memory hog. Resolution does make a difference too. I had the HTC Evo 3D & with Sense the benchmarks were as they have been repoted. When I put Vanilla Gingerbread the scores were Samsung Galaxy S II like. They were impressive, & that was with out overclocking. My boy has the HTC Rezound. We did the same as we did on my HTC Evo 3D & guess what? The benchmarks were lower across the board because of the Rezound's 720p HD screen. So both devices have the same S3 the only difference is the qHD VS 720P HD screens.
You STILL going to argue?
23. KingKurogiii posted on 12 May 2012, 14:43 0 1
wait, so you're going to make Sense a contributing factor in comparing phones with Sense? it makes a very small difference with MORE POWERFUL CHIPSETS like remixfa explained to you it's more difficult for weaker chipsets like the S3 and the Tegra II to push 720p resolution so they're weakened in devices that have 720p displays, phones with more powerful chipsets like the OMAP4 and the Exynos 4210 and above don't have that problem mostly due to their NEON support. i gave you the Galaxy Nexus and the Razr as an example and remixfa gave you the Galaxy Note as an example of this. the same goes for the One X and the One S.
as you can see in the Processor section of the One S review right here on Phone Arena the scores are nearly identical to the One X despite the difference in resolution so my original comment still stands.
24. SuperAndroidEvo posted on 14 May 2012, 06:58 0 0
The scores are not NEARLY identical, they are kind of close. Also remember one is dual-core & one is quad-core. Please stop kidding yourself. If the HTC One X had the qHD screen of the HTC One S the NEARLY identical comment COULDN'T be said at all. The S4 Krait on the HTC One S is a VERY powerful chip, & on top of that it's only pushing a qHD screen so the benchmarks are closer than they should be thanks to the S4 Krait. Now if it was the same Tegra 3 on the HTC One S the difference would be way bigger.
On the SAME review you clearly pointed out it says the higher resolution DOES count for something. These are now the pros who are talking. Even with these so called powerful chips the difference in resolution STILL makes a difference in the benchmarks, whether it be big or small, it's STILL there. You can't dismiss that.
You can say it until you are blue in the face, but it still won't change the FACT that resolution DOES impact benchmark scores whether you want to believe it or not.
25. remixfa posted on 14 May 2012, 07:06 1 0
The OneX for ATT is an S4 chip. And its pushing like twice the pixels as the OneS. Go do a quick look up on the OneS vs the OneX-ATT. The scores are still nearly identical. Your talking a few FPS difference at best for a very large increase in pixel density. The chip is too strong to be that bothered by it. We are past those weak arse chips that would fall apart at nicer resolutions.
Its not that it DOESNT affect it what so ever.. its that the effect is so minimal, its not worth talking about. This chips are running 50-120fps on some of these tests.. Is 2-3 FPS really worth bringing up at this point?
Fact, the 44212 outperforms the S4 in both OneS and OneX configurations. :)
27. KingKurogiii posted on 14 May 2012, 12:10 1 0
uh heh, no. i'm comparing the EVO 4G LTE scores from right here on this article to the scores obtained by Phone Arena on the One S. there's barely a difference at all. same chipset, different resolution.
when have i been saying they don't affect them at all? i've been saying they barely affect them so am i wrong SAE? am i wrong? xD
28. remixfa posted on 14 May 2012, 12:30 0 0
is loving cheese wrong?
29. SuperAndroidEvo posted on 14 May 2012, 12:46 1 0
KingKurogiii, this started by you comparing your Razr to the HTC Evo 4G LTE. (This is all your fault!) :-( lol The S4 Krait is way too powerful of a chip to even mentioned with the Razr's OMAP. At least we all agree that resolution does affect it whether it be big or small. I did over react because I took it as resolution makes NO difference from you guys. My bad, it’s just I have personally done tests to verify this with the HTC Evo 3D & the HTC Rezound. (Yeah I am a geek & I have a science lab in my basement with all sorts of crazy experiments.) lol You guys NEVER did say that & I see the error of my ways!
remixfa, all I just want to say is that Qualcomm does make a very powerful chip now. You need to respect that. Part of being unbiased is realizing that. You are clearly the ultimate Samsung Exynos fanboy. The S4 Krait with the Adreno 225 fares very well against the Tegra 3 & the Tegra 3 is quad-core. When the dual-core S4 Pro with the Adreno 320 comes out it WILL be more powerful than the Tegra 3 that’s for sure. It’s almost not fair to compare because in theory the Tegra 3 is really 2011 technology, unlike the Exynos 4212 or the S4 Krait.
Now as for the Samsung quad-core Exynos 4212 we will need to wait for the quad-core S4 Krait with Adreno 320. I am willing to bet that the S4 beats it & if it doesn't they will be equals but it will definitely not be less powerful. Remember those quad-core S4’s will be clocked from 1.8 to a beastly 2.5GHz. I don’t know about you but that is insane to me.
The age of the "crapdragon" is gone. Qualcomm is one of the best right there with Samsung at this very moment. Last year Samsung chips were the best in the whole world, the only flaw is that they don’t work with LTE, & now the NEW Exynos STILL are plagued with LTE issues in the U.S. Qualcomm’s S4 Kraits are not only insanely powerful BUT they work EVERYWHERE something Samsung STILL can’t match. This year Samsung does have VERY stiff competition from Qualcomm. The S4 Kraits are something to be reckoned with.
30. KingKurogiii posted on 14 May 2012, 13:46 1 0
well i mean it was right there man. blame Antutu. xD
you know the Tegra III only set a golden standard like months ago right? we don't really think much about it now at all.
there's no basis for comparison between the 4212 and the quad-core Krait except for that they're both quad-core but that doesn't really mean that much now. they should only clock them so high if they have batteries that won't die in four hours from such high voltage.
i'm sure the age of the "Crapdragon" was gone last year too when the S3 was only out with the Tegra II for that short while but we all know how that went. it's going to be TI that'll reign supreme here in a little bit so Qualcomm is about to be under Samsung's and TI's thumb as usual.
31. remixfa posted on 14 May 2012, 14:17 0 1
here ya go again.. the ultimate Qualcomm defender is calling me the ultimate samsung fanboy because i wont bend my opinion. Come on SAE, your better than that.
I never said the S4 WASNT powerful. Like I've explained to Darac about 20 times now, they are ALL powerful at this point in time. ...
There is always a competition among chip generations for who is best and worst. For 3 generations now, Samsung has lead the way, and for 3 generations Crapdragon has ridden kaboose.
Yea, the crapdragon either loses or just barely edges out the T3, which is a big old chipset just set in a Quad stack. Thats NOT a good comparison. It doesnt even come close to the A9 Exynos, which is larger and set on "older" designs... even though its actually made with newer and better technology.
Qualcom and the Q Defenders league brought harsh comparisons on themselves when they said the S4 was "A15 comparible", when its clearly not. Its not even keeping up with A9's with a moderate die shrinkage. The S4 is running at 1.5ghz while the Exynos runs at 1.4ghz and loses in just about every category.
When the A15 exynos and OMAP5 come out, the chip is going to be dust in the wind.
Had they just said "we've improved it 50% over the S3" instead of all those A15 marketing lies, I wouldnt have given them so much flack.
Its not about being a "samsung fanboy", because like ive said for the 300000th time, I'm clearly not.. its about looking objectively at the field and making honest evaluations.
You want to compare next years S4 with Adreno 320 vs a 4412. Thats rediculous. The 4412 is an interm chip just like the Adreno 225 S4. Compare the A-320 vs the Exynos quad 5450 and Mali 600. On paper, the A-320 is a beast.. but compared to the Mali 600, its last place.. again.
Dont confuse the fact that they are all good chips with how they place in individual comparisons of generations. Those are 2 different things.
When Qualcomm quits continually battling for last place, I will quit calling them crapdragon.
The main reasons Qualcom works in more places?? Because qualcomm has a lock down on american LTE frequencies and wont licence the tech. It has nothing to do with ability, and everything to do with tech hoarding. Didnt you ever wonder why the Exynos is LTE capable everywhere... but america?
32. SonyFTW2020 posted on 17 May 2012, 15:25 0 1
Dude i want to say thanks for clearing all the differences up because that stuff can be very confusing at times and you seem to be very unbiased and provide facts....and im honestly going to save this so i can know what is what and which is better! lol thanks again
33. KingKurogiii posted on 17 May 2012, 15:52 1 0
what makes you so sure he's right? xD
19. TimTebow posted on 11 May 2012, 17:09 1 1
Yeah but everyone still blew their load to Galaxy s2 benchmarks with its crappy resolution like Exynos was some kind of a King.
Then GSM Arena got a Galaxy S2 with Tegra 2 and blew away the Exynos clocked lower too.
Yes resolution matters but only when people want it to matter.
21. remixfa posted on 11 May 2012, 20:30 1 1
your argument has no validity. They took that same exynos, stuck it in the Note with its huge high resolution display and still managed to get even higher scores out of it.
Exynos is the king of the A9 realm.
3. RORYREVOLUTION posted on 11 May 2012, 01:05 8 2
Sprint is the master of having really good high end phones but having the slowest network at the same time.
4. android_hitman posted on 11 May 2012, 01:15 2 0
i am starting to realize that we don't need quad core yet ...
5. Saamic posted on 11 May 2012, 01:26 1 2
We don't need Nividia Tegra 3 quad-core... but Exynos quad-core is a beast compared to the dual-core S4 from the benchmark tests seen on antutu. It exceeds the Asus Transformer Prime and that's amazing
7. Hemlocke posted on 11 May 2012, 06:12 0 0
I don't know, I'm hopeful of seeing some LG Eclipse 4G LTE benchmarks, soon, and it is quad core.
20. TimTebow posted on 11 May 2012, 17:10 0 0
big deal, Tegra 3 gets the same score as Exynos in antutu.
12. remixfa posted on 11 May 2012, 08:24 3 3
if your not a heavy user, then no, u will never notice the difference. if your into advanced gaming, the advanced GPU of the exynos smashes the little adreno on the S4. Also, for advanced gaming, apps, and web browsing, the extra multi-threading that a quadcore (yes even the T3) provides makes it much faster. The Exynos quad also is more likely to have better battery life than the S4.
The S4 has a lot of marketing hype that people just are dying to believe. In reality its a smidge stronger in the CPU department than last year's exynos 4210, but it still has a weak GPU for gaming. Its quite an improvement from the crapdragon S3, but its still no exynos.
6. TylerGrunter posted on 11 May 2012, 05:13 0 0
I agree with you for the phones, but as soon as you would like to start replacing netbooks (or even notebooks for some) with tablets: yes, we need 4 cores and the sooner the better!
26. remixfa posted on 14 May 2012, 07:07 1 0
Windows 8 is going to bring a real convergence of the 2 in terms of power and functionality. Thats the future, and its almost here.
8. jaytai0106 posted on 11 May 2012, 07:08 2 0
pretty sweet :) I think as long as the phone is fast enough, 4 or 2 cores don't really matter to me. I have the AT&T version of the HTC One X, and I know a lot of people would say it's not the best or fastest phone out there. But to me, it's fast enough for my use. So I am happy with it :)