Intel-based MegaFon Mint arrives on Russia's second largest carrier, swiftly benchmarked
Don't get fooled by seeing only one core in the processor of that chip – it's better optimized than ARM machines, and while it cannot beat the latest ARM-based Androids, it's definitely a close runner-up and a decent competitor in the mid-range. Folks from Russian tech blog Hi-tech quickly ran a few benchmarks to check out the performance, and on Quadrant for example the device scored around 4,000. Check out the rest of the benchmark test results below.
The MegaFon Mint also features 400MHz graphics that allow you to play back 1080p video. The 8-megapixel rear camera is very snappy, taking around 10 pictures in under a second with burst mode baked in.
Sadly, the MegaFon Mint is running on the antique Android 2.3.7 Gingerbread. It sports 16GB of internal memory (not expandable), and all of that comes for an off-contract price of $565 (17,990 roubles).
MegaFon Mint Fullscreen
More popular slideshows
10 great Android widgets you should try
09 Apr 2013, 08:08
Samsung Galaxy S4: 10 exclusive or little-known features review
05 Apr 2013, 07:17
Best Android phones to get this spring
17 Apr 2013, 09:48
5 smartphone apps banned by... Google
16 Apr 2013, 07:24
1. TylerGrunter posted on 22 Aug 2012, 08:44 1 0
The Antutu benchmark seems OK (around 5000 like the A9 dual cores) but the Quadrant seems a bit off: most ot the points it got in Memory and I/O.
Looked it up and 4000 in Antutu seems normal for that chip, the Lava Xolo also gets a similar score (does intel has better memory and I/O management than ARM? I wonder)
8. dmckay12 posted on 22 Aug 2012, 17:52 0 0
Antutu can't be used to accurately compare phones with different numbers of cores. Lower cores always=lower score (unless the one with more cores sucks).
13. TylerGrunter posted on 23 Aug 2012, 02:48 0 0
That's because Antutu heavily relies on the CPU part of the benchmark, which is not hecessarily good. You can argue that even if they had a crappy GPU (as an example) a phone with several cores would have a very good score in Antutu.
I'm not critisizing the benchmark which is one of the best benchmark tools for Android, just pointing out its shortcomings.
I would rather have a benchmark that does the same as Windows was doing with the "Windows Vista/7 Experience". The Windows System Assessment Tool (WinSAT) that gives you marks for GPU, memory, CPU, etc... And then gives you the user experience based on the lower mark.
2. pokharkarsaga posted on 22 Aug 2012, 09:26 0 1
intel an advise to you" cut ur SOC prices close to ARM and Qualcomm SOCs and supply it to as many OEMs".this is not desktop and laptop universe.here price is also a competition.
3. kamil posted on 22 Aug 2012, 10:08 0 0
impressive for a single core but I wonder what the performance would be like if Intel decides to add their high end processors in their smartphones
4. Veigald posted on 22 Aug 2012, 10:26 0 0
Antique Gingerbread? Thought that was still the most common Android version by far?
9. pikapowerize (banned) posted on 22 Aug 2012, 22:37 0 0
this is what people are missing... great phones doesnt need dual core quad core to run very fast...
please read this....
just remove 'dot' to '.'
10. No_Nonsense posted on 22 Aug 2012, 23:47 0 0
That's probably the 10th time you're posting this link. U mad bro? Many of us have already read this one
11. pikapowerize (banned) posted on 23 Aug 2012, 01:32 1 0
not not really...just sick of these people that is so hungry about dual cores quad core and gigs or ram... they forgot about the whole functionality... a phone can perform on a single processor and decent ram..
12. No_Nonsense posted on 23 Aug 2012, 01:56 0 0
User experience is more important than the specs that power a device, but then I wouldn't mind if something better comes at the same price.
14. pikapowerize (banned) posted on 23 Aug 2012, 03:11 0 0
yeah... functionality and user experience... symbian might be "laggy" to other people but never experience anything like that... smooth and fluid... but its slow... laggy is different from slow...
android is really laggy, freezy but it is still well supported coz of its versatility and ecosystem... but the reason of its versatility is symbian... symbian's greatest engineer works on google's android now!!! nokia is being blind and dont want to listen and stupid...symbian foundation has an answer to the competition (iPhone was fast growingthat time) but they reject it...
symbian has that too..but it just dont have that large support because again of nokia...
15. No_Nonsense posted on 23 Aug 2012, 07:56 1 0
-100, Belle FP1 at least when U've used it, doesn't lag. Samsung Android phones do. Now let the thumbs down begin
16. pikapowerize (banned) posted on 23 Aug 2012, 18:40 0 0
-100? dont get it,, you give me -100 but you (i think) agree with me that symbian is better than android?
17. No_Nonsense posted on 28 Aug 2012, 22:58 0 0
The -100 was for telling Symbian is laggy
18. pikapowerize (banned) posted on 28 Aug 2012, 23:39 0 0
ah ok.. but i didnt said that symbian is laggy... just slow... it is different... android is... symbian can run fluidly with 10 apps running on hte background... i've heard one user that its symbian device can run 67 apps but still fluid... i mean android is dead with that... battery hog OS... but symbian isnt...
19. pikapowerize (banned) posted on 29 Aug 2012, 00:27 0 0
symbian's omly problem is its laggy browser... nokia should have take some update to that browser!
20. No_Nonsense posted on 29 Aug 2012, 00:55 0 0
FP2 or Opera Mini is the solution