Motorola XT1058 blows away the competition with two graphics tests on a benchmark site
0. phoneArena 13 May 2013, 15:07 posted on
The unannounced Motorola XT1058 appears to be a version of the Motorola Ghost for AT&T, this is the English translation of the 'Obake' code name that showed up on the AnTuTu benchmark site. In other words, this is the eagerly awaited Motorola X phone that has been a major topic of discussion this year. During the weekend, we told you that benchmark tests revealed that the Motorola X would not be a top of the line model...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. IliyaBeshkov (Posts: 261; Member since: 09 Jul 2012)
It can be a prototype.. that's why it's 720p :)
6. sharks (Posts: 233; Member since: 16 Feb 2013)
I agree. 1080p flagships have become the standard in 2013 moving forwards.
23. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 11894; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Reminds me of the fiasco with the Bionic.
31. stychill (unregistered)
That seems to be your favorite story
68. gmracer1 (Posts: 646; Member since: 28 Dec 2012)
lmfao he's always ranting about the Bionic
43. jroc74 (Posts: 5996; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Your memory is kinda fuzzy then. This phone has yet to be officially or even half officially announced. The Bionic was announced right with or after the Atrix. Then it went thru a major over haul.
Then again, you are right. It might remind you and others of what happened with the Bionic. Being reminded of and being exactly like are 2 different things.
55. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 11894; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
I see no concrete difference here. The situations are the same. The X phone was announced but it's stuck in limbo.
58. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)
lol, you're either a poor misinformed troll or you're just a lying troll. i'm betting it's the latter. xD
59. Berzerk000 (Posts: 4274; Member since: 26 Jun 2011)
The X phone is NOTHING like the Bionic at this point. The Bionic was announced in January of 2011, with full specs listed, official pictures from Motorola, official name, and even hands on footage with the press at the event. Then, within the course of 8 months; the Etna was scrapped due to its terrible battery life, completely rebuilt into the Targa, and then in September of 2011 was released on Verizon as an entirely new device that looked and operated completely different from the Etna.
Now, the X phone hasn't had any event for it, no official specs, no official pictures, no official name, no official ANYTHING. All Google and Motorola said is that they were working on it. It was never unveiled like the Bionic was, Google and Motorola made it VERY clear that the X phone had STARTED development in late December of 2012; and now, 6 months of development later, they are getting ready for an unveiling.
Now, once the X phone has official pictures, an official name, and is officially unveiled by Motorola and Google with demo units to give out to the press, then you can start spouting off about how this is going to be like the Bionic. When the phone is delayed for 8 months after the official reveal, I will be happy to agree with you. Until then, hush.
74. vandroid (Posts: 327; Member since: 04 Sep 2012)
I loved the design of the original bionic it was beautiful but I think it was more than just battery issues that had to make it change
60. moroninc (Posts: 193; Member since: 14 Jul 2012)
can you show us some proof that it was announced ? ? ! ! you and the bionic is like a child waking up from a nightmare and refusing to sleep in the same bed.
62. xperiaDROID (banned) (Posts: 5629; Member since: 08 Mar 2013)
Mxyzptlk, you're not an analyst, you're not working with Motorola or Google, so don't act like an expert.
And I guess you're not using an iPhone, you're using a Bionic right?
Every time when there is an X Phone article, you always post BIONIC BIONIC BIONIC comments!
63. TROLL (banned) (Posts: 4851; Member since: 13 Apr 2012)
He's an, he was a ex Bionic user maybe!
True he always posts on Motorola articles, and kinda Trolls.
65. xperiaDROID (banned) (Posts: 5629; Member since: 08 Mar 2013)
Yup, he always post the word "BIONIC" on every Motorola X articles.
69. gmracer1 (Posts: 646; Member since: 28 Dec 2012)
He's still secretly in love w/ the Bionic B-)
71. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)
i never loved the Bionic and i'm a Motorola fan boy that had a Bionic. it impressed the hell out of me to begin with though being that it was the first phone powerful enough to really be able to put that blazing fast 4G LTE to any good use.
72. Sniggly (Posts: 7305; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
In your attempt to compare the Bionic to the X/Ghost/XFON, you're forgetting a tiny, little insignificant detail:
THE GHOST HASN'T BEEN FU.CKING ANNOUNCED YET.
If you make this claim one more time before it's ACTUALLY announced, I WILL report you for trolling, as you now have no excuse to be wrong again.
82. VZWuser76 (Posts: 3895; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
Then every Apple phone is in the same situation as well. Rumors usually start within weeks of the new model's launch. Then we keep hearing rumors moving the date closer/later/closer again/etc until it comes out around a year later.
The previous poster is right. The Bionic was announced with the Thunderbolt, Charge, & Revolution in January 2011. The release date was originally set for May/June, but problems with the Tegra chip & LTE arose, which pushed it backed and finally resulted in a rushed redesign. They couldn't simply drop the Bionic because Verizon had ordered it, along with the Razr. The first gen LTE phones (Bionic,TB, Charge, & Rev) were all supposed to launch the first half of 2011, & the 2nd gen (Razr, Rezound, GNex, & Revolution2) in the second half. Moto couldn't simply drop the Bionic, they owed them a phone. But the main difference between the Bionic & the X phone is that the Bionic was announced and given a launch date, the X phone has no concrete details, only rumor and speculation, just like any other phone before it's announced.
If anything, anyone who went with the Bionic deserved what they got. When Moto announced early summer of 2011 that they were completely redesigning the phone, that should've been a red flag. No phone goes from concept to launch in 3 months and not have MAJOR issues. Why do you think most of the phones launched take about a year to get to that point? Honestly common sense is in such short supply these days it might as well be a super power.
2. ZeroCide (Posts: 770; Member since: 09 Jan 2013)
It will probably have a locked bootloader.
21. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 11894; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
This is a given since it's a Motorola phone.
30. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)
how are you still able to post on this site?
posted from my unlocked Droid Razr MAXX HD.
57. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)
keep up your antics troll and i wouldn't have to.
9. FlushGordon (unregistered)
Tegra 4 is for tablets
Tegra 4i is too weak to compete against the snapdragon 800
14. Nathan_ingx (Posts: 3614; Member since: 07 Mar 2012)
It could even be Snapdragon 600...the yield must be because of the lower resolution.
Cause the Snapdragon S4 pro on a 720p device with Adreno 320 almost comes close to the S4 and the One.
22. HDShatter (Posts: 1021; Member since: 17 Jan 2013)
The S4 and one have the same gpu as the phoens getting close to them.
25. Nathan_ingx (Posts: 3614; Member since: 07 Mar 2012)
Yes, it is. But what i'm saying is, the processor on this Moto phone can also be the 600 instead of the 800, if the readings given up there are true. If it was the 800, it will like double, if not triple the frame rate, provided the resolution be 720p.
34. HDShatter (Posts: 1021; Member since: 17 Jan 2013)
Adreno 320 is like a gtx 680 and adreno 330 is like the GTX Titan, the Titan is much more powerful but it does not get 2-3x the fps.
37. papss (unregistered)
I think what he's saying is that with a 720p screen it would be much higher if it were a 800.. Not sure if you read that part
44. HDShatter (Posts: 1021; Member since: 17 Jan 2013)
It won't get higher fps by 2x from a 2x more powerful gpu... Plenty of indepth benchmarks that will prove that on pc.
48. papss (unregistered)
This isn't pc and it doesn't have to deal with many other factors such as a much larger screen
52. HDShatter (Posts: 1021; Member since: 17 Jan 2013)
a 5" 1080p screen and a 1080p 50" screen requires the same amount of gpu power to run. Both have the same amount of pixels.
73. Nathan_ingx (Posts: 3614; Member since: 07 Mar 2012)
I'm actually putting importance on the processor here...the 600.
Processing a 1080p and a 720p device with the same krait. There has to be a difference!
5. MrPhilo (Posts: 48; Member since: 25 Feb 2013)
Obviously it's better as these are on screen test, 720p vs 1080p. Doesn't 'blow' the competition away.
28. Berzerk000 (Posts: 4274; Member since: 26 Jun 2011)
But even when compared to other 720p devices, the X still pulls ahead by a fair margin. In Egypt HD, the X scored about 54 fps, and the Optimus G scored about 45 fps. In T-Rex HD, the X scored about 26 fps, while the Optimus G scored about 19 fps.
The X averaged 13 fps above the Optimus G, which is powered by a quad core S4 Pro and has the same resolution. Obviously there is a powerful chip in there granting the X that advantage.
32. Berzerk000 (Posts: 4274; Member since: 26 Jun 2011)
My mistake, the X averaged 8 fps above the Optimus G, not 13. My point still stands, though.
41. HDShatter (Posts: 1021; Member since: 17 Jan 2013)
If it is on key limie pie it could be receiving a nice fps boost from the updates.
67. TROLL (banned) (Posts: 4851; Member since: 13 Apr 2012)
Isn't Adreno320 a single Gpu?
If it is, why didn't it come with 2 or,4 core Gpu.....?
77. Berzerk000 (Posts: 4274; Member since: 26 Jun 2011)
Because that would've made it overheat like crazy. The way the Adreno 320 is made, it doesn't rely on cores for more power. Look at the Exynos 5 Dual and Snapdragon 600;
The Mali-T604 in the E5D is quad core @ 533 MHz.
The Adreno 320 in the Snapdragon 600 is single core @ 400 MHz
Obviously, you would think the Mali would have the upper hand; because it has 3 more cores clocked 133 MHz higher than the Adreno, but in offscreen tests, they score almost identically. The Adreno 320 supplies plenty of horsepower to the user while still maintaining a low power consumption and temperature.
The Adreno 320 in the GS4 is actually clocked at 450 MHz, still lower than that of the Mali and still lacking 3 cores compared to it, but it outperforms it by a fair margin in offscreen tests.
75. porter_ (Posts: 8; Member since: 15 Apr 2013)
It's probably because the next version of Android to be unveiled at I/O reportedly has the next version of OpenGL. This would explain a bump in graphics performance without superior hardware.
78. Berzerk000 (Posts: 4274; Member since: 26 Jun 2011)
That would explain it, but the information of these benchmarks show this device running Android 4.2.2. Granted, I'm sure that could be faked somehow, but we have no definite reason to assume they are.
79. CanYouSeeTheLight (Posts: 1116; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)
IT does "blow" the competition away, and people are not stupid, this device is going to be better for gaming than the HTC One or the Galaxy S4 just because of the 720p resolution (0,9 million pixels) against the 1080p (2 million pixels), it is just simple math, 1080p have much more pixels to push therefore will have a lower performance.
7. FlushGordon (unregistered)
Lol...it could be a combination of a low res screen , a Snapdragon 800 and some overclocking magic.
BS Marketing gimmick. To see is to believe
11. FlushGordon (unregistered)
The author didn't realize that a prototype device can use a 720p or even a lower qHD screen to boost and bloat benchmark results , hence, blowing the competition away
17. Alan01 (Posts: 357; Member since: 21 Mar 2012)
Did you not read the part about benchmark tests being faked?
Based on the raw score, the headline is correct
18. drpain (Posts: 85; Member since: 07 Feb 2013)
No, it's clearly not. Instead of sensationalizing headlines for clicks, you have have read the source that states its an ONSCREEN test of 720p vs 1080p. Totally worthless.
27. Jimstar (Posts: 259; Member since: 24 Oct 2011)
Actually it is worth something. I'd rather have 26FPS on a 720p screen than 15 or 12 on a 1080p screen, but that's just me and I know that these benchmarks aren't 100% indicative of gaming performance(not that anyone does any serious gaming on a smartphone mind you).
Now when he said based on the raw score, he's right, you can't actually argue that, it's an observable fact..
If you're actually saying that the score isn't telling the whole story because of the difference in resolution, I agree, but still a higher score is a higher score.
39. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)
does that really change that the benchmarks blow away benchmarks from the competition? i think not...all you're really doing is offering a reason on WHY it blows away the competition.
26. TylerGrunter (Posts: 1514; Member since: 16 Feb 2012)
I does not need to be faked, it´s just that you are comparing a phone with "only" 720p to the competition sporting "1080p".
So with the same or even lower GPU it gets more FPS as it has to move half of the pixels. So it does not really "blow" anything away.
And you don´t mention that anywhere in your article...
By the way, the chip is a Snapdragon, three options:
MSM8960T, APQ8064 or APQ8064T.
But I think it´s the first one as the Antutu scores were lower than the phones whith either APQ8064 or APQ8064T and Antutu scales very well with cores.
35. Berzerk000 (Posts: 4274; Member since: 26 Jun 2011)
Even when compared to other 720p devices (like the Optimus G), the X phone still pulls ahead by a decent mark.
As for the Antutu scores, I think they tested that with a lower model of the X phone, the one with the MSM8960T, like you said, and these graphic benchmarks with the APQ8064 or APQ8064T. Look here;
If you look at all of the pictures of the X phone, in the upper left hand corner of the pictures showing the front of the device, the Motorola logo is slightly different on every one. Whether this is just what Motorola does with every prototype unit to give it its own mark, or if it shows 3 of the same device but with different internals is unknown to me.
45. HDShatter (Posts: 1021; Member since: 17 Jan 2013)
The fps between 1080p and 720 is hugely exaggerated. Ya 1080p needs more horse power but not as much as people make it seem like.
51. Berzerk000 (Posts: 4274; Member since: 26 Jun 2011)
Well, it is quite the difference, about 15 fps worth in benchmarks. The Optimus G scores about 45 fps in Egypt HD Onscreen where the Droid DNA/Butterfly and Xperia Z scored 30 fps. It doesn't cut your frame rate in half like many people seem to think, but it definitely takes a hit.
That's why I think the Motorola model in these graphic benchmarks are using the Snapdragon 600, because if you take away 15 fps to account for a 1080p display, it would score awfully close to the GS4.
But that also points to multiple versions of the X phone, because like Tyler pointed out, the Antutu scores were lower than that of the GS4 and HTC One, and so it was probably using a dual core variant of the S4 Pro.
So, we either have 2 versions of the X phone coming out, or just 2 prototypes and 1 of them will be scrapped before release.
53. HDShatter (Posts: 1021; Member since: 17 Jan 2013)
If its a prototype then it could be making benchmarks look bad for cpu. Same thing happend with the galaxy s2 benchmarks before it was official stated cpu was horrible when it actually had finalized software all was good.