Samsung GT-I9500 Galaxy S IV appears in benchmarks with 1.8 GHz CPU, possibly the Exynos 5 Octa
1. ajac09 (Posts: 1212; Member since: 30 Sep 2009)
Its a benchmark we must take this as FACT!!!!!
33. Nadr1212 (Posts: 741; Member since: 22 Sep 2012)
If this is a prototype and not the real thing, then just imagine the actual flagship phone!!!!
4. josephnero (Posts: 205; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)
come on people.there is something called sarcasm
5. mahmoudxcom (Posts: 7; Member since: 04 Jun 2012)
companies must change the battery technology because the hardware become faster and more powerful , but right now i don't see any company introducing any new battery technology
6. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
the hardware might be getting faster, but its also getting much more battery proficient at the same time. What is killing the battery is how many things we have running at any given time. There are more apps running in the background and many of them do a lot more than they used to. Also, manufactures constantly clocking these chips super high so unknowing consumers think that its automatically faster hurts the battery. None of these chips need to be run over 1-1.4ghz at max.
The chips themselves are anorexic power sippers compared to chips from even 2 or 3 years ago at the same clock speed.
13. SuperAndroidEvo (Posts: 3515; Member since: 15 Apr 2011)
You are so right. Our quad-core Qualcomm Krait S4 Pro's running at 1.0GHz are just as smooth as if they were on 1.5GHz on normal day to day operations.
I think I like the savings in power consumption better than higher clock speeds when it comes to these newer chips, like the S800 & A-15 variants.
+1 my firend.
7. hung2900 (Posts: 714; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)
At least my Galaxy Note 2 is a beast and I never care about how many percentage of battery left whenever I leave home.
37. BackHandLegend (Posts: 80; Member since: 15 Dec 2012)
That's why companies need to invest in nanotechnology!!!
(Watch this, it is worth it and maybe our solution in the near future)
8. amansingal14 (Posts: 277; Member since: 08 Sep 2012)
Still as powerful as Intel dual core?
9. TBomb (Posts: 76; Member since: 28 Dec 2012)
personally, im more excited to see what it looks like than anything else. The size of it is probably gonna make me grab it instantly or wait for something smaller when my upgrade comes around in june
10. imkyle (Posts: 948; Member since: 18 Nov 2010)
Exactly. If it looks like crap I dont care how power full it is.
12. freebee269 (Posts: 497; Member since: 10 Aug 2012)
i agree. i hope it isnt bigger than 5 inches. i also hope it comes with atleast 2500mah battery.
14. MistB (Posts: 543; Member since: 07 Jul 2012)
It will be 4.99/5 inches, phones won't be getting any smaller anytime soon.
15. jove39 (Posts: 1206; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Scores are awesome...looking forward to next samsung flagship...wish samsung add a beafy battery too!
20. PunyPoop (Posts: 624; Member since: 18 Jan 2013)
IT'S OVERMARKETING MAN! THEY ARE AFRAID THAT WE WILL DISCOVER THEIR MISCHIEVIOUS TACTICS :))
18. skymitch89 (Posts: 983; Member since: 05 Nov 2010)
Hey people, they have "a few versions of the Galaxy S IV in the labs, each with different Exynos processor". So in other word, they are testing the devices right now.
36. yahoo29 (Posts: 71; Member since: 15 Sep 2012)
Yah , i think so coz many S IV pictures leaked and they have different benchmark result and i think they are tottaly testing each phones that can make the highest score.
26. rudlie (Posts: 182; Member since: 13 Mar 2012)
Only a little bit higher than my galnote 2 (less than 1000 score). Go to hell octa core!
29. HDShatter (Posts: 1014; Member since: 17 Jan 2013)
Its not octa, people who call it an octa are idiots its 2 processors, probably not even in the same bin. This will cause instability, lag, overheating for at most like a 10% battery life gain, they need to be focusing on making arm chips more power optimized not putting as many cpus/cores in the chip as possible.
35. cripton805 (Posts: 907; Member since: 18 Mar 2012)
Well even if it was 2 proccesors, theres still 8 cores.