x PhoneArena is looking for new authors in New York! To view all available positions, click here.
  • Home
  • News
  • Scores for the unreleased HTC Shooter/EVO 3D creep up on benchmark websites, nothing spectacular

Scores for the unreleased HTC Shooter/EVO 3D creep up on benchmark websites, nothing spectacular

Posted: , by Daniel P.

Tags:

Scores for the unreleased HTC Shooter/EVO 3D creep up on benchmark websites, nothing spectacular
Being one of the first phones with a 1.2GHz dual-core Snapdragon CPU, one would think that the HTC Shooter will blast the benchmark tests, as its brethren with the dual-core Tegra 2 or OMAP4 chipsets did. Not so fast, said the snail. A few scores have surfaced on websites of popular synthetic benchmark software, which reveal pretty slow performance of the dual-core Snapdragon, compared to the others.

Just a reminder, the HTC Shooter might be Sprint's rumored HTC EVO 3D, and it also mirrors the specs of the leaked HTC Pyramid for T-Mobile, so with dual-core 1.2GHz Snapdragon, qHD 540x960 display, and, eventually, 3D capabilities, the benchmarks will be playing second fiddle to the phone's other virtues. Plus, it should launch with Android 2.3.3 Gingerbread out of the gate.

Smartbench is a relatively new test, which accounts for multiple cores, and the performance results there are as follows:

Scores for the unreleased HTC Shooter/EVO 3D creep up on benchmark websites, nothing spectacular
Scores for the unreleased HTC Shooter/EVO 3D creep up on benchmark websites, nothing spectacular

GLBenchmark 2.0 measures the GPU productivity, and the Adreno 220 graphics subsystem in the HTC Shooter comes on par with Tegra 2, giving it up only to the OMAP4 chipset on the LG Optimus 3D:

Scores for the unreleased HTC Shooter/EVO 3D creep up on benchmark websites, nothing spectacular
Scores for the unreleased HTC Shooter/EVO 3D creep up on benchmark websites, nothing spectacular

Of course, these are just pre-production tests that software engineers and testers sometimes do when they are tweaking prototypes, and they stay in the benchmarks' databases. We wouldn't trust these results with that huge difference, not on a prototype, and will wait for the final unit before we pass any judgment.

On a different note, Qualcomm's custom-made Scorpion core, which is loosely based on ARM's Cortex-A8 architecture, has been around since the first 1GHz Snapdragon, and the other dual-core phones are based on Cortex-A9, which is optimized for multiple core performance, so there might be some merit to the general productivity results, despite the 20% higher clock speed. The lag in the GPU tests is more puzzling, though, and again makes us pause and wait for a final unit before we do any ranking.

Scores for the unreleased HTC Shooter/EVO 3D creep up on benchmark websites, nothing spectacular

You can read more about the dual-core chipsets in our editorials here and here.

We will be at Sprint's event at CTIA 2011 live, and will make sure to give you some hands-on time with the device, and solve the performance puzzle.

source: AndroidAndMe

9 Comments
  • Options
    Close




posted on 17 Mar 2011, 07:16 2

2. green2u (unregistered)


Thank you for this excellent breakdown! Though I know the prototypes may still get some more tweaking, it appears that the OMAP4 chipset on the LG Optimus 3D continues to smoke all other phones. And re: the Atrix, too bad it's on AT&T where it can't live up to its potential.

posted on 17 Mar 2011, 13:06 1

3. Gryphyn (unregistered)


The point of dual core phones is not more speed, but is in fact longer battery life. One core is used when less muscle is required, effectively halving the processing power requirements.

posted on 17 Mar 2011, 22:27

4. chinakidoliver.iab (Posts: 75; Member since: 07 Dec 2010)


ill have an optimus 3d

posted on 18 Mar 2011, 01:14

5. steven999 (unregistered)


How does a dual core phone use half the battery? that does not make any sence to me. I want to learn more about this. Where can I find info on this.

posted on 18 Mar 2011, 17:22

7. JW1ngman (Posts: 21; Member since: 18 Mar 2011)


maybe you dont understand because you cant even spell "sense". more processing speed means more efficiency.

posted on 18 Mar 2011, 07:53

6. MikeNYC (unregistered)


Any chance the device (HTC Shooter) clocked in the benchmark tests was only using one of its cores at that time - hence the surprisingly low scores vs Tegra2 and OMAP.

Otherwise, it doesn't reflect well on scorpiom core design which is like Cortex A8 and not the newer A9 architecture.

posted on 20 Mar 2011, 16:05

8. Guillermo (unregistered)


apparently, the Evo 3D (HTC SHOOTER) has been tweaked to run both memory interfaces and a leak has confirmed that they have almost doubled their GLbenchmark scores on the memory fix alone!! Appears that the Evo3D will smoke the Optimus 3D! Lets wait 2 more days to see, baby!

posted on 20 Mar 2011, 21:20

9. J. Harper (unregistered)


From inside man:

"I know there was some flak on the recent GLBenchmarks and we caught hell for it around here as well. I just wanted to let you know that fit and finish on that has been polished out. Memory allocation was only single set data stream and we have now been able to utilize duel data stream with a bump in memory clock speeds. I guess you could use the analogy of SDRAM compared to DDRAM.
Scorpion chip set is very OC friendly; I can’t say what we were able to overclock the cpu’s to. Please no question on that one. I can say that we were able to almost double our GLbench scores with just the memory fix though."

Looks like this is a non-issue until we can get our hands on some real hardware to test. I'm thinking the Shooter is going to be a beast. This guy goes on to reveal that the included ROM can act as RAM if the second chip needs the extra memory. I'm guessing this thing will be top of the heap for a month or two... maybe less if the iPhone 5 really has the same innards as the new iPad.

posted on 31 Mar 2011, 17:53

10. Juan Cierva (unregistered)


Uhm...don't the Shooter (EVO 3D) and the Atrix have to render 26% more pixels because of their qHD displays?? 960x540 vs 800x400. This may explain some of the lower benchmark scores.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories