Sony Xperia T and V beat the quad-core Galaxy S III and HTC One X in benchmark scores
1. 09wbd03516 (banned) (Posts: 140; Member since: 30 May 2012)
And the quad core optimus g will be the epic!!!
2. pikapowerize (banned) (Posts: 1869; Member since: 03 May 2012)
see,,, you dont really need quad core on smartphone to perform better task!!!
but i do wish that chip maker like Exynos, Tegra and OMAP will be supported by LTE now!!!
3. aokde (Posts: 184; Member since: 09 Jul 2012)
why do i feel that the writer of the article is not impressed?? i know i am.
the myth of quad cores beating the hell out of duals and the more cores the better has just been proven wrong! i'm waiting for intel to show us the real processing power :D
12. yowanvista (Posts: 273; Member since: 20 Sep 2011)
Actually no since the Exynos 4412 is based on the older ARM Cortex-A9 core design compared to the MSM8960 which uses the newer & more power efficient Qualcomm S4 Krait. If ever you compare a Dual Core & a Quad Core SoC of the same architecture and design the Quad Core will win hands down.
17. aokde (Posts: 184; Member since: 09 Jul 2012)
who said that people (including me) want to compare architectures that processors are based on? we care for the final result. besides, krait was announced back at 2010, the new exynos was announced less than two years ago, so basically, an older processor with half the cores beats the newer one with double the core? shame on you samsung.
19. yowanvista (Posts: 273; Member since: 20 Sep 2011)
Rubbish. Either substantiate what you say, or save yourself looking like a fool. That's pretty much FUD since you just did compare without knowing the fact that both use different technologies, lithographies and hardware features. It's like comparing a dual core i3 to an older Core 2 Quad, the results would show the same. 2010? Not so fast, those SoCs were first made available in Q1 2012 but TSMC's Production was halted and the production of such chips and those were pushed back to Q2 2012.
"the new exynos was announced less than two years ago"
Please cut the crap, it was in production just recently right this year but Samsung used the Cortex-A9 since it is the last major member of the Cortex family before the introduction of the A15 which hadn't yet entered mainstream production. The future Exynos Dual & Quad based on the A15 will be on par with the current Krait generation & might even outperform it.
Oh and if you're not willing to compare architectures then you'd better be off with a dated ARM11/ARMv6 processor, it clearly reflects you supposedly uncaring nature
22. aokde (Posts: 184; Member since: 09 Jul 2012)
are you stupid or something? i said announced, not started production.
krait was announced back in 2010:http://www.anandtech.com/show/
exynos 4412 was announced less than two years ago:http://www.cnx-software.com/2012/04/27/samsun
and you are really stupid when you gave that i3 and core 2 quad example. like i already said, consumers want the final result, not the process that lead to that result.
so, shut the f*ck up, and get the f*ck out.
23. yowanvista (Posts: 273; Member since: 20 Sep 2011)
Yet another another case of fallacy, the announcement doesn't indicate anything since the units were not even in product hence no manufacturer would be able to implement it in their smartphones.
And the i3 - Core 2 Quad is a justified example since it demonstrates that a dual core processor with newer technologies will outperform a Quad Core which was based on older technology, the same applies to mobile processors. Stop being dumb and see the facts instead of acting like a fanboy.
"consumers want the final result, not the process that lead to that result." - You're probably referring to those dumb persons who are technologically impaired but the case isn't generalized. Not everyone is stupid
4. MeoCao (unregistered)
Sony is very serious about Android and got praised by Google, and their hard work shows.
6. RamyRamz69 (Posts: 389; Member since: 12 Dec 2011)
And once again Sony proves most of the companies wrong just like they did with their 2011 line up and proved that a phone can be smooth and lag free with a single core and 512 MB of RAM...
9. hung2900 (Posts: 683; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)
Actually GS 2 released before was still better with the lower price (in my country), lol.
However Sony optimized their phones very well.
7. hung2900 (Posts: 683; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)
Stupid and useless benchmarks. I kniw most of people commemted above didnt know what these benchmarks are and what for. There are similar comments on GSMArena.
8. hung2900 (Posts: 683; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)
- Benchmark Pi (Even the writer cut the name of this benchmark in the picture, lol): Single-core benchmark, so if the architechture and clockrate are the same, quad-core or octa-core are the same. 1.6Ghz Exynos 4412 in Note II has 306 points (GSMArena)
- Nenamark 2: The true useless benchmark. Capped at 60fps. Check GL Benchmark Offscreen for the true infomation
- Quadrant: Not bad benchmark but who knows the real each part of Quadrant above? CPU? Ram? Or a *ucking long I/O bar (some tweakers can make ~7000 on Galaxy S2 by tweaking I/O bar)
10. TylerGrunter (Posts: 757; Member since: 16 Feb 2012)
Mostly agree with you on this one: most of the people don't understand how the benchmark works.
You among them, as to check how well a GPU works on a device you have to check the GL ONSCREEN benchmark. The offscreen tells you how powerful the GPU is, but the onscreen one tells how good is it for a specific device/resolution/clock speed. And here we are talking about devices, not GPUs.
It's not the same to have a 800x480 or a 1280x720 resolution, but the offscreen test would show the same result with the same GPU. The real performance could be really bad for the second one as it has double the pixels.
11. hung2900 (Posts: 683; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)
Oh I forgot that the they've released new GL Benchmark 2.5 and goona release 3.0.
In Gl Benchmark 2.1 onscreen, many devices can reach the limit 60 fps, so that's why i prefered Offscreen.
15. TylerGrunter (Posts: 757; Member since: 16 Feb 2012)
Right, that was primarely my point, with the new 2.5 one hardly any GPU gets to the limit as it a lot more demanding for the GPUs.
13. ph00ny (Posts: 556; Member since: 26 May 2011)
Quadrant scores should be posted with the breakdown information
14. rd_nest (Posts: 539; Member since: 06 Jun 2010)
All depends upon what you want to measure. Just look at Note 2 benchmark here:http://www.gsmarena.com/samsun
At end of day they mean nothing. They show capability of hardware without any measure of how they actually perform in real life.
Benchmarks are important, but they shouldn't be the only criteria.
16. r41nier (Posts: 59; Member since: 13 Oct 2011)
I like Sony products, but in terms of specs, I know GSIII's GPU will beat the Adreno 225. S4 has the edge on the CPU though. I hope there are also GLBenchmark results.
18. Manos (Posts: 16; Member since: 16 May 2012)
Oh man! You all got the one X benchmarked 4 months ago! Since the latest official update released on the 10.08 he one X gets from 5700 up to 6100. So i don't really see a device topping it. But the important is the operation of the device and how smooth it is and not the tweaks they use.
21. pyradark (Posts: 687; Member since: 10 Jun 2012)
whenever there is a event like IFA and the first event back on jan-mar 2012.
sammy and sony always shows off their beast... its like they are the only competition, while others are just trash in the corner...
i mean sammy is no.1, while sony is starting to grow after the hardfall & break up.
wheres LG, HTC, Nokia, Apple??? always late??
24. badfx (Posts: 1; Member since: 04 Sep 2012)
actualy after the last update the htc one x scores 55.1 in ninamark 2 so please update the charts phonearena
25. loken (Posts: 462; Member since: 09 May 2012)
But The Sony Devices R running prototype software and still gets higher than the released version of htc one x es
26. BigDnm01 (Posts: 6; Member since: 04 Sep 2012)
high score on Benchmark or not, Sony Xperia T/TX is the phone for me. the only thing missing is the IP57 water/dust resistant that the Acro S and V have.