Lenovo IdeaPhone K900 edges out the Samsung Galaxy S4 in benchmark test

posted by Alan F. / Apr 02, 2013, 2:55 PM

Lenovo IdeaPhone K900 edges out the Samsung Galaxy S4 in benchmark test

The Lenovo IdeaPhone K900 edges out the Samsung Galaxy S4

The Chinese handset manufacturers have all been making a push to the high end of the smartphone market. Lenovo is no exception and the Lenovo IdeaPhone K900 has some pretty high specs of its own. The phablet is equipped with a 5.5 inch FHD LCD display that sports a 401ppi pixel density. A dual-core 2GHz Intel Atom Clover Trail+ processor is under the hood while 2GB of RAM is on board. There is 16GB of native storage on the phone but there is no microSD slot on the handset. The 13MP rear camera captures video in 1080p while the model does come equipped with a 2MP front-facing shooter for self portraits and video chat. A 2500mAh battery keeps the spark alive and Android 4.2 is installed right out of the box.

In other words, when it comes to raw specs, the Lenovo IdeaPhone K900 matches up well with the upcoming Samsung Galaxy S4. Putting both phones through the paces of the AnTuTu benchmark test resulted in the Lenovo model edging out Sammy's powerhouse by a smidgeon. And just in case you thought that this might be a fluke, back in January we put the K900 through AnTuTu and it scored 25,000 which was a good 10,000 above the HTC DROID DNA and the Samsung GALAXY Note II, both of which use quad-core processors like the Samsung Galaxy S4. Must be something in that silicon

Thanks Anonymous Tipster!

source: Hi-Tech@Mail.ru (translated) via GSMArena

Lenovo IdeaPhone K900

View more + 3 images

Related phones

View Full specs

Display 5.5" 1080 x 1920 pixels

Camera 13 MP / 2 MP front

Processor Intel Atom, Dual-core, 2000 MHz

Storage 16 GB

Battery 2500 mAh(12h 3G talk time)

View Full specs

PhoneArena Rating:

9.3

Read Full Review

User Rating:

9.2

Based on 114 Reviews

Display 5.0" 1080 x 1920 pixels

Camera 13 MP / 2 MP front

Processor Qualcomm Snapdragon 600, Quad-core, 1900 MHz

Storage 64 GB + microSDXC

Battery 2600 mAh(17h 3G talk time)

FEATURED VIDEO

Options

70 Comments

1. drpain

Posts: 85; Member since: Feb 07, 2013

Intel will eventually crush arm, just a matter of time

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 3:00 PM 17

14. mafiaprinc3

Posts: 585; Member since: May 07, 2012

it's intel what did you expect,dual core vs what quad /octa core intel rocks,don't care what anyone else has to say

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 3:40 PM 14

35. TROLL

Posts: 4851; Member since: Apr 13, 2012

So the intel is clocked at 2.0Ghz and the Exynos 5410 clocked at 1.6Ghz, now if this was Rooted and Cpu was raised at 2.0Ghz the scores would'ev reached 2900! So to be honest thats what the S800 would be on par! So this is not a big deal,,,,?

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 5:46 PM 3

47. nak1017

Posts: 328; Member since: Jan 08, 2010

Well, for starters Intel uses larger transistors and half the high-speed cores. It's a big deal because if Intel can become a real contender in the mobile market, we all get to reap the benefit of better processor design from the drawing board, and not just what each individual chip manufacturer does to tweak ARM's original design. Besides, if we're bringing rooting and overclocking up, we could do that to both phones. I doubt that Z2580 is without a healthy safety margin. Personally, this round goes to Intel for finally bringing their A game.

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 8:25 PM 0

65. zazori08

Posts: 113; Member since: Dec 21, 2011

But it is still dual core.

posted on Apr 03, 2013, 1:43 AM 0

69. hipnotika

Posts: 353; Member since: Mar 06, 2013

dont u look at the pictures. in there it says intel quad core !!!

posted on May 20, 2013, 3:04 AM 0

34. som

Posts: 768; Member since: Nov 10, 2009

Lenovo benchmark is better than Galaxy S4 but Galaxy S4 has more features.

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 5:23 PM 9

38. hung2900

Posts: 966; Member since: Mar 02, 2012

Galaxy S4 Exynos variant has better benchmark

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 6:23 PM 8

43. ebubekir26

Posts: 337; Member since: Dec 21, 2012

The Octa Core version Scored better '''27 417''' compared to lenovo: '''25 827'''

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 7:19 PM 9

44. highonandroid

Posts: 19; Member since: Mar 06, 2013

yes, PhoneArena forgot to mention that

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 7:22 PM 5

58. hung2900

Posts: 966; Member since: Mar 02, 2012

PhoneArena (and GSMArena too) also have the mistake between Antutu 2.x.x and Antutu 3.x.x Galaxy note 2 has 17-19k in Antutu 3.x.x while Droid DNA has 19k-21k in Antutu 3.x.x

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 10:21 PM 0

59. dragonite99 unregistered

Alan F prefers to write more number of articles than quality few like Daniel P

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 10:54 PM 0

48. nak1017

Posts: 328; Member since: Jan 08, 2010

Still half the high-speed cores and larger transistors. No matter how you slice it, Intel has a good showing.

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 8:26 PM 0

51. TROLL

Posts: 4851; Member since: Apr 13, 2012

ARM is way ahead of intel! Did you no the E5410 is a entry level A15 chip, you've still got the 5420,5430,5440,and the mighty E5450 now imagine the E5450 clocked at 2.0Ghz, scores would reach 4800+™

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 9:10 PM 0

52. TROLL

Posts: 4851; Member since: Apr 13, 2012

Bur still the same A15 E5410 could be overclocked to 2.3 and E5450 upto 3.0Ghz still Exynos chips are way bettet™®©

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 9:13 PM 0

61. IHateApple

Posts: 122; Member since: Sep 26, 2012

Stop saying larger transistors. Just because Intel uses FinFET/Tri-Gate transistors doesn't mean their transistors are "larger". Intel's 22 nm transistors are roughly 30% smaller than competing 28 nm transistors.

posted on Apr 03, 2013, 12:19 AM 0

62. luke223

Posts: 1; Member since: Apr 03, 2013

Yeah it did, but the Lenovo has a dual-core processor and was announced last year.

posted on Apr 03, 2013, 12:21 AM 0

37. cheetah2k

Posts: 2256; Member since: Jan 16, 2011

When it comes to a company wanting to be the Biggest, Fastest, Baddest, the first name that comes to mind is Intel.. So.. You're absolutely right. I would guess Intel has had its grumpy face on for a long time now while playing 2nd fiddle to ARM on ULV cores for hand held devices. I would hedge my bets they're currently throwing Billions of dollars into the R&D pit just to compete with ARM in order to beat them. After all, this is what they did to AMD.... I wonder what benchmarks you'd get out of a SGS4 Exynos octa clocked at 2ghz? I'm guessing it would be about the same, if not, faster than Intel. Ultimately, I think the largest hurdle for Intel is low voltage battery management vs clock speed. As good as Intel is, this is the one area that they've struggled on with hand held devices for quite some time - but for sure they will catch ARM sooner or later. I think Intel need to shock the whole ULV game with a 1.2Ghz quad or octa ULV chipset that bested an A15 quad clocked at 1.7ghz. Something like that might make us all sit up and take them seriously. Until then, I'll stick with ARM as they certainly know what they're doing.

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 6:13 PM 2

63. IHateApple

Posts: 122; Member since: Sep 26, 2012

ARM has the architecture advantage and Intel has the advantage that they are on a smaller process. By the time the Industry moves on to 20 nm process, Intel would have already moved to 14 nm process. Their transistors are gonna be 50% smaller and will consume about 30% less power as compared to the competition. That's a huge advantage.

posted on Apr 03, 2013, 12:23 AM 0

2. Berzerk000

Posts: 4275; Member since: Jun 26, 2011

But wasn't the Galaxy S4 clocked at 1.8 GHz? So that means they should be about the same performance if they were both at the same clock speed, maybe the Exynos pulling ahead by a little. Still, it's impressive to see that Intel has already caught up with ARM in terms of performance in mobile chips.

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 3:02 PM 4

8. Planterz

Posts: 2120; Member since: Apr 30, 2012

Depending on where you are, it's a 1.9GHz quad core or a 1.6GHz 8 core. But there's more to a processor than just clock speed or number of cores.

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 3:34 PM 2

66. Berzerk000

Posts: 4275; Member since: Jun 26, 2011

But the version that the K900 barely beat was the Exynos variant. I'm well aware of that, but if the Exynos would've been overclocked to match the Atom it would've scored higher obviously.

posted on Apr 03, 2013, 2:53 AM 0

17. AamirSIII

Posts: 187; Member since: Oct 04, 2012

already caught??? intel just not putting much efforts into in its mobile chips, that the only thing!!! Intel is the most sophisticated chip manufacturer and if it exerts all its forces to mobile chip manufacturing, like it did on its computer chips, NO ONE CAN BEAT INTEL!!!

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 3:42 PM 3

21. Eonnaydra

Posts: 217; Member since: Oct 23, 2012

Are you kidding?Intel will crush ARM very soon.Apple has already decided to make in 2-3 years iOS devices powered by Intel.

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 3:47 PM 0

39. lpratas

Posts: 398; Member since: Nov 09, 2011

i don't like intel for mobile, i prefere ARM. I think that ARM with with 64 bit Arm V8 run out Intel and smashes them completely. It go to start next year with Arm Cortex A57. Some day it will be in the desktop field.

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 6:25 PM 0

49. nak1017

Posts: 328; Member since: Jan 08, 2010

ARM was in the desktop field, and it didn't work out so hot for them. Hence why Apple has Intel's in their desktop computers.

posted on Apr 02, 2013, 8:29 PM 0

67. Berzerk000

Posts: 4275; Member since: Jun 26, 2011

Ok? Still doesn't change the fact that they are just now caught up in mobile. Whether they will beat out ARM in the near future is irrelevant to my comment, which still stands true.