Samsung Galaxy Note 7 with Snapdragon 820 chipset inside also makes Geekbench appearance


Earlier today, we showed you the results of a Geekbench benchmark test for the SM-N935F, which is believed to be a variant of the Samsung Galaxy Note 7. This version of the upcoming phablet was powered by the Exynos 8893, and scored extremely high on the multi-core portion of the test. There is some speculation that this model of the Galaxy Note 7 will sport dual-curved edges.

Tonight, another version of the Galaxy Note 7 surfaced on the Geekbench site. Carrying a model number of SM-N930R6, this device was powered by the Snapdragon 820 chipset with a quad-core CPU, and the Adreno 530 GPU. The device employed 4GB of RAM on board, although we do expect the phablet to sport 6GB of RAM when it is launched. Android 6.0.1 was installed.

The single core and multi-core scores were 2330 and 5360, respectively. The scores on the model that had the Exynos 8893 SoC under the hood were 2300 (single-core) and 8110 (multi-core). Versions of the Galaxy Note 7 meant for the U.S. and China will include the Snapdragon 820 SoC while the Exynos 8893 chipset will be employed elsewhere.

source: Geekbench

Related phones

Galaxy Note 7
  • Display 5.7" 1440 x 2560 pixels
  • Camera 12 MP / 5 MP front
  • Processor Qualcomm Snapdragon 820, Quad-core, 2150 MHz
  • Storage 64 GB + microSDXC
  • Battery 3500 mAh

FEATURED VIDEO

50 Comments

1. kajam

Posts: 220; Member since: Jun 24, 2015

Better not to bring it to us

22. Switch00

Posts: 536; Member since: Sep 04, 2013

Innovative smartphone industry is dead. Slight specs upgrades thats it.

2. zunaidahmed

Posts: 1183; Member since: Dec 24, 2011

Yup, this score kinda doesn't make sense. A9 scores around 2500-2600 for single core and 4500 for dual cores. This being a quad core gets 2330 for single core and only 5360 for quad cores? This is diminishing returns. I wonder how the 8893 actually work, Samsung does have a record of doing better on the popular bench, but significantly limiting the power draw in real life. Snapdragon 820 seems to also be limited by the power draw because the temps seems fine for now. I wonder what will happen if we constantly run geekbench over and over again and see which version of the s7 will run out of juice first, my bet 8890/8893 will die faster.

6. nctx77

Posts: 2540; Member since: Sep 03, 2013

It means the Note does not want to see that A10!

35. tedkord

Posts: 17307; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

The A10 will almost certainly have a lower multicore than both, and lower scores on full benchmarks, just as the A9 did.

42. Mxyzptlk unregistered

Yet the iphone 6S outperformed several Galaxy devices.

47. tedkord

Posts: 17307; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

In specific parts of benchmarks. It kost in other parts, and if a bench had an overall score, it generally loses in that. Not that it matters, since all flagship mobile SOCs are more than powerful enough for daily usage.

50. sam3k

Posts: 130; Member since: May 02, 2013

Yet only you and your 5 friends gives a s**t about this

45. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

Why. It's not even. Gonna be at the Exynos in a multiform score. It may not even reach 6000. You mean you don't wanna see the A10, get beat.

7. ibend

Posts: 6747; Member since: Sep 30, 2014

1. multicore is for battery life, not purely for performance 2. that processor have little and big core, that didnt have the same performance.. I believe single core above is from big one 3. U cant just assume 4 core = 4 times performance of single core.. just like 4-way SLI that doesnt even deliver 3x performance and u'r right about 8890/8893 will die fast, since they will stop using it after note7 and make new processor for S8

12. John-Knotts

Posts: 380; Member since: Feb 28, 2015

Interesting

23. zunaidahmed

Posts: 1183; Member since: Dec 24, 2011

Yes I know, but getting 30% out of the third and fourth core is pretty terrible, for any processor. I am not expecting 400% performance just because with has 4 core compared to single, but I was expecting at least 300%. Processor cores are not like SLI, SLI is more like some of Intel's server CPUs, where you can put 2 e5 or even 4 e7(s) those performance can be compared to SLI. The SLI bridge is limited by the bandwidth, that's y it needs so much optimization to have better efficiency. CPU cores on the other hand is not limited by any factor accept programs multi threading ability. So I would expect at least 300% compared to the single core scores. This could be because power limit, but there are other factors that could also be the reason.

26. vincelongman

Posts: 5677; Member since: Feb 10, 2013

You are correct about SLI being bandwidth limited The 820 isn't power limited It's because the 820 has a big.LITTLE-like design There's 2 "big" cores and 2 "LITTLE" cores So it's sort of like 4 way SLI of 2x 1080's and 2x 1060's

41. zunaidahmed

Posts: 1183; Member since: Dec 24, 2011

Yes, thanks for pointing this out, I almost forgot 820 has 2 cores running at 1.6GHz, and other 2 at 2.1-2.2GHz.

43. vincelongman

Posts: 5677; Member since: Feb 10, 2013

There's also a difference in the amount of cache too Which affects performance, especially Geekbench's memory suite

38. tedkord

Posts: 17307; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

The third and fourth core are the little cores, used to save power. They mainly run when you're doing low intensity things, while the big cores stay powered down. But, they can run all with the big ones if something extra intensive happens. You're not going to get big boosts from then because they're small, low powered cores with a much lower clock. In other words, they're about power savings, not speed.

33. aznhachi

Posts: 212; Member since: Apr 12, 2016

ohh i see

15. iushnt

Posts: 3086; Member since: Feb 06, 2013

Chill, it will be enough for you to perform any task. I'm so satisfied with the smoothness of SD652. Anything above that is great.

40. sgtdisturbed47

Posts: 966; Member since: Feb 02, 2012

I think the gripe is that the S7 Edge already has this processor. Note 4 had a better processor than S5, Note 3 better than S4, etc. S6 and Note 5 had the same processor and it felt merely like a larger S6 instead of a superior flagship device. Unfortunately it looks like they're sticking to the same idea as last year, where the Note series is just an upgraded S series. We want a Note that crushes the S series, not mirror it. That's lazy work from Samsung.

31. sarcastic_nerd unregistered

820 is not a quad core. There are 2 powerful cores and 2 power saving ones. So it's mostly like a dual core, which explains the score perfectly. And yes, the memory test in geekbench doesn't benefit from multi cores. And no. The s7 with 8890 runs about 50% longer. There is a thing called geekbench battery test that does just that. Exynos s7:https://browser.primatelabs.com/battery3/329521 Snapdragon s7:https://browser.primatelabs.com/battery3/328359 More cores usually mean better battery life since every one of them requires less voltage. Otherwise we would all use single or dual core processors with 30 GHz clock speeds.

4. Subie

Posts: 2353; Member since: Aug 01, 2015

Interesting, but not sure why you posted it on this article. Anyway, here is a video that contradicts the report you linked to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtReu67_z2Y

5. Unordinary unregistered

Sorry, couldn't click the tip button on the M8 so posted here. The iPhone isn't waterproof but there are videos of it being underwater for 20+ minutes and working fine. Same with Apple Watch, Sony phones, etc. Point is, don't advertise something as water-resistant if it'll break after being in the water for advertised time then not functioning after. Carry on

8. ibend

Posts: 6747; Member since: Sep 30, 2014

wanna know the difference? S7 pass IP68 certification, while the other not

10. Subie

Posts: 2353; Member since: Aug 01, 2015

I've seen those other vids you mentioned and they are pretty cool - especially the Sony Z3 being un-boxed underwater. That said I still don't think I'd try it myself with any of these devices just in case there's a small defect in my unit.

13. John-Knotts

Posts: 380; Member since: Feb 28, 2015

wrong thread dude

20. zeppo

Posts: 200; Member since: Jul 21, 2015

Another typical Samsung hater! They feel better bashing Samsung while they use feature phone lol

16. iushnt

Posts: 3086; Member since: Feb 06, 2013

Better try next time

18. Diezparda

Posts: 941; Member since: Oct 23, 2013

Lol it's not recomended to submerge the iPhone underwater, some video show water damage on the iPhone but it was expected. Point? Yeah there's no relation between this article and your post.

34. j2001m

Posts: 3061; Member since: Apr 28, 2014

The problem with the above video is fake pressurized to 2.12 pounds, please show me the videos of the iPhone being OK in the above setting I.e. It was the pressurized to 2.12 pounds test that made the s7 fail It failed as it did not go over the normal pressure to the bigger pressure

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.