Samsung will keep using ARM Mali GPUs over the next five years

Also much larger compared to mali in terms of size. Apple's "dual core" setup is huge in die size

if powerVR is better then why it is not as famous as Mali and Adreno?

Mali is wide-spread because it's ultra cheap and from ARM Adreno is well known because it's Qualcomm's property. Qualcomm SoC automatically means Adreno. There are good reasons why some vendors like Apple opt for PowerVR despite the high price: quality & stability.

apple never pays premium price for components, they are too greedy for this kind of moves. All of us know that iPhones have the most profit among flagships.

Nah. Apple uses PowerVR just because it owns 10% of Imagination Technologies. Everything is just clear.

better doesn't mean that all people are going to use your GPU. in this regard nvidia probably have the best gpu on mobile. they even try to license their kepler core. but does samsung and other smartphone maker have any care with that?

nVidia is trying but failing miserably. Never heard of a licensee lol.

The Galaxy S6 does better in GPU OFFscreen tests than the iPhone 6 Plus though.

It isn't. In fact they are approximately on par. But judging by my own experience PowerVR usually has lighter graphics configs that give about 5 - 10 extra fps.

Adrenos are the slowest GPUs of all the top.

You have to consider the fact that many devs, add specific features and capabilities that are for a certain chipset liek the SnapDragon for example. ATI use to do this all the time. if you ran a game on an Nvidia chipset but the game was designed for ATI, there were many graphical benefits you saw when using a ATI GPU vs Nvidia and vice versa. This has been the same for the SnapDragon because it was the most used chipset my most Android OEM's. Samsung switched at the last minute meaning devs never had time to optimize their software for the Exynos. So saying well, many features of a game isn't cant be seen so thus this chipset is garbage is a terrible way to compare. You are simply looking at what you can see visually, but you arent considering the fact I just mentioned. After all, here is an example...Macs and PC's both use X86 hardware and the same GPU's, yet the same GPU's doesn't work equally the same on the Mac running Windows as any PC running Windows. Does that mean the chipset is faulty? Or is that a hardware limitation?

And what are the games you are talking about?)

Best rated by reviewer sold to Samsung sure. But Samsung also has the highest return rate of all OEM including Apple ( and apple is pretty hard to beat as they have pretty high retur rate ) Shamesung is like Cr4ple they do everything to increase margin even cut on quality part to use cheap one.

Show me this fact if you are claiming this. The difference is, if Samsung phones actually have an issue, people return them I assume. Unlike iPhones where people will hold on to them even if they have problems. Return rates? Apple has had the most phones return do to them easily breaking. Samsung also sells 2x's the amount of phones so yes I expect if you sell more you have more returns. But even with the returns, Samsung still has more phones in peoples hands, so I fail to see you point. But I want you to post a link to this fact. Because I google'd smartphone returns rates by brand. Let em give you this one example...Dell was highly criticized for having a huge return rate on laptops vs Apple. But then once place into proper perspective vs fanboi stupidity, you find Apple was worse. http://www.brighthub.com/computing/hardware/articles/70899.aspx Fact even tho yes Apple had a lower rate of failure, consider this fact. At the time Apple was selling 1.5M computers per quarter while Dell was selling nearly 10M per quarter. Apple should have had a much lower failure rate consider product was far lower. Yet 17% of the laptops Apple made failed. Out of the 40M plus laptops dell sold in a year only 18% failed. Yes higher failure, but consider the fact that 82% of them were fine and still in peoples hands. That is still far more laptops in a year vs what Apple sold for the whole year. Samsung sells 80M smartphone per quarter while Apple averages a measly 35M. Even if 50% of Samsung phones were returned, they'd still have more hardware in peoples hands vs Apple. Highlights of the study include: The iPhone 4 was the most reliable phone, with 2.1% projected to have a non- accident malfunction in the first 12 months The major makers of Android devices, Motorola and HTC, were also very reliable, with just 2.3% and 3.7%. BlackBerry and other smart phones were less reliable, with 6.3% and 6.7% failing in the first 12 months of use. Accidental damage is responsible for over 75% of smart phone failures. BlackBerry devices had the lowest one-year accident rate at 6.7%, and the iPhone 4 had the highest at 9.4%. Apple returns 5-8 million defective iPhone 5 smartphones to its foreign manufacturer, Foxconn. - Considering Apple was still selling roughly 35M per quarter, losing 8M of them is a terrible rate of return due to defects. When it comes to defects in hardware and software issues, based on online reports iOS based deavices have had more issues vs Android and Apple iPhone vs the Galaxy S has had far more problems whether they get returned or not. Your false argument is BS talking about return rates. Here is what I bet, most people who returned a Samsung phone return them more IMO because maybe they didn't like them vs Apple who devices simply had issues...liek arriving bent, bending in your pocket, every iPhone model has had connection issues, app crashes have increase with every iOS update and the list goes on.

He's lying. He hates Samsung. He can't backup what he said. Nor any statement.

That was epic Techie. +1 You just shifted the haters and trolls. Lmao.