Snapdragon 805-equipped LG G3 LTE Cat. 6 benchmarked, shows only marginal performance gains

Snapdragon 805-equipped LG G3 LTE Cat. 6 benchmarked, shows only marginal performance gains
For the LG G3, it's no secret that its Snapdragon 801 SoC has enough power to make the phone perform very admirably, but not race car-like. So naturally, many are curious to see how the QHD flagship will perform on the significantly more powerful Snapdragon 805 platform. After all, its Adreno 420 GPU is rated as 40% more powerful than the Snapdragon 801's Adreno 330. And that sounds quite promising, right?

Well, it's time our curiosity got partially resolved. Hong Kong retailer ePrice got its hands on the Snapdragon 805-equipped LG G3 LTE Cat. 6 and put it through the usual benchmarks. The results are... less impressive than you might think. Although the souped-up G3 scores a nice big 24,660 in Quadrant, that's not an incredible improvement over the 23,551 that the regular version racked up in our tests. And the Samsung Galaxy S5 is still faster on paper.

In AnTuTu, the improved hardware pushed the result to 33,991 points compared to the original LG G3's 30,634 points. But even the Snapdragon 805-equipped G3 won't surpass the Samsung Galaxy S5, which holds a steady score of 36,603 points.

There's one sure thing that these benchmarks bring to light - the Snapdragon 801 holds its own against the 805 quite remarkably. LG knew what it was doing when it launched the G3 with an older than expected SoC. Judging by the benchmarks alone, the one substantial gain from the Snapdragon 805 upgrade is, indeed, LTE Cat. 6 support - which must be a big deal in South Korea, as both Samsung and LG scrambled to get out Cat. 6 compatible versions of their flagship phones shortly after launch.

Without doubt, the addition of a cutting-edge SoC brings some level of improvement in everyday performance, battery life, and heat level. But the extent of these purported gains is yet to be investigated.

source: ePrice (HK) via GSMDome



1. Jishnusur

Posts: 173; Member since: Oct 07, 2013

Benchmarks are useless. But I want the 805!

2. GreekGeek

Posts: 1276; Member since: Mar 22, 2014

Whoa, I get a consistent 35k + on my Tab Pro 8.4 (same QHD screen, but that's with an old Snapdragon 800!) How's this even possible? Has Qualcomm reached the dead end?

7. mitoita

Posts: 77; Member since: Apr 03, 2014

man, i tink your stupid......where the fck you see qhd screen on samsung tab pro? :)) dont coment iff you dont know what you have in your hand........

8. GreekGeek

Posts: 1276; Member since: Mar 22, 2014

Whoa, LOOK kids! SOMEONE doesn't know his tech LOOOOL! The Tab Pro has a QUAD HD Display Booo Hooo, LOL....You better hide cuz this'll embarrass you boy lmao

9. mitoita

Posts: 77; Member since: Apr 03, 2014 live on earth? go on specification page and read one more time pls.

11. GreekGeek

Posts: 1276; Member since: Mar 22, 2014

1600 x 2560 pixels That doesn't sound (or look) like a Quad HD to you you effing idiot? GOOGLE is your friend moron......Pretty surprised you came back lol It's a TAB PRO....Not a Tab 4 or Tab whatever

13. mitoita

Posts: 77; Member since: Apr 03, 2014

it sound 4 a phone not 4 a tablet.... ipad mini have : 1536 x 2048 pixels, 7.9 inches (~324 ppi pixel density) and is not QHD....dont let samsung to fool you..... for 35 pixels in plus is not an qhd ur brain

14. GreekGeek

Posts: 1276; Member since: Mar 22, 2014

You're a lunatic and I didn't understand what you have just said. Use your native language instead. argument closed

16. mitoita

Posts: 77; Member since: Apr 03, 2014

is not qhd samsung tab pro with ipad mini with retina display.... 4 example samsung s5 have a 432 ppi and lg g3 have a 543 is the difference....bigger display and bigger resolutin. tab pro have almost the same resolution with ipad mini 2 ( retina display).

25. kevin91202

Posts: 642; Member since: Jun 08, 2014

Pixels per inch (ppi) is irrelevant. It can have 100ppi, and it can still be QHD depending on how large the screen is. QHD refers to four times the the number of pixels of 720p (720x1280) and able to display 16:9 aspect ratio. In other words, 720p has 921,600 pixels. QHD has 921,600*4=3,686,400. A display needs at least 3,686,400 pixels in a 16:9 aspect ratio to be considered QHD. Sorry, mitoita, but you are wrong. The Samsung Tab Pro 8.4 does have QHD. The iPad Mini Retina does NOT have QHD (1536*2048=3,145,728).

29. nokia12

Posts: 610; Member since: Nov 19, 2013

mitoita , greekgeek is right bro.. physical screen size does not matter at all.. its the resolution that matters.. tab Pro has QHD screen.. the smaller the screen size the higher the PPI , the higher the screen size the lower the ppi the gpu performance depends upon resolution not the screen size.. so a 2inch QHD screen will perform same as a 1000 inch QHD screen .. in 1 case ppi is 1000 in 1 case it is in single digits.. but the performance will be same.. PPI is baseless for GPU performance..

35. na7noo7

Posts: 278; Member since: Mar 29, 2014

Are you dumb or something? Bigger screen doesn't mean higher ppi, JDI's 10.1 inch 4K UHD screen has 469ppi while the LG G3 2K QHD screen has 538ppi. 2560x1600 = Quad HD 2560x1440 = Quad HD 2048x1536 = Retina Just get out of here.

28. Bishop_99

Posts: 75; Member since: Dec 04, 2013

QHD is 2560X1440.... The iPad mini is 2048x1536 because of it's 4:3 aspect ratio and it doesn't fall under QHD because the vertical resolution is well short of the 2560 vertical resolution of the QHD. The tab pro has a resolution of 2560x1600, because of it's 19x10 aspect ratio, which exceeds the resolution of QHD, as previously mentioned. Pixel density doesn't matter if your talking about what is QHD and what isn't. Although the display of the Galaxy Tab pro is actually called WQXGA, only because of the aspect ratio. If it were 16:9, it would have a lower 2560x1440 resolution. Edit: I see that Kevin91202 already explained it. lol I should have read a bit more lol.

34. UglyFrank

Posts: 2194; Member since: Jan 23, 2014

16:10 but I agree

37. Bishop_99

Posts: 75; Member since: Dec 04, 2013

Lol ooops big typo. Thanks lol.

36. Dr.Phil

Posts: 2362; Member since: Feb 14, 2011

I think what we are seeing is sort of like when Qualcomm introduced the Snapdragon 600 to replace the S4. If you remember, the 600 was barely faster than the S4 but it introduced a faster GPU. I think we can draw the same comparison to how the Snapdragon 805 is to the Snapdragon 801: a minimal CPU upgrade with an introduction of a new GPU architecture. I would think you're going to have to wait for the Snapdragon 810 if you have a device with a Snapdragon 800 processor and are wanting to upgrade. Also, I think Qualcomm is working on how to base their next generation of processors off the Cortex A-53/A-57 platform which is when you'll see another performance boost. (The Snapdragon 800 is a customization off of the Cortex A-15 platform, if I remember correctly).

40. marcski07

Posts: 600; Member since: Apr 25, 2014

forgive him, he doesn't know what he was saying. LOL, calling someone stupid... XD so so a 32 inch led tv, that is 1080p is not FHD?HAHAHAHAHA! WTF!

42. JMartin22

Posts: 2370; Member since: Apr 30, 2013

Don't blame the chip, blame the manufacturer for horrible optimization and thermal throttle limiting the performance of the device; not the chip. The 805 actually brings a noticeable improvement over the 800. But the Snapdragon 810 running the next generation Cortex-A53/57 big.LITTLE architecture with 64-bit capability, running on an improved low-power 20 nm die, using a next generation more energy efficient LTE modem; that's where the real drastic performance and differences will be. 2015 is going to be the generational leap we've been waiting awhile for. 2014 has just been a last leg for aging mobile processing technology [ARMv7]

3. 1701nino unregistered

Benchmarks are not up to date for the latest SoC-s,i mean even a bunch of newer games don't work on Snapdragon 805,basiclly there is no real gain in benchmarks but real world performance is much better,longer battery life,new ISP chip,adreno 420... and i remeber a time when people used to call snapdragon names like c***dragon

5. Arte-8800

Posts: 4562; Member since: Mar 13, 2014

They still do call that name " C??? Dragon.

4. Arte-8800

Posts: 4562; Member since: Mar 13, 2014

The Exynos5433 scores 39.900 only clocked at 2.0Ghz vs S801 at 36.000, at 2.5Ghz. That shows how weak and behind Snapdragon are. Exynos

6. GreekGeek

Posts: 1276; Member since: Mar 22, 2014

Higher scores doesn't mean it's better, there's more to it actually, you have to take note that the 5433 is a heterogenous SoC, which, cumulatively will give you better scores (ala MEDIATEK Octa) when you factor in those 8 cores running alltogether, Snapdragons are still better when it comes to single core and gpu performance

19. Arte-8800

Posts: 4562; Member since: Mar 13, 2014

Exynos chips have always tended to outperform Snapdragons released at about the same time. Problem is that Cortex-A15 has been a dud in terms of power consumption, which is why it hasn't been seen in anything but a small percentage of mainline phones. Even in tablets where its poor power efficiency is less of an issue, Qualcomm Kraits have been dominating. big.LITTLE helps a bit here, but the truth is - at peak performance, Krait is far more power efficient than the A15, which means that it takes longer for a Krait to hit thermal throttling limits and can run for longer on battery. What's the point of having that insane peak performance if you can't sustain it without overheating or killing the battery? Snapdragons didn't have such a clear advantage when it came to Scorpion vs. Cortex-A9, or even dual-Krait vs. quad-A9 which is why Exynos 4210 and 4412 dominated Samsung's handset lineup in their heyday - but the A15 has been a failure outside of the tablet and Chromebook market. Samsung will claim the reason for Krait dominating their handset lineup is LTE in public documentation, but the Note 2 and international LTE GS3 (I9305) proved that Samsung can hang a Qualcomm LTE modem off of an Exynos CPU.

22. GreekGeek

Posts: 1276; Member since: Mar 22, 2014

As in the case of Lions (A7) vs Cheetahs (A15) While a Cheetah is the faster runner, it will eventually fall and gas out in the end. Being faster in short spurts is utterly useless indeed when you don't have the thermal efficiency to back it up I sincerely doubt that the 5433 is any better than the 805 though, single core performance is where its at.

20. Arte-8800

Posts: 4562; Member since: Mar 13, 2014

I don't see the point in comparing max power consumption at max clock speed when the perf/MHz is totally different between the two. You're looking at two different variables (max perf and max clock) on an equation that's not linear. Unfortunately review sites do this all the time and in particular they've painted Cortex-A15 in a worse light than they should have over it. A lot of comments like "it uses 100% more power but it's only 20% faster!" and those aren't very informative. Instead you should be looking at power consumption for a fixed performance level (or levels, maximum performance of the slower part is a good place to start) or performance for a fixed power consumption level. For all of the nonsense in nVidia's marketing they're at least right to approach it that way. Granted, the comparison changes for every test, so you can't get an exact number, but that's always the case for perf/MHz numbers. nVidia claims around 1W at 2GHz for A15 cores in K1. That's probably still generally faster than Krait 400 cores at 2.3GHz.

10. aayupanday

Posts: 582; Member since: Jun 28, 2012

Even the SD800 powered Mi3 hits 35K on high performance mode.

12. FoneAddict

Posts: 263; Member since: Jul 05, 2011

Qualcomm need competition as they are getting lazy!

15. DanteTheGreat

Posts: 67; Member since: Jul 31, 2014

From Snapdragon 800 to 805, the improvements in performance are marginal. In terms of efficiency, yes, 801 is a lot more efficient than 800. But there isn't that performance boost, like there was from 600 to 800. Maybe Qualcomm getting complacent.

18. GreekGeek

Posts: 1276; Member since: Mar 22, 2014

Yeah, and once Nvidia figures out how to integrate LTE in their SoCs it will put Qualcomm on panic mode, the new K1 is just phenomenal when it comes to pure GPU performance, but I doubt it will win any smartphone design due to its thermal and battery innefficiency. The K1 vs SD805 gap is shockingly WIDE, as per Tegra k1 tablet benchmarks

21. Arte-8800

Posts: 4562; Member since: Mar 13, 2014

Common sense Use a 4000mah battery to gain same performance as the 3300mah battery Tegra K1 are A15s using 9 Watts vs S805 at 4 Watts.

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 or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.