Anonymous, 20 Dec 2017It is greatly unimpressive. This single core score is taken straight from 2015.
Being 2.5 y... moreOkay so you do realize this is an incremental upgrade? Going from 6500-8300 in the multi for an incremental upgrade is impressive. Plus, Apple has been two generations ahead of Qualcomm from the start? So you would expect Apple to post better scores? However, I have seen some experienced tech tubers complain about the lack of fluidity due to the OS. Furthermore, I didn't buy a flagship this year because each flagship (including Huawei and Apple) had a deal breaking flaw that made it NOT worth my money. No phone should cost as much as a 45W quad core laptop. That is lunacy. I'm not certain I'll be spending my money on a flagship come 2018 because I have a feeling those same dealbreakers that existed in 2017 will be present in 2018. You speak about processor, but the Kirin 970 only matches the 835. Depending on device, it is some points slower. So how you could advocate for that being better if it isn't even matching Qualcomm's current, not future offering? These are also early benchmark scores, which will more likely change when test units are delivered.
Your opinion is hopelessly flawed. Someone who only uses their phones for calls and texts with some media consumption, don't need a $1000 phone. That's the lovely marketing telling you that. Exynos as a chipset is only great at the top tier, but their midrange device scores and real life performance are pathetic. Samsung needs to work on that.
Crispypeddler, 20 Dec 2017try shoot 4k60fps video using your smartphone. oh, you cant. see you in 2019 if you're luckyTry decoding and editing and changing framerate of that on your smartphone. Oh wait till perhaps 2020 for that...
Vegetaholic, 21 Dec 2017That's some improvement I can say from last year's chipsets. Singles score results equal to iP... moreSo am i supposed to buy the most powerful 1000$ dumb phone just because of a silly benchmark which has no correlation to real life performance. Really. Feel sad for the guys who sold kidneys for that...
LoL, your Apple SoCs should be around 20K SC and 50K MC before you can say it is comparable to today's Intel or AMD processors.
Vegetaholic, 21 Dec 2017What the he'll are talking about? You comparing x86 architecture with arm, it will take years ... moreYou are absulutely correct.
but I mean reaching these levels in terms of geekbench.
OTHERWISE. I am 1000000000000000% aware that Desktop CPUs are exponentially more powerful than mobile ones.
Vegetaholic, 21 Dec 2017What the he'll are talking about? You comparing x86 architecture with arm, it will take years ... moreI could have agreed but then you said mobile i7. =D
Apple SoC is nowhere near the performance of even my 5 year old AMD processor. It prolly is close to mobile atom or celeron. GB is rigged and its scoring system favors tasks where ARM SoC shines especially Apple SoC. That millisecond difference translates to hundreds of score in SC and thousand in MC. If you look at various speed tests out there, iPhone 8 and even X are humiliated multiple times by Note 8, OP5/OP5T, Sony Xperia Premium etc.
Again, just because GB can be installed on multiple platforms doesn't mean you can compare the results across different platforms. These tech reviewers are dumb enough not to even realize the differences in OS, compilers and instructions built in these SoCs.
If you look at Passmark results of Android vs. iPhone, it tells a different story than GB.
GB or Passmark? It is up to you. For me, I will go with real-world app/usage comparisons and you know what phone is the king right now.
Same story every year but with the same piss poor performance from yours truly, Laundry Makers...
That's pretty good for the inferior Android standard. Maybe in 4-5 years they'll reach Apple's levels of SoCs.
Kiyasuriin, 21 Dec 2017Removable battery will not happen... but if my calculations are correct. I believe the Apple A... moreWhat the he'll are talking about? You comparing x86 architecture with arm, it will take years to reach i7 8700k performance even i7 3770k, geekbench is good benchmark, but it's not as good to test deeply x86 platform, i7 is so much more powerful than any A chipset upcoming or current. You comparing desktop CPU with mobile CPU which barely draws any power. Beleive me, there is no comparing between desktop and phone chipsets, you better compare it with laptop i7s it is more sensible
Anonymous, 20 Dec 2017Maybe apple put a bigass cpu that never gets used fully, would over heat.. Besides their multi... moreAnother keyboard warrior with zero knowledge. Multiscore of apple A11 destroys 845 score, and A11 is already couple of months old, and 845 is not even released, I am not even going to talk about single core scores, which is embarrassing for Qualcomm.
That's some improvement I can say from last year's chipsets. Singles score results equal to iPhone 6s, which is embarrassing, but multicore score, beats everything, except latest iPhone family 8 and X. Still miles behind A chipsets, but very decent improvement over 835, sorry for people who has 835 now or planing to buy phone with 835 in beggi ing next year
Anonymous, 21 Dec 2017That's why single core performance is the most important. No apps/games can use all cores at 1... moreRemovable battery will not happen... but if my calculations are correct. I believe the Apple A14 will be powerful enough to run those things. smoothly.
as for Android. in the day that android will reach 4,800 single core... that'll be the day for running decently those games.
explaining for apple's A: assuming that every year CPU's single core score is bolstered by avaragely 900 points and current A11 scores 4300 by avarage...
the following chips will score 5,200, 6,150, and 7,000 single core. and 7000 points is the same level as an i7 8700k. (if not albeit better)
as for android. a typical i7 7700k is decent enough to runany game with 20 FPS. (and that with the calculation. the true load relies on the GPU. when it comes to gameplay)
Kiyasuriin, 20 Dec 2017You are correct up to an extent....
it is true as long the CPU uses the ARMv8-A instruction s... moreThat's why single core performance is the most important. No apps/games can use all cores at 100%. Most apps/games use ony 1-2 cores, but they use them at 100%.
The the most task demanding app is the DosBox (X86 Windows PC emulator) and PPSSPP (PSP emulator). And the emulators use only 1 CPU core (even with multithread option, the main task runs only on a single thread). Try to run a 3D PC game (or just desktop Windows) on S8. It will be very slow, because the single core CPU performance is still slow for Win32 emulation.
I'm waiting for the day when mobile CPUs will be enough powerful to run Soldier of Fortune 2 and Postal 2 with DosBox emulator at least at 15 fps. And when a phone gets released with THAT CPU AND removable battery.
Still not enough to beat iphone 8. Well maybe in s10 they can beat iphone 8 coz note 9 will definitely have the same soc as s9 like s7 and note 7 and s8 and note 8. Lel
In just a nutshell, hopefully it will be (really) worth the upgrade from the Note (?????) We'll see.
Anonymous, 20 Dec 2017Lol, everybody knows that Apple SOC's are way faster than Qualcomm's offer. Qualcomm is to che... moreYep everybody knows how worthless GB is when it changed the scoring system to favor Apple SoC. SD820/SD821 was already hitting 2.6K in GB3 then it became 1.6-1.9K in GB4 while Apple SoC scores were multiplied 1.5X. And yes, only an iD!*t will think A11 is faster than even Ryzen or Skylake processor LoL.
On which benchmark is the Snapdragon 835 behind Kirin970 or Exynos 8895.