higher is better .... more core more ram more pixel more more mah more and more and more and more
Excellent article! But i don't agree with the multi core benchmark. For example the S625 is way ahead of the the S808/650 while in reality the two can crush it in single core performance.
Although it takes long time to gather relevant material next to each other to fulfil the article (which I personally admire the task and spent energy for good), there is a forgotten shortage, which must be in focus.
Following interaction which directly impact the final performance in any architecture since 2003.
1- RAM(controller) directly with Storage.
2- RAM with CPU.
3- RAM with GPU.
4- CPU next to GPU.
5- GPU toward Display resolution and size.
A Good CPU in Architecture As Kirin 955 was/is, with poor choice of limited cores in Mali-T880 Graphics section inside SoC, results in weak render in high scale toward its rival with more cores and lower number in CPU performance.
Numbers must be relevant to public. Technical calculation for each and every SoC's performance, is not just based on commercial benchmarks which mostly pass tests in laboratory condition.
A phone with MSM8960 [ (2X1.5GHz) Krait + Adreno 225 ], last December in Siberia celebrated its 4th birthday fully functional and healthy. Its pair which was sent to Kuwait City, suffered from heart attack in its first summer (2013-06). When the Handset in Kuwait City becomes hot, The display freeze occur along top left corner that reaches maximum 40 degree Celsius, until you either Soft reset or wait to be out of juice.
A day in Summer both phones were left out under the direct sunlight, which the direction of Sun for Siberia regarding day time and normal temperature there, was highest and in Kuwait City, Sun was not hot regarding local factors. After 45 minutes under the sun, a tycoon game which was heavy in contents, was started. Both Cities in the game were built the same. 50 minutes later, when battery was only 10 percent, the user in Siberia closed the app with capacitive keys, and opened the battery monitor app to see details of usage.
The user in Kuwait City on the other hand, find the handset's touch screen and capacitive keys unresponsive; he then swapped every possible thing with new tested one, the result was nothing, except keep away the phone from heat(above 10 degree Celsius); the phone still works when it is cool under 10 degree in refrigerator.
When graphic thirsty apps are closed, even in summer times the touch is responsive for short time such as calling and messaging.
When connecting to the web, opening a game, watching a movie or even viewing a photo for One minute, it freezes and becomes unresponsive.
Workload in a SoC is separated by CPU, GPU, RAM. Ideal condition is Cold, Cool, Warm, Hot.
By doing tests in CCWH, the raw performance of a SoC will turn into real world performing chart.
Processor nowadays are good enough, even in low-tiers...SD430, SD625, Helio X20 is very power-efficient yet still have a good processing power... SD835, Kirin 960 , A10 all powerful yet still gives good, if not amazing battery life... It's all down to preferences of what other feature in the smartphone we looking for..
AnonD-510098, 07 Feb 2017Qualcomm isnt all that anymore. Looking at the table, the Kirin 960 chipset is more powerful t... moreYou are good example of an incompetent, like the vast majority of people. Most people just look for the highest number they can find then they make assumptions based on that. They don't care abut the fact that the highest score shows only the multi core performance, when all cores used at 100%. But in real life usage it will never happen, you will never get the benefit of using all cores at 100%. However, most of the time only 1 or 2 cores are used at 100%. Most apps and games are single threaded, therefore the single core performance is the most important. The best examples are the emulators (DosBox, PPSSPP).
Also, don't forget about the overheating and throttling which means you will get lower performance as the CPU is heating during usage.
AnonD-510098, 07 Feb 2017Qualcomm isnt all that anymore. Looking at the table, the Kirin 960 chipset is more powerful t... moreWell, don't know about monopoly, but internal core development (Kryo and its SD830 incarnation) came to an abrupt end (and I guess horribly within QC confines). The decision to go to with the new semi-custom ARM-core licensing is a tell-tale that original Kryo was fat and power-thirsty even for 10nm compared to A72/73 & A53.
Also author talks about A53 as the only ultra-efficient 64-bit core, then shows a slide mentioning Cortex-A35 and A32. BTW, A53 is less power efficient than A7 at the same node and workload (outside of course of AES and SHA), which is why A35 and A32 exist.
Nice Article. :)
I tried to comment that all the charts with same label should have the label include the clockspeed. But the info is already there on mouse over.... Now why did I not think of that in the first place *LOL*.
AnonD-510098, 07 Feb 2017Qualcomm isnt all that anymore. Looking at the table, the Kirin 960 chipset is more powerful t... moreNot really- those are just scores for synthetic multi-core CPU benchmark. Reality is far away from those numbers.
I love the fact that faster and quantity of cores does not mean performance, it is all about how well develop it is. great article, keep writing :)
AnonD-510098, 07 Feb 2017Qualcomm isnt all that anymore. Looking at the table, the Kirin 960 chipset is more powerful t... moreLike they said - those are only synthetic benchmark scores - not real-life performance indicators. On top of that, we're still waiting to see SD835.
Qualcomm isnt all that anymore. Looking at the table, the Kirin 960 chipset is more powerful than anything available on the Android market right now.
Kirin and Exynos chips are now better than Qualcomm and improving at a faster rate. Huawei and Samsung are doing the right thing.
Xiaomi also seems to be making its own SoC which is good news.
Just when I thought I knew a lot;
thanks,I hope to see more stuff like this.
(although I did not read it thoroughly)
Would have been a nice addition to also include GPU benchmarks of each chip. Why aren't Apple's products included in these charts ?