GSMArena.com GSMArena.com

Tip us

2.0m
150k
RSS

EV

Merch

Log in

Login

I forgot my password
Sign up
  • Home
  • News
  • Reviews
  • Videos
  • Featured
  • Phone Finder
  • Deals
  • MerchNew
  • Coverage
  • Contact
ADVERTISEMENT

Samsung Galaxy S10 and S10+ with Exynos 9820 Octa benchmarked

  • Post your comment
  • Comments (107)

Ro 22 February 2019

Samsung Android Featured Hands-on

Samsung's fresh new S10 lineup is once again powered by the best the industry can offer - Snapdragon 855 and Samsung's in-house Exynos 9820 Octa chipset. We already managed to put a Snapdragon 855 phone through its paces in our Xiaomi Mi 9 review, but we were eager to test Samsung's flagship SoC.

And as luck would have it we are currently in possession of the Exynos-powered Galaxy S10 and Galaxy S10+, so we wasted no time and put them through our benchmark gauntlet.

Anyway, the Exynos 9820 Octa's CPU configuration has two big Mongoose M4 cores clocked at 2.7 GHz. The other two powerful cores are Cortex-A75 ticking at 2.4 GHz while the four power-efficient cores are Cortex-A55 running at 1.9 GHz.

Samsung was able to pull this off thanks to the so-called DinamIQ architecture by ARM. Long story short, the DinamIQ enables different types of cores to run simultaneously, always achieving optimal performance and power efficiency.

The Exynos 9820's GPU is a Mali-G76 MP12 chip capable of some serious number crunching. Samsung also promises additional Unreal Engine game optimization for smoother gameplay.

The chip is based on 8nm LPP node on contrary to Snapdragon 855's 7nm. The two are so close that any differences are bound to come from the different architecture of their elements rather than sheer technological advantages.

Without further ado, here's how the Exynos 9820 fares against the competition and its predecessor.

GeekBench 4.1 (multi-core)

Higher is better

  • Apple iPhone XS Max
    11432
  • Xiaomi Mi 9
    11181
  • Samsung Galaxy S10/S10+
    10521
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro (perf.)
    10110
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro
    9712
  • Samsung Galaxy Note9
    9026
  • OnePlus 6T
    8977
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+
    8883
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
    8349

GeekBench 4.1 (single-core)

Higher is better

  • Apple iPhone XS Max
    4777
  • Samsung Galaxy S10/S10+
    4543
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+
    3771
  • Samsung Galaxy Note9
    3642
  • Xiaomi Mi 9
    3503
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro (perf.)
    3390
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro
    3291
  • OnePlus 6T
    2431
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
    2199

AnTuTu 7

Higher is better

  • Xiaomi Mi 9
    372006
  • Apple iPhone XS Max
    353210
  • Samsung Galaxy S10/S10+
    340345
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro (perf.)
    308050
  • OnePlus 6T
    293994
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro
    273913
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
    264044
  • Samsung Galaxy Note9
    248823
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+
    246660

GFX 3.0 Manhattan (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

  • Apple iPhone XS Max
    130
  • Samsung Galaxy S10/S10+
    102
  • Xiaomi Mi 9
    100
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro (perf.)
    88
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
    83
  • OnePlus 6T
    83
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro
    83
  • Samsung Galaxy Note9
    75
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+
    74

GFX 3.0 Manhattan (onscreen)

Higher is better

  • Xiaomi Mi 9
    60
  • Apple iPhone XS Max
    60
  • OnePlus 6T
    59
  • Samsung Galaxy S10/S10+
    56
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
    51
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro
    50
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro (perf.)
    50
  • Samsung Galaxy Note9
    46
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+
    45

GFX 3.1 Manhattan (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

  • Apple iPhone XS Max
    99
  • Xiaomi Mi 9
    70
  • Samsung Galaxy S10/S10+
    69
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
    61
  • OnePlus 6T
    60
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro (perf.)
    54
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro
    53
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+
    47
  • Samsung Galaxy Note9
    45

GFX 3.1 Manhattan (onscreen)

Higher is better

  • Apple iPhone XS Max
    60
  • Xiaomi Mi 9
    56
  • OnePlus 6T
    53
  • Samsung Galaxy S10/S10+
    37
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
    34
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro
    27
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro (perf.)
    27
  • Samsung Galaxy Note9
    25
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+
    24

GFX 3.1 Car scene (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

  • Apple iPhone XS Max
    60
  • Samsung Galaxy S10/S10+
    42
  • Xiaomi Mi 9
    42
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
    35
  • OnePlus 6T
    35
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro (perf.)
    33
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro
    29
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+
    28
  • Samsung Galaxy Note9
    28

GFX 3.1 Car scene (onscreen)

Higher is better

  • Apple iPhone XS Max
    47
  • Xiaomi Mi 9
    35
  • OnePlus 6T
    31
  • Samsung Galaxy S10/S10+
    23
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
    20
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro
    17
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro (perf.)
    16
  • Samsung Galaxy Note9
    15
  • Samsung Galaxy S9+
    14

Aztek Vulkan Normal (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

  • Apple iPhone XS Max
    67
  • Xiaomi Mi 9
    41
  • Samsung Galaxy S10/S10+
    40
  • OnePlus 6T
    37
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro
    24

Aztek Vulkan Normal (onscreen)

Higher is better

  • Apple iPhone XS Max
    52
  • Xiaomi Mi 9
    34
  • OnePlus 6T
    33
  • Samsung Galaxy S10/S10+
    19
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro
    9.9

Aztek Vulkan High (onscreen)

Higher is better

  • Apple iPhone XS Max
    32
  • Xiaomi Mi 9
    23
  • OnePlus 6T
    21
  • Samsung Galaxy S10/S10+
    13
  • Huawei Mate 20 Pro
    7.5

Raw CPU performance appears to be pretty much on par with the Snapdragon 855 taking turns to lead in the different benchmarks. But as far as single-core performance goes, well, the huge Mongoose M4 core clocked at 2.7 GHz simply blew away the Qualcomm competitor. The single-core performance is impressive and blows everyone else out of the water, except for Apple's A12 Bionic on the new iPhones.

GPU performance is right up there with the best in the class but it falls short in some tests against the Adreno 640 found in the Snapdragon 855.

So no surprises there - the Exynos 9820 is a beast and with no shortage of performance power. Yet we still need to see how it holds up in everyday use and how optimized it is. Our battery tests will also be an interesting one as it will tell us more about its power efficiency. All of these will be addressed in the full review but in the meantime don't miss our early hands-on look.

Related articles
  • Here are our first Samsung Galaxy S10+ camera samples Here are our first Samsung Galaxy S10+ camera samples
  • Samsung Galaxy S10e, S10 and S10+ arrive with world's first HDR10+ screens, ultrasonic FP readers Samsung Galaxy S10e, S10 and S10+ arrive with world's first HDR10+ screens, ultrasonic FP readers
  • Samsung Galaxy Fold is real: costs $1,980, has 6 cameras and 3-way multitasking Samsung Galaxy Fold is real: costs $1,980, has 6 cameras and 3-way multitasking

Reader comments

?
  • Anonymous
  • UVe
  • 25 Feb 2019

outdated..gfx score is better than apple and the cpu scores on apple are marginally better and on day to day usage samsung and apple remain almost the same..personal preference there.

  • Reply
H
  • Hello Life
  • XTL
  • 25 Feb 2019

which brand of weed are you smoking? 855 beating Apple A12, only in your dreams

  • Reply
L
  • Lucian
  • 8ug
  • 24 Feb 2019

Are you blind???????? On CPU tests it was ok... But on GPU tests it was completely sh*t!!!!!! You can't compare a 700MHz GPU, with a 1100MHz GPU! The difference is day and night... I hate Apple.....but damn their phones have the best perform...

  • Reply
  • Read all comments
  • Post your comment
Total reader comments: 107

ADVERTISEMENT

Phone finder

  • Samsung
  • Apple
  • Huawei
  • Nokia
  • Sony
  • LG
  • HTC
  • Motorola
  • Lenovo
  • Xiaomi
  • Google
  • Honor
  • Oppo
  • Realme
  • OnePlus
  • Nothing
  • vivo
  • Meizu
  • Asus
  • Alcatel
  • ZTE
  • Microsoft
  • Umidigi
  • Coolpad
  • Oscal
  • Sharp
  • Micromax
  • Infinix
  • Ulefone
  • Tecno
  • Doogee
  • Blackview
  • Cubot
  • Oukitel
  • Itel
  • TCL

All brands Rumor mill

ADVERTISEMENT

Top 10 by daily interest

  Device Daily hits  
1.Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge48,030
2.Samsung Galaxy A5630,674
3.Sony Xperia 1 VII 5G26,563
4.Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra25,492
5.Xiaomi Redmi Turbo 4 Pro23,808
6.Xiaomi Poco X7 Pro20,580
7.Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max20,030
8.vivo iQOO Neo10 Pro+ (China)18,454
9.Tecno Camon 40 Pro 5G17,952
10.OnePlus 13T 5G17,571

ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Volvo bets big on Google smarts for future electric cars Volvo bets big on Google smarts for future electric cars Tesla's Robotaxi service is set for a cautious kick-off in Austin before wider rolloutThe iconic Nissan Micra reborn as an all-electric city car
ADVERTISEMENT

Home News Reviews Compare Coverage Glossary FAQ RSS Youtube Instagram TikTok Facebook Twitter

© 2000-2025 GSMArena.com Mobile version Android app Tools Contact us Merch store Privacy Terms of use Change Ad Consent Do not sell my data