or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung again caught doping benchmarks for Galaxy Note 3
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung again caught doping benchmarks for Galaxy Note 3 - Page 2

post #41 of 103

If Apple had done this it would be on CNN, all the national evening news shows, and all over the web within minutes. Has this story gained any traction at all? 

post #42 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

What is more fundamental than reading is comprehension, or even being able to draw your own conclusions based on data.  This is AI and usually is pretty good at spinning the facts to support their team.  Yes, if you 'read' the article it makes it sound like the 5s would really like to be faster- so I'm assuming that's what you're making your 'The 5S is much faster than the Note' claim despite the article showing the data that proves otherwise?

If you look at the actual data provided.....  The Note 3 was faster in 3 out of the 4 tests, without cheating (the cheating tests are no contest, and without question dubious on Samsung's part).  The article references this "essentially tied' but is quick to point out that 'Apple won' in the one metric that it actually did slightly beat the others.  Its pretty good kindergarden spin when 'winning is winning, but losing is a tie'

The author is quick to make the tests seem skewed or almost unfair because Apple ran them with 'half the clock speed and half the RAM' and then nicely schmoozes the fact that the test was run on a native 64 bit benchmark instead of the running the same test as the other phones.  In my book both tests are perfectly valid- the Apple 5s ships with half the clock speed and half the RAM... and the other phones don't support 64 bit so there you go.  But even running the native 64 bit benchmark it was still slower in 3 of the 4 tests as unpopular a result as that might be on this site.
Another useless troll trying to convince us with pathetic arguments.

The A7 can run in 64bit mode all day long. The Note 3 can't run in its "boosted" mode all day long without throttling due to heat (like the Nexus 4 which Anandtech had to put in a freezer to finish benchmarks) or killing your battery. The test is perfectly fair since it indicates what benefits the user can expect at any given time, not for a brief moment while under "boost".

The clock frequency and core count are also relevant. The Snapdragon is a useless pig of an SoC. 76% higher clock and double the cores yet not any faster (unless you think low single digit % is significant). Qualcomm and Samsung are making the same stupid mistakes that Intel and AMD made years ago - increasing clock speeds or adding cores instead of trying to make your existing cores more efficient.
post #43 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugbug View Post
 

 

Interesting point on the apple surprise.  That may have been the impetus.

 

However note that both samsung and the other high end phones are absolutely pounding clock-rate to stay near Apple and its quiet and cool A7.

 

Thanks for a civil and logical response.  I just enjoy watching the technology play out.  The Samsung phone do have a busier architecture- with metaphorically a lot more cars on the highway going to more destinations at much higher speeds than Apples architecture.  That's why to me it was a little surprising that Apple decided to 'build the 64 lane highway' when they are the ones that least benefit from it - for now.

 

To me it was an interesting choice, but it really looks more to be building infrastructure to get ready for what's next.  If that is the case they could just be laying the groundwork for the iPhone 6 to be a total performance beast.  I sure hope so :)

post #44 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

Thanks for a civil and logical response.  I just enjoy watching the technology play out.  The Samsung phone do have a busier architecture- with metaphorically a lot more cars on the highway going to more destinations at much higher speeds than Apples architecture.  That's why to me it was a little surprising that Apple decided to 'build the 64 lane highway' when they are the ones that least benefit from it - for now.

To me it was an interesting choice, but it really looks more to be building infrastructure to get ready for what's next.  If that is the case they could just be laying the groundwork for the iPhone 6 to be a total performance beast.  I sure hope so 1smile.gif
There are already 64bit Apps out and they offer tangible benefits to the user right now, not in the future.

Getting tired of people who know nothing about processor architectures or OS design (and coding for 64bit) claiming there's no benefit for existing users.
post #45 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

 

Thanks for a civil and logical response.  I just enjoy watching the technology play out.  The Samsung phone do have a busier architecture- with metaphorically a lot more cars on the highway going to more destinations at much higher speeds than Apples architecture.  That's why to me it was a little surprising that Apple decided to 'build the 64 lane highway' when they are the ones that least benefit from it - for now.

 

To me it was an interesting choice, but it really looks more to be building infrastructure to get ready for what's next.  If that is the case they could just be laying the groundwork for the iPhone 6 to be a total performance beast.  I sure hope so :)

 

Samsung doesn't own an ARM architectural licence, with an ARM cores licences they only allowed to uses licensed ARM design in they're SoC, this is why they use the core multiplication and frequency boost approach.  Apple in another hands does own an architectural licence and they are free to implement a new ARM core base on reference ARM ISA.   

 

In a better metaphorical analogy using car engine, Samsung looks like a 12 000 RPM V12 2 strokes engine having the same horse power than an Apple 6 cylinders diesel truck motor.  Both can have the same power output, but only one still have plenty of room for further improvements. 

post #46 of 103

Sorry, 20+ million what sold ? Not Galaxy Note 3s surely ?

post #47 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Swinson View Post
 

 

I know. It's terrible when they just can't stop lying ;)

 

Funny response, I had a good laugh.

post #48 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

 

Samsung doesn't own an ARM architectural licence, with an ARM cores licences they only allowed to uses licensed ARM design in they're SoC, this is why they use the core multiplication and frequency boost approach.  Apple in another hands does own an architectural licence and they are free to implement a new ARM core base on reference ARM ISA.  

 

In a better metaphorical analogy using car engine, Samsung looks like a 12 000 RPM V12 2 strokes engine having the same horse power than an Apple 6 cylinders diesel truck motor.  Both can have the same power output, but only one still have plenty of room for further improvements.

 

Your last sentence is the fun part.  I believe both have plenty of room for future improvements, but currently they are neck and neck.

 

In the end it comes down to performance.  The means is just the means.  High end Android phones running their software and the iPhone 5s, when running 64 bit native Apps, currently have more or less the same speed according to the data.

 

The Bugatti Veyron achieves an amazing 254 mph top speed using 16 cylinders.

The Ford Fiesta enviro engine achieves 137mph using 3 cylinders.

 

Trying to tell me the Fiesta is a superior performer because it achieves 45.6 miles per cylinder to the Veyron's 16 miles per cylinder is falling on deaf ears... but you are free to make the argument.

post #49 of 103

I wonder when other Android players will start to declare war on Samsung. Currently every other Android maker is losing market share to Samsung. 

post #50 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

 

What is more fundamental than reading is comprehension, or even being able to draw your own conclusions based on data.  This is AI and usually is pretty good at spinning the facts to support their team.  Yes, if you 'read' the article it makes it sound like the 5s would really like to be faster- so I'm assuming that's what you're making your 'The 5S is much faster than the Note' claim despite the article showing the data that proves otherwise?

 

If you look at the actual data provided.....  The Note 3 was faster in 3 out of the 4 tests, without cheating (the cheating tests are no contest, and without question dubious on Samsung's part).  The article references this "essentially tied' but is quick to point out that 'Apple won' in the one metric that it actually did slightly beat the others.  Its pretty good kindergarden spin when 'winning is winning, but losing is a tie'

 

The author is quick to make the tests seem skewed or almost unfair because Apple ran them with 'half the clock speed and half the RAM' and then nicely schmoozes the fact that the test was run on a native 64 bit benchmark instead of the running the same test as the other phones.  In my book both tests are perfectly valid- the Apple 5s ships with half the clock speed and half the RAM... and the other phones don't support 64 bit so there you go.  But even running the native 64 bit benchmark it was still slower in 3 of the 4 tests as unpopular a result as that might be on this site.

 

1. 64-bit CPUs do not have advantage over 32-bit CPUs when running 32-bit tests/benchmarks as the software does not take advantage of the additional registers and their greater size. ARM Cortex A15 already has a 64-bit data path between RAM and CPU cache.

 

2. Snapdragon is running at a 77% higher frequency, meaning more than twice the power needed (non-linear increase).

 

3. Snapdragon has twice the cores, meaning twice the consumption when all cores work (as is the case with benchmarks). That's why ARM created the big.LITTLE architecture. Samsung's implementation, however, is awful.

 

So, for close to 5 times the power consumption you get mind-blowing 3% better performance scores.

 

4. Benchmarks usually scale extremely well (close to perfect) on multi-core platforms. That is never the case with real-world applications, except for some cases that are usually run on supercomputers, or on GPUs.

 

So, it seems to me that the iPhone 5s has the most powerful mobile CPU. Apple chose not to over-do it with 4 cores, nor boost the frequency. Because A7's  purpose is to power a phone, not a data center.

post #51 of 103

If the performance was ramped up that far for that long then the CPU or GPU or both would throttle back and thermal slowdown/shutdown would happen to protect the chip.

 

This type of performance ramp up is only for benchmarking and is a problem in real life.

 

http://www.imgtec.com/corporate/investors/

 

Click Presentations tab under Reports & Presentations and upload the Annual General Meeting Presentation 2013 and go to page 21 of 48.

 

Hint - Competitor A is a MALI T6XX and competitor B is a QCOM Snapdragon.

 

This slide only shows the thermals, what it doesn't show is the job actually getting done quicker too.

post #52 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

 

Your last sentence is the fun part.  I believe both have plenty of room for future improvements, but currently they are neck and neck.

 

In the end it comes down to performance.  The means is just the means.  High end Android phones running their software and the iPhone 5s, when running 64 bit native Apps, currently have more or less the same speed according to the data.

 

The Bugatti Veyron achieves an amazing 254 mph top speed using 16 cylinders.

The Ford Fiesta enviro engine achieves 137mph using 3 cylinders.

 

Trying to tell me the Fiesta is a superior performer because it achieves 45.6 miles per cylinder to the Veyron's 16 miles per cylinder is falling on deaf ears... but you are free to make the argument.

 

At 254mph the Veyron's tires last for up to 20 miles. In order to achieve that speed a special run way is required. Also, specific humidity and air temperature are a must. 

 

While on that specific track under those specific conditions it is the fastest car, it is significantly slower than the Koenigsegg when tested on real racing tracks.


Edited by capasicum - 10/1/13 at 1:18pm
post #53 of 103

But their washer/dryer specs are okay right?

 

 

 

Right?

post #54 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

 

Your last sentence is the fun part.  I believe both have plenty of room for future improvements, but currently they are neck and neck.

 

In the end it comes down to performance.  The means is just the means.  High end Android phones running their software and the iPhone 5s, when running 64 bit native Apps, currently have more or less the same speed according to the data.

 

Like any other 32 to 64 bit architecture transition, the OS is playing the biggest part for tapping most of the horsepower gain from a new ISA.  For apps who mostly use OS API, CPU spent most of his time running OS library codes who is already running in natives 64 bit. Here is a good articles: http://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2013-09-27-arm64-and-you.html

  

Quote:

The Bugatti Veyron achieves an amazing 254 mph top speed using 16 cylinders.

The Ford Fiesta enviro engine achieves 137mph using 3 cylinders.

 

Trying to tell me the Fiesta is a superior performer because it achieves 45.6 miles per cylinder to the Veyron's 16 miles per cylinder is falling on deaf ears... but you are free to make the argument.

 

I think when talking about mobile product in contrast with desktop computing, power efficiency is the most critical metric.  Regarding your car analogy, the question is more how many miles I would go on the smallest gaz tank possible.  With a top gas consumption @ 1.4 gallon per minute, I don't think your Bugatti would be a great efficiency performer here. 

 

But let's put metaphorical example aside, there is not a lot of way for boosting CPU performance.  You can boost the clock cycle but at great power consumption cost, you can boots numbers of cores which cost power and doesn't give boost to apps unless the code was design to take advantages from having multiple core. And finally you can add logics and bigger data lanes in a core for doing more at each cycle.  


Edited by BigMac2 - 10/1/13 at 1:53pm
post #55 of 103
Note scores compared to Cell Phones?

LOL. The thing is a tablet.

The competitor for 5S is the S4. And the 5S kills it dead.

The Note 3 that just came out will have to compete with the iPad 5.

the comparison between them will be the Note 3 iPad 5 with cellular radio.

Willing to take bets on how that turns out...
post #56 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

Your last sentence is the fun part.  I believe both have plenty of room for future improvements, but currently they are neck and neck.

In the end it comes down to performance.  The means is just the means.  High end Android phones running their software and the iPhone 5s, when running 64 bit native Apps, currently have more or less the same speed according to the data.

The Bugatti Veyron achieves an amazing 254 mph top speed using 16 cylinders.
The Ford Fiesta enviro engine achieves 137mph using 3 cylinders.

Trying to tell me the Fiesta is a superior performer because it achieves 45.6 miles per cylinder to the Veyron's 16 miles per cylinder is falling on deaf ears... but you are free to make the argument.
Still at it with your useless analogies? Especially the Bugatti one which is so far off the mark it's embarrassing (for you to have stated it).

A real analogy would be more like this:

Snapdragon 800 is a 4 litre 8 cylinder that makes 400 HP.
Apple A7 is a 2.3 litre 4 cylinder that makes 390 HP.

Half the cylinders (cores) and far lower clock (displacement) yet it makes 97% as much HP and does it in a smaller, lighter engine that also consumes less fuel (battery power).
post #57 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo Dawkins View Post

Schiller can say  "shenanigans" on Twitter...Samsung will reply back with "20+ millions sold"

Allow me to make a slight correction: 20+ million shipped not sold. Apple reports sold. Just saying.
post #58 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

I wonder when other Android players will start to declare war on Samsung. Currently every other Android maker is losing market share to Samsung. 

 

I'm not sure what all you're suggesting they should do by 'declaring war' on Samsung, but companies like HTC, Sony, Motorola, etc. aren't exactly rooting for Samsung.


I know for certain that there are a lot of Android fans who don't care for Samsung phones.  I'm one of them.

post #59 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

 

Your last sentence is the fun part.  I believe both have plenty of room for future improvements, but currently they are neck and neck.

 

In the end it comes down to performance.  The means is just the means.  High end Android phones running their software and the iPhone 5s, when running 64 bit native Apps, currently have more or less the same speed according to the data.

 

The Bugatti Veyron achieves an amazing 254 mph top speed using 16 cylinders.

The Ford Fiesta enviro engine achieves 137mph using 3 cylinders.

 

Trying to tell me the Fiesta is a superior performer because it achieves 45.6 miles per cylinder to the Veyron's 16 miles per cylinder is falling on deaf ears... but you are free to make the argument.

 

They are not neck to neck in real world performance.  Look at the Galaxy S4 (which really should be compared to the 5s, not a tablet like the Note) even though it had better stats than the iPhone5 it had constant lag and was no where near as smooth. 

 

I'm pretty certain that the Note3 will have simular lag issues in real world computing.

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #60 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

The 32 bit note is faster than the 64 bit flagship Apple 5s.

Yeah, and to do so they need the double the cores, double the memory and nearly 40% higher clock speed per core (the non boosted speed rating). Which basically means, they didn't really win anything.

post #61 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

 

What is more fundamental than reading is comprehension, or even being able to draw your own conclusions based on data.  This is AI and usually is pretty good at spinning the facts to support their team.  Yes, if you 'read' the article it makes it sound like the 5s would really like to be faster- so I'm assuming that's what you're making your 'The 5S is much faster than the Note' claim despite the article showing the data that proves otherwise?

 

If you look at the actual data provided.....  The Note 3 was faster in 3 out of the 4 tests, without cheating (the cheating tests are no contest, and without question dubious on Samsung's part).  The article references this "essentially tied' but is quick to point out that 'Apple won' in the one metric that it actually did slightly beat the others.  Its pretty good kindergarden spin when 'winning is winning, but losing is a tie'

 

The author is quick to make the tests seem skewed or almost unfair because Apple ran them with 'half the clock speed and half the RAM' and then nicely schmoozes the fact that the test was run on a native 64 bit benchmark instead of the running the same test as the other phones.  In my book both tests are perfectly valid- the Apple 5s ships with half the clock speed and half the RAM... and the other phones don't support 64 bit so there you go.  But even running the native 64 bit benchmark it was still slower in 3 of the 4 tests as unpopular a result as that might be on this site.

 

I always wondered how people were MSFT fans in the 90s.. those same people now have become Android/Samsung fans in the 00's.  Funny how that works...  

 

http : // www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/5

The 5S smote everything but the Intel Atom Z3770.. Note3 should show up next to the LG about 4th or 5th in any of those tests.  But at least you have a big screen.  :-p 

post #62 of 103

Well, when I first saw 'steroid boost', 'faking performance' in this article, I thought that Note 3 would overclock it's CPU somehow for the the benchmark apps.

 

But it turns out that Note 3 does not overclock it's CPU for the benchmarks.  Sure it clocks, for the benchmarks, at 2.3gHz which is exactly SD800 was advertised for.  Where is 'steroid boost' and 'faking performance'?

post #63 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post
 

Well, when I first saw 'steroid boost', 'faking performance' in this article, I thought that Note 3 would overclock it's CPU somehow for the the benchmark apps.

 

But it turns out that Note 3 does not overclock it's CPU for the benchmarks.  Sure it clocks, for the benchmarks, at 2.3gHz which is exactly SD800 was advertised for.  Where is 'steroid boost' and 'faking performance'?

 

It does overclock the CPU over what would normally happen without the boosting. With this trickery it keeps every core active running at full speed which doesn't happen under normal circumstances as it will turn certain cores off and dynamically change clock speed. That's why when Ars Technica tricked the Note 3 by renaming the benchmark apps that the numbers went down significantly. Seems you didn't even bother to read the article. From Ars:

Quote:
 
2013-09-30-20.391-640x562.jpg
 

Above is a picture of Geekbench and of Stealthbench, which is identical to Geekbench in every way except for a different package name. With Geekbench, System Monitor shows that the CPU is locked into 2.3GHz mode and all cores are active, but in Stealthbench, the CPU is allowed to idle, shut off cores, and switch power modes, the same way it does in any other app. We have successfully disabled the special benchmark mode.

Geekbench is a popular benchmarking app, so the Note is programmed to give it special treatment. It has never heard of "Stealthbench," though, so despite being the exact same app, it does not get the special benchmark boost. The Note will run this benchmark like 99.99999 percent of the other apps on the device. The next step, then, is to run the two benchmarks and compare the CPU's benchmark mode with its non-benchmark mode.

Sli1de1-2-640x480.png
 
  1. Sli1de1-2-150x150.png
  2. Sli1de1-1-150x150.png

The difference is remarkable. In Geekbench's multicore test, the Note 3's benchmark mode gives the device a 20 percent boost over its "natural" score. With the benchmark boosting logic stripped away, the Note 3 drops down to LG G2 levels, which is where we initially expected the score to be, given the identical SoCs. This big of a boost means that the Note 3 is not just messing with the CPU idle levels; significantly more oomph is unlocked when the device runs a benchmark.

 

post #64 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post

Base on which metric?  The dual core A7 @ 1.3Ghz beats the Samsung Exynos 8-cores @ 1.8Ghz on both efficiency and performance hands down. 

Not necessarily.

We know that the A7 at 1.3 GHz RUNNING iOS beats the Exynos @1.8 GHz RUNNING ANDROID. The fact that they're running different operating systems makes it more complex. Maybe the performance is due to the CPU and maybe it's the OS (or maybe both).

If you want to say that one process is faster than the other, you would need to be running the same OS on both.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #65 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

I don't think Samsung was surprised by Apple's 64 bit architecture (lol, they built it).  

That is the most wrong statment I have ever seen.  They did not build the A7.  They manufactured the Apple Designed Build of the A7.

They had absolutely no hand in building the architecture of the A7.

If you meant manufactured it then I can agree with you.


Edited by Mechanic - 10/1/13 at 4:39pm
post #66 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJones View Post
 

 

It does overclock the CPU over what would normally happen without the boosting. With this trickery it keeps every core active running at full speed which doesn't happen under normal circumstances as it will turn certain cores off and dynamically change clock speed. That's why when Ars Technica tricked the Note 3 by renaming the benchmark apps that the numbers went down significantly. Seems you didn't even bother to read the article. From Ars:

 

No it does not overclock it's 2.3gHz CPU.  So, there is no steroid booster nor faking performance here, no matter how you translate it.

post #67 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Not necessarily.

We know that the A7 at 1.3 GHz RUNNING iOS beats the Exynos @1.8 GHz RUNNING ANDROID. The fact that they're running different operating systems makes it more complex. Maybe the performance is due to the CPU and maybe it's the OS (or maybe both).

If you want to say that one process is faster than the other, you would need to be running the same OS on both.

 

That is not necessarily true either, I agree in some test like browser or UI response depends a lot of the OS, but other like Linpack base on compute arithmetic doesn't much.

post #68 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

 

Very informative article, thanks. This summarizes things nicely.

 

If you want an extremely technical article on 64 bit ARMv8 used in the A7 read here.

 

There are a ton more reasons that the standard stupid "addresses more that 4 Gig is the only advantage of 64 bit" useless statement is a non issue.

That is the very least of reasons to go to ARMv8 and 64 bit.


Edited by Mechanic - 10/1/13 at 4:44pm
post #69 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Not necessarily.

We know that the A7 at 1.3 GHz RUNNING iOS beats the Exynos @1.8 GHz RUNNING ANDROID. The fact that they're running different operating systems makes it more complex. Maybe the performance is due to the CPU and maybe it's the OS (or maybe both).

If you want to say that one process is faster than the other, you would need to be running the same OS on both.
Benchmarks like Geekbench are good for comparing performance of processors since they don't rely on API's to get their numbers. So it's quite accurate even across OS's.

Now benchmarks like Sunspider or Octane are much different since they are running through API's on the respective OS. This is where the optimization within an OS has a significant effect on the results. And when you look at these benchmarks the A7 on iOS pulls far ahead of the competition.

I think it's safe to say the bare processor A7 is just as fast as the SD800. And that iOS 7 on the A7 is much faster than SD800 on Android.
post #70 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum View Post
 

 

1. 64-bit CPUs do not have advantage over 32-bit CPUs when running 32-bit tests/benchmarks as the software does not take advantage of the additional registers and their greater size. ARM Cortex A15 already has a 64-bit data path between RAM and CPU cache.

 

2. Snapdragon is running at a 77% higher frequency, meaning more than twice the power needed (non-linear increase).

 

3. Snapdragon has twice the cores, meaning twice the consumption when all cores work (as is the case with benchmarks). That's why ARM created the big.LITTLE architecture. Samsung's implementation, however, is awful.

 

So, for close to 5 times the power consumption you get mind-blowing 3% better performance scores.

 

4. Benchmarks usually scale extremely well (close to perfect) on multi-core platforms. That is never the case with real-world applications, except for some cases that are usually run on supercomputers, or on GPUs.

 

So, it seems to me that the iPhone 5s has the most powerful mobile CPU. Apple chose not to over-do it with 4 cores, nor boost the frequency. Because A7's  purpose is to power a phone, not a data center.

 

Stop it, your facts are confusing the issue!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJones View Post
 

Yeah, and to do so they need the double the cores, double the memory and nearly 40% higher clock speed per core (the non boosted speed rating). Which basically means, they didn't really win anything.

 

Exactly.

 

Ars calls it Samsung's "special benchmark mode". That says it all, really. The apologists are working overtime over there in the comments section. Apple isn't perfect and isn't for everyone - I don't have a problem with people choosing a different platform (even if it has a dubious early history), one of my friends loves his HTC One, couldn't be happier. Even my other friend the Windows zealot, loves his Windows phone to death (and if given half a chance will tell you over-and-over all about why it's better!), good on him. But why people would defend a scumbag outfit like Samsung, I'll never know.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #71 of 103
Scamscum has to be one of the most morally bankrupt tech companies in the world. What a POS excuse of a company. Does it speak to the morality of South Korean business ethics in general? I sure hope not.
post #72 of 103

DF:

Quote:
"Samsung Recruited to Join ‘MobileBench’ Consortium Tasked With Creating New Mobile Benchmarks"
And in baseball news, Alex Rodriguez and Ryan Braun are collaborating on new tests for performance-enhancing drugs.

 

Or like WADA asking the same of Lance Armstrong.

 

Quote:
it aims to offer more useful tools for mobile platform designers and "more reliable indices" for assessing user experience. MobileBench plans to establish impartial guidelines and a more sophisticated evaluation methodology for both its first benchmark tool, MobileBench and MobileBench-UX, for testing system-level applications.

 

 

Laugh out loud.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #73 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

No it does not overclock it's 2.3gHz CPU.  So, there is no steroid booster nor faking performance here, no matter how you translate it.

Since when is cheating the test not faking it! Yes, we all know what a class act Android is!
post #74 of 103

It gets better. From Anandtech re: Benchmark cheating:

 

 

Quote:
Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, October 01, 2013
We've been struggling with how to deal with this one for a little while now. Unfortunately this optimization is far more widespread among Android OEMs and not limited to Samsung or the Galaxy Note 3. We hinted at it in our original international SGS4 investigation and tried to get other OEMs to stop back then as well but with little success.

 

I love this response in the comments:

 

Quote:
How is it cheating if everyone does it?

 

The cut and paste age.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #75 of 103
Still, when it comes to rendering my HD3D animations on my phone, I think I'll go with that Snap-thingy.
post #76 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post
 

But why people would defend a scumbag outfit like Samsung, I'll never know.

 

Let's be fair to every manufacturer.  I think there is nothing Samsung needs to defend here.  Note 3 does not clock its CPU over 2.3gHz which SD800 is advertised for.  There is no such things like 'benchmark booster', 'faking performance', 'benchmark shenanigans'.  I am not defending Samsung, but simply putting my opinion here.  (I could not see anyone defending Samsung here)

 

I also think that Samsung phones are ugly and I don't like TW, but my wife loves her Note 1 and she is buying Note 3.  


Edited by hjb - 10/1/13 at 7:11pm
post #77 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post
 

 

Let's be fair to every manufacturers.  I think there is nothing Samsung needs to defend here.  Note 3 does not clock its CPU over 2.3gHz which SD800 is advertised for.  There is no such things like 'benchmark booster', 'faking performance', 'benchmark shenanigans'.  I am not defending Samsung, but simply putting my opinion here.  (I could not see anyone defending Samsung here)

 

Ars Technica and Anandtech disagree with you. I'll take their word over a random forum poster any day.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #78 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post
 

 

Let's be fair to every manufacturers.  I think there is nothing Samsung needs to defend here.  Note 3 does not clock its CPU over 2.3gHz which SD800 is advertised for.  There is no such things like 'benchmark booster', 'faking performance', 'benchmark shenanigans'.  I am not defending Samsung, but simply putting my opinion here.  (I could not see anyone defending Samsung here)

 

I also think that Samsung phones are ugly and I don't like TW, but my wife loves her Note 1 and she is buying Note 3.

 

This benchmark tweak was definitely sleazy on Samsung's part.  Even though it may meet their advertised spec its not a spec they can meet sustainably.  I'm not really surprised by the behavior as I kind of expect it from them.  It's like car manufacturers building their bumpers more robustly in only one spot to score better in crash tests since they know the exact test.  Blech.

 

That aside, I do get a lot of hate just for pointing out what the data shows.  I don't think there is 'no benefit' to 64 bit architecture and nowhere do I state that.  Clearly there must be because when running 64-bit native apps the 5s is almost as fast as the 32 bit Note.

That is all I'm saying, but people get offended by it.  You can change the topic to be about mileage or battery life or whatever else you want, that's fine- change the criteria of the benchmark to battery life or some other metric and then Apple can win that test if it makes you feel better.  In a side by side test of the two phones, as delivered, the Note beat the 5s in *speed* by a slight amount.  At least that is what the data shows- but people get done reading that article and looking at the same data that come to the conclusion "Apple is way faster" simply because they like the brand baffles me.

post #79 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post
 

But why people would defend a scumbag outfit like Samsung, I'll never know.

 

Let's be fair to every manufacturers.  I think there is nothing Samsung needs to defend here.  Note 3 does not clock its CPU over 2.3gHz which SD800 is advertised for.  There is no such things like 'benchmark booster', 'faking performance', 'benchmark shenanigans'.  I am not defending Samsung, but simply putting my opinion here.  (I could not see anyone defending Samsung here)

 

I also think that Samsung phones are ugly and I don't like TW, but my wife loves her Note 1 and she is buying Note 3.  

 

The point is not that it clocks the CPU above its advertised capability, it's that for normal use it clearly has to constrain the CPU well below that capability.  That much is unambiguously apparent from the disparity in performance when the device is fooled into not recognizing the app as a benchmark just by changing the app name. So enabling the full capability just for benchmark apps, while not overclocking, is deliberately misleading and certainly justified to be characterized as cheating.

 

The mental gymnastics on display here in attempting to defend Samsung are rather disappointing.

post #80 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post
 

Ars Technica and Anandtech disagree with you. I'll take their word over a random forum poster any day.

 

Now I remember why I added him to my block list. Although when someone quotes him I'm stuck reading the stupidity.

 

It's so funny how the forums are exploding everywhere with Samsung apologists. You can tell it really bothers them that Apple has made such a great SoC in the A7.

 

For close to 30 years people have been discussing processor efficiency. It's long been agreed that a processor that can do the same work at a lower clock has the superior architecture. Likewise with a processor that can do the same work with fewer cores. Or a processor that does it while consuming less power.

 

But now we have a serious problem in the universe. Apple, a useless company that doesn't innovate, has created a processor that does all three tremendously well. This has caused scores of people (like Frood) to simply throw out 30 years of accepted facts regarding what constitutes good processor design simply because it's made by a company they dislike.

 

This goes far beyond the usual level of "pathetic".

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung again caught doping benchmarks for Galaxy Note 3