Galaxy S 4 on steroids: Samsung caught doping in benchmarks

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 153
    qamfqamf Posts: 87member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

     


    Hm, odd how you typed your post.... anyhow, look above.  I apologized.  It was a stupid mistake, sorry.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by alandail View Post


     


    I completely disagree.  Benchmarks numbers are used to advertise your product as faster than your competitor for running apps.  Over clocking your processor only to run the benchmark, and not to run any other apps is flat out intentional fraudulent advertising.



    Raised by someone in the advertising biz, my understanding is they won't be sued.



    If anything, this is better than compiler stuff (like Intel was found recently making a string of code into all 0s or something like that) imho, because, Samsung can do a driver update to allow the clocks to hit 533 in real world usage.



    -QAMF

  • Reply 102 of 153
    mstone wrote: »
    See, the reason Samsung over clocked the benchmarks is because Android is open and most users will over clock their S4s too, so it is more representative of the performance one can expect once your S4 is properly over clocked. /s

    How's that?

    http://www.android.gs/overclock-t-mobile-galaxy-s4/
    Overclocking cpu or gpu?
  • Reply 103 of 153
    What do you expect from a company run by someone who has been charged with embezzlement, tax evasion, fraud, and bribery?

    http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/11/30/3709688/samsung-25-years-lee-kun-hee
  • Reply 104 of 153
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member
    mstone wrote: »
    See, the reason Samsung over clocked the benchmarks is because Android is open and most users will over clock their S4s too, so it is more representative of the performance one can expect once your S4 is properly over clocked. /s

    How's that?

    http://www.android.gs/overclock-t-mobile-galaxy-s4/

    ooh - that's good. Very good.
  • Reply 105 of 153
    Class action lawsuit time. Find some Samsung owners who made buying decisions based on these tests and it's a pretty clear case of deliberate deceit.

    Runs afoul of a number of consumer protection laws in the US and elsewhere.

    Something tells me this isn't going away.
  • Reply 106 of 153
    Should we call this Benchmarkgate?
  • Reply 107 of 153
    qamfqamf Posts: 87member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    Should we call this Benchmarkgate?


    no, GPUclockgate is mode like it.



    This does not change the benchmarks or the compiler, it changes the GPU clock.



    This is why I don't understand ALL of the rage, this is A LOT better than antutu stuff Intel did.  Samsung can always enable up to 533Mhz operation over an update.  At least, it should be able to.



    I still am trying to figure out why people consider this a much larger deal than what Intel (and I am certain other companies like Intel do this also fwiw) does.



    Probably because Samsung is the root of evil?



    -Q

  • Reply 108 of 153
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,328member


    So just checked theVerge, and not once mention of this benchmark cheating, even when they're so quick to publish every sensational negative Apple story that they can, only to go back after and "correct it" after it's fallen to the back pages. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that there's ginormous Samsung ads on the site. Nope. 

  • Reply 109 of 153
    What do you expect from serial cheats! Samsung has no shame - it may be part of the culture to ignore IP, but they have taken it to new heights, with no end in sight.
  • Reply 110 of 153
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,328member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by QAMF View Post


    no, GPUclockgate is mode like it.



    This does not change the benchmarks or the compiler, it changes the GPU clock.



    This is why I don't understand ALL of the rage, this is A LOT better than antutu stuff Intel did.  Samsung can always enable up to 533Mhz operation over an update.  At least, it should be able to.



    I still am trying to figure out why people consider this a much larger deal than what Intel (and I am certain other companies like Intel do this also fwiw) does.



    Probably because Samsung is the root of evil?



    -Q



     


    What a ridiculous post, and a classic example of the intellectually dishonest type of apologizing and justifying the actions of a company by grasping at straws. 


     


    - So because some other company did something in the past that you think is worse, you don't "understand" why people are upset at this, and why it's wrong? Brilliant analysis and reasoning there. Who the **** cares what intel did way back when? Who cares if it's worse? How is that even relevant? 


     


    - Do you REALLY think Samsung is going to enable clock speed increase over an update? Why would you even think this? Wouldn't they have released it like that if they planned to? Would they have SPECIFIC CODE to only increase the clockspeed during certain benchmarking tests if they planned to? No, you know that's highly unlikely, yet you throw out that "possibility" in order to muddy the water and create an imaginary scenario that doesn't exist. 


     


    - You create a strawman that people believe that Samsung is the "root of all evil", in order to insult everyone, because clearly that is the only plausible explanation that people are saying anything against Samsung. It's a disgusting form of intellectual dishonesty in trying to pretend there is no point to be made. Samsung is not the root of all evil, but objective, reasonable people can aknowledge that Samsung has shown, time and time again, and it practises very dishonest and underhanded tactics in every aspect of it's business. But people like you take great offense to this rational observation.


     


    I would take even greater issue with this if Apple engaged in the same practise, which would utterly disgust me. I would not be defending them as you're doing with Samsung now. How you can defend and this support this dishonest behavior, no matter who engaged in it previously, is beyond me. 

  • Reply 111 of 153
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Funny... This article reminded me of a song:

    NEIL DIAMOND - SONG SUNG BLUE LYRICS

    Song Sung Blue
    Everybody knows one
    Song Sung Blue
    Every Garden Grows One

    Me And You Are Subject To The Blues Now And Then
    But When You Take The Blues And Make A Song
    You Sing Them Out Again
    Sing Them Out Again

    Song Sung Blue
    Weeping like a willow
    Song Sung Blue
    Sleeping On My Pillow

    Funny Thing, But You Can Sing It With A Cry In Your Voice
    And Before You Know, Start To Feeling Good
    You Simply Got No Choice

    Song Sung Blue
    Everybody knows one
    Song Sung Blue
    Every Garden Grows One



    I figured I could have some fun changing a few words in the lyrics,,,


    Mmmm... Better, yet -- Here's the song playing on a Galaxy S4 -- Follow The Bouncing Ball:


    [VIDEO]
  • Reply 112 of 153
    wonkothesanewonkothesane Posts: 1,564member
    mstone wrote: »
    See, the reason Samsung over clocked the benchmarks is because Android is open and most users will over clock their S4s too, so it is more representative of the performance one can expect once your S4 is properly over clocked. /s

    How's that?

    http://www.android.gs/overclock-t-mobile-galaxy-s4/

    I like icon on the top left of the site. Exactly how I imagine those who would be into this...
  • Reply 113 of 153
    qamfqamf Posts: 87member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post


     


    What a ridiculous post, and a classic example of the intellectually dishonest type of apologizing and justifying the actions of a company by grasping at straws. 


     


    - So because some other company did something in the past that you think is worse, you don't "understand" why people are upset at this, and why it's wrong? Brilliant analysis and reasoning there. Who the **** cares what intel did way back when? Who cares if it's worse? How is that even relevant? 


     


    - Do you REALLY think Samsung is going to enable clock speed increase over an update? Why would you even think this? Wouldn't they have released it like that if they planned to? Would they have SPECIFIC CODE to only increase the clockspeed during certain benchmarking tests if they planned to? No, you know that's highly unlikely, yet you throw out that "possibility" in order to muddy the water and create an imaginary scenario that doesn't exist. 



    1. Intel STILL IS DOING TI!!!! THEY JUST HAVE A DISCLAIMER NOW.  THEY STILL DO IT!


    2.  Samsung could enable it over an update.  Would it require lots of work on them?  Yes,



    I won't even respond to your other points.  And I am not defending Samsung, I am saying there are others that are currently doing worse things.  Like Intel and Antutu.



    -QAMF

  • Reply 114 of 153
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    mstone wrote: »
    See, the reason Samsung over clocked the benchmarks is because Android is open and most users will over clock their S4s too, so it is more representative of the performance one can expect once your S4 is properly over clocked. /s

    How's that?

    http://www.android.gs/overclock-t-mobile-galaxy-s4/

    I like icon on the top left of the site. Exactly how I imagine those who would be into this...

    Mmmm... some similarity...


    1000


    Now Clark Kent without the glasses:

    1000
  • Reply 115 of 153
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member


    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    ... or simply "remove the optimization altogether."


     


    Samsung doesn't need to juice their code to run benchmarks faster.  They've already killed off their Android handset competitors (see the AI post about "HTC Warns of its First Ever Operating Loss": http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/07/30/htc-warns-of-its-first-ever-operating-loss-will-reduce-focus-on-high-end-smartphones).  


     


    And specs and benchmark speeds mean nothing to the consumer market.  Nobody wants to walk around saying "My Galaxy S4 experience sucks, but the thing sure is fast."


     


    So why does Samsung feel the need to waste time and energy on cheating at benchmarks?  Because it's in their nature.  They'll lie, cheat, and steal.  It's baked into their corporate DNA.  Just ask Samsung's competitors in the refrigerator market.  Search for "samsung dumping refrigerators in the US" for plenty of stories about Samsung's appliance marketing tactics.

  • Reply 116 of 153

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    Should we call this Benchmarkgate?


    There will be no *gate for this ... it's Samsung! Only Apple can have a *gate (stargate?). If Apple had done this, it would probably be SuperCheatingScumGate! Senators would be calling for investigations and action!

  • Reply 117 of 153
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,186member


    Yeah, this sucks and everything, but most people won't care when they come in to buy one of these. Its not like they bought it because its supposed graphics powerhouse in the first place. 

  • Reply 118 of 153
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    All they need now is ARod as their spokesperson.
  • Reply 119 of 153


    This is in poor taste, it just goes to show how much of a disappointment Exynos 5410 really was. I still think the PowerVR 5 series GPU was the real mistake.


     


    All of the Exynos bashing is also in poor taste, the Exynos 5250 (2x A15 + Mali-T604 MP4) inside of the Nexus 10 is a great SoC. Samsung's new Exynos 5420 (4x A15 + 4x A7 + Mali-T628 MP6) also has a lot of promise (unlike 5410 it can use all 8 cores at once). Exynos has always performed when paired with a Mali GPU.


     


    The other thing worth noting, the Exynos 5410 was only used in the international version of the Galaxy S4 and was the weakest of the different variants.


     


    The Galaxy S4 LTE uses Qualcomm's Snapdragon 600 and the LTE-Advanced model uses Snapdragon 800.

  • Reply 120 of 153
    mikejonesmikejones Posts: 323member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by QAMF View Post


    1. Intel STILL IS DOING TI!!!! THEY JUST HAVE A DISCLAIMER NOW.  THEY STILL DO IT!


    2.  Samsung could enable it over an update.  Would it require lots of work on them?  Yes,



    I won't even respond to your other points.  And I am not defending Samsung, I am saying there are others that are currently doing worse things.  Like Intel and Antutu.



    -QAMF



    1) So what? How does that absolve Samsung of any guilt?


    2) They could but do you have any proof that they would?


     


    And, yes, you are defending Samsung. Playing the "this isn't so bad because [insert other person/company/thing] did [insert thing they did] and it's worse!!" No one here has defended what Intel did so what is the point of bringing it up other than to deflect from Samsung's guilt?

Sign In or Register to comment.