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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 aphone, not a data center.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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...
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
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'?
Comments
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.
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
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.
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.
Sorry, 20+ million what sold ? Not Galaxy Note 3s surely ?
I know. It's terrible when they just can't stop lying
Funny response, I had a good laugh.
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.
I wonder when other Android players will start to declare war on Samsung. Currently every other Android maker is losing market share to Samsung.
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.
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.
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.
But their washer/dryer specs are okay right?
Right?
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
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.
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...
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).
Allow me to make a slight correction: 20+ million shipped not sold. Apple reports sold. Just saying.
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.
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.
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
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'?