Watch: iPhone X takes on Samsung's Galaxy S9+ in benchmarking bonanza

Posted:
in iPhone edited March 15
In the first of a series of comparison video, AppleInsider pits Samsung's Galaxy S9+ against Apple's iPhone X in a barrage of benchmarking tests. Read on to find out which flagship came out on top.





Last year, we compared the iPhone X's performance to the Note 8 and found the X to be the clear winner. But with fresh internals from Qualcomm, can Apple's handset fend off Samsung's latest attempt at smartphone supremacy?

Both the Galaxy S9 and S9+ models feature the same 8-core Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 processor, with four high performance cores and four efficiency cores. The Note 8 from last year had the same CPU layout, but in this year's silicon the high performance cores are clocked higher, and the efficiency cores are clocked slower.

Both S9 models get an identical graphics chip as well, which Qualcomm says is 30 percent faster, 30 percent more efficient and has 2.5 times the display throughput than the graphics chip in the Note 8.

The most significant difference between the two Galaxy models is that the S9+ gets 6GB of RAM compared to only 4GB on the regular S9.




The iPhone X on the other hand, has a 6-core A11 Bionic processor with two high performance cores and four efficiency cores. For graphics, the iPhone X uses an Apple designed three-core GPU, which boasts 30 percent faster performance over the GPU used in the iPhone 7 models.

The main drawback is that iPhone X has 3GB of RAM, only half that of the S9+. Apple's operating system is very efficient, but Samsung definitely has the upper hand in terms of raw capacity.

Starting off with Geekbench 4, the iPhone X completely destroys the S9+, especially in single core performance. The iPhone came in with single- and multi-core scores of 4,243 and 10,433, respectively, while the S9+ managed scores of 2,007 and 8,307.




For the graphics test, the S9+ scored 14,308, very close to iPhone's 15,177. A score like this is big news on the Samsung side.

Moving onto the Antutu benchmark, the S9+ actually beats out the X by a good margin, with respective scores of 263,661 and 211,652. For Samsung, the boosted results are thanks to the massive improvements Qualcomm put into its graphics chip.

Antutu's HTML 5 test crowned the iPhone X as the winner with a score of 37,461, not that far off Samsung's 33,924.

In Basemark OS2, the S9+ came out just slightly ahead with a score of 4,108 compared to iPhone's 4,044, but if you take a look at the detailed test results, you'll see that the iPhone X won in every category except memory. This result makes sense considering the S9+ has double the RAM of the iPhone.




In GFXBench OpenGL's 1080p Manhattan Offscreen test, the iPhone X is slightly ahead with a score of 5,463, compared to 5,106 on the S9+.

The iPhone X completely destroys the S9+ in the Jetstream browser benchmark, but the test is mostly a comparison between each operating system's default browser. For iOS, results won't change using an alternate browser since Apple requires developers to lattice in WebKit, but it is possible that the Galaxy S9+ might fare better with third-party software.

In Octane 2.0, another browser benchmark, the iPhone X yet again floors the S9+ with respective scores of 33,683 and 11,682, so we can see just how good Safari is compared to Samsung's browser.

Since the S9+ boasts improved WiFi connectivity, we decided to test the speed using the Speedtest app. There was basically no difference at all since we are running off of slow business Wi-Fi in a city that doesn't support fiber internet. Other reviewers in big cities that do support fast internet have seen incredible Wi-Fi download speeds on the S9+, though we were unable to confirm these reports.




Looking at the sum of our benchmarking evaluation, it seems Samsung has mostly caught up to the performance of Apple's flagship -- with some notable exceptions.

Performance on both devices has reached a point where it should no longer affect your decision-making process when deciding between an iPhone and a Galaxy device. Most of the extra bandwidth is now used for unique features like 4K 60 frames per second video recording, augmented reality processing and biometric authentication, like Face ID and Intelligent Scan.

If you're trying to figure out which phone to buy, we recommend basing your decision on the features and operating system you like the most, as raw performance is no longer a determining factor.
spheric
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 66
    Thank you for the comprehensive report. I prefer iOS a great deal over Samsung’s TouchWiz version of Android (or any Android for that matter) so I’ll get another iPhone when the time comes. If you’re partial to Samsung’s version of Android then it’s good to see that it’s catching up to iPhone. I don’t see many loyal users switching over. 
    magman1979racerhomie3jbdragonWilliamUKcornchip
  • Reply 2 of 66
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,847member
    The iPhone X on the other hand, has a 6-core A11 Bionic processor with two high performance cores and four efficiency cores.
    I think it's worth noting that the A11 Bionic isn't like the bigLITTLE cores used by other devices as it can run with the 4 low performance cores, 2 high performance cores, or all 6 cores at once.
    edited March 14 magman1979pscooter63king editor the grate2old4funmejsricjony0bb-15cornchipnetmage
  • Reply 3 of 66
    mtbnutmtbnut Posts: 189member
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    edited March 14
  • Reply 4 of 66
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,847member
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    You're only looking at the benchmark results, but you're not factoring in what Samsung has to do in order to even try to compete with Apple. Samsung has to add double the RAM, a much faster CPU with more cores, which all probably requires a much larger and heavier chassis mostly do to a much larger battery and heat dissipation requirements. Apple, on the other hand, has so much vertical integration that they can use less RAM, less cores, a lower clock rate, and smaller battery in a small chassis while still trouncing the competition.

    PS: It should be noted that Apple's comparatively high number of unit sales for a given design allows for economies of scale that add an additional benefit to Apple that other vendors can't possibly compete with it, which is why Apple can also add other amazing features that are generations beyond what even Samsung can feasibly achieve without a high risk with a potential loss in profit, at least in the short run.


    edit: Here's an example of what I mean by costs outweighing the benefit for a company like Samsung that doesn't sell nearly as many devices of a single design and are likely not getting the profit margins they wish they could get as compared to Apple.

    edited March 14 pscooter63racerhomie3Rayz2016king editor the grateAvieshekStrangeDaysjmgregory1WilliamUKjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 66
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,303member
    Soli said:
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    You're only looking at the benchmark results, but you're not factoring in what Samsung has to do in order to even try to compete with Apple. Samsung has to add double the RAM, a much faster CPU with more cores, which all probably requires a much larger and heavier chassis mostly do to a much larger battery and heat dissipation requirements. Apple, on the other hand, has so much vertical integration that they can use less RAM, less cores, a lower clock rate, and smaller battery in a small chassis while still trouncing the competition.

    PS: It should be noted that Apple's comparatively high number of unit sales for a given design allows for economies of scale that add an additional benefit to Apple that other vendors can't possibly compete with it, which is why Apple can also add other amazing features that are generations beyond what even Samsung can feasibly achieve without a high risk with a potential loss in profit, at least in the short run.


    edit: Here's an example of what I mean by costs outweighing the benefit for a company like Samsung that doesn't sell nearly as many devices of a single design and are likely not getting the profit margins they wish they could get as compared to Apple.

    You are forgetting Samsung makes money every time an iPhone X is Sold.  Tails Samsung wins ; heads Samsung wins more.
    Avieshekavon b7
  • Reply 6 of 66
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,303member
    I would like to see how both phones compare in LTE upload and download Speeds.  preferably on at least one GSM network and one CDMA network.  
    pakittAvieshekbaconstangavon b7
  • Reply 7 of 66
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,847member
    k2kw said:
    Soli said:
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    You're only looking at the benchmark results, but you're not factoring in what Samsung has to do in order to even try to compete with Apple. Samsung has to add double the RAM, a much faster CPU with more cores, which all probably requires a much larger and heavier chassis mostly do to a much larger battery and heat dissipation requirements. Apple, on the other hand, has so much vertical integration that they can use less RAM, less cores, a lower clock rate, and smaller battery in a small chassis while still trouncing the competition.

    PS: It should be noted that Apple's comparatively high number of unit sales for a given design allows for economies of scale that add an additional benefit to Apple that other vendors can't possibly compete with it, which is why Apple can also add other amazing features that are generations beyond what even Samsung can feasibly achieve without a high risk with a potential loss in profit, at least in the short run.


    edit: Here's an example of what I mean by costs outweighing the benefit for a company like Samsung that doesn't sell nearly as many devices of a single design and are likely not getting the profit margins they wish they could get as compared to Apple.

    You are forgetting Samsung makes money every time an iPhone X is Sold.  Tails Samsung wins ; heads Samsung wins more.
    I'm not forgetting anything. Apple has hundreds of direct component partners in dozens of countries, not to mention all those component makers have to source materials and manufacturing some place. Because Samsung is used to fab an Apple component, supply an component in totality, or even get paid for IP licensing, doesn't mean that the Samsung Galaxy S9+ is a better device because Apple uses one part of their company to help make their product while also competing against them in the high-end smartphone market.
    edited March 15 racerhomie3mike1StrangeDaysjony0watto_cobrabb-15
  • Reply 8 of 66
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,847member
    k2kw said:
    I would like to see how both phones compare in LTE upload and download Speeds.  preferably on at least one GSM network and one CDMA network.  
    While Apple having hobbled their faster, mobile broadband chips from Qualcomm to be inline with the Intel, I'd like to see those results, too.
  • Reply 9 of 66
    metrixmetrix Posts: 214member
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    They are hardly just a washing machine company, they make toilet seats too!

    All kidding aside Samsung is practically South Korea itself. They are into massive cargo ships, oil platforms, food manufacturing on a large scale, CNC machine tools, and the list goes on. They are so big they tell the government what to do not the other way around. 
    racerhomie3muthuk_vanalingamjbdragonjony0bb-15cornchipnetmage
  • Reply 10 of 66
    chasmchasm Posts: 703member
    I think the real-world takeaways on this are these:

    1. Nearly all non-game apps use single-core most of the time, because the apps themselves aren't really that demanding. The iPhone X is the clear winner in that category.

    2. Websurfing is again a clear win for the iPhone X. Since this is the vast majority of what I do on my iPhone, this is (for me, at least) one of the most important takeaways.

    3. Graphics -- Samsung seems to have caught up (on par) in non-game use, probably has an edge on gaming on the phone (and of course this is where the larger size of the 9+ comes into play). I do very little gaming on a smartphone, but hey credit where its due, if you're into (high-level) gaming on your phone the S9+ edges it out.

    4. The reason Samsung can't make any money on this phone is because a) this model doesn't sell but a tiny fraction of the number the iPhone X sells, and b) their costs on this particular unit is much higher (i.e., profit lower) thanks to them essentially having to double up everything (processor, graphics, ram) just to keep up.

    5. Not tested here, but apparently the camera in the S9 and + is improved over the previous S8 to within (essentially) a wash with Apple's camera.

    Overall this is a first-class effort from Samsung and a serious contender, and they should be proud of that (and only ripped off Apple in a few areas this time, to boot!). I'm not sure typical users care much if an app opens half-a-second faster on one than the other; you have to get into noticeable differences (see points 1 to 3 above) to have the differences be a factor over and above the primary factors (preferred platform, security/privacy threshold, expected support lifespan, that sort of stuff), so basically this is (and will continue to be going forward) more or less a wash driven by platform preference or how influential the salesperson at the store is in governing your decision. :)
    muthuk_vanalingampakittwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 66
    evilutionevilution Posts: 1,292member
    Samsung are just strapping bigger jet engines to a nicely painted tractor and claiming it’s a race car.

    I’d like to see the next iPhone have a boost in RAM to compliment the next A series processor. For no real reason but to add some distance between them and the next best Android phone. We all know that benchmarks really don’t equate to real world use and even if the S9 beat the iPhone X in all of the tests, the X would still be a nicer experience.
    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 66
    FatmanFatman Posts: 142member
    I would like to see an article that compares like software and general OS responsiveness across platforms. I.e common browser functions, high end game performance comparisons. And time it takes to complete basic tasks such as login via ID, launch an app, switch between apps, focus/take a photo, etc.
    pakittwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 66
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,941member
    k2kw said:
    Soli said:
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    You're only looking at the benchmark results, but you're not factoring in what Samsung has to do in order to even try to compete with Apple. Samsung has to add double the RAM, a much faster CPU with more cores, which all probably requires a much larger and heavier chassis mostly do to a much larger battery and heat dissipation requirements. Apple, on the other hand, has so much vertical integration that they can use less RAM, less cores, a lower clock rate, and smaller battery in a small chassis while still trouncing the competition.

    PS: It should be noted that Apple's comparatively high number of unit sales for a given design allows for economies of scale that add an additional benefit to Apple that other vendors can't possibly compete with it, which is why Apple can also add other amazing features that are generations beyond what even Samsung can feasibly achieve without a high risk with a potential loss in profit, at least in the short run.


    edit: Here's an example of what I mean by costs outweighing the benefit for a company like Samsung that doesn't sell nearly as many devices of a single design and are likely not getting the profit margins they wish they could get as compared to Apple.

    You are forgetting Samsung makes money every time an iPhone X is Sold.  Tails Samsung wins ; heads Samsung wins more.

    He didn’t forget. It’s just irrelevant. 

    And mentioning this every time Apple appears on top in a benchmark really is an act of desperation. 

    The point is that Samsung’s new phone has trouble keeping up with a phone released before Christmas that has less onboard RAM. 

    Or are you going to point out that Samsung wins because they sell more washing machines than Apple?



    Soliking editor the grateStrangeDaysbaconstangbb-15watto_cobracornchip
  • Reply 14 of 66
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,941member

    evilution said:
    Samsung are just strapping bigger jet engines to a nicely painted tractor and claiming it’s a race car.

    I’d like to see the next iPhone have a boost in RAM to compliment the next A series processor. For no real reason but to add some distance between them and the next best Android phone. We all know that benchmarks really don’t equate to real world use and even if the S9 beat the iPhone X in all of the tests, the X would still be a nicer experience.
    A question of trade offs. 

    More RAM requires more battery power and 😱 more AI-based processor power management to handle it. 
    bb-15watto_cobranetmage
  • Reply 15 of 66
    pakittpakitt Posts: 143member
    The S9 comes to the market about 4.5 months after the X. The X was in its form already probably much earlier than that.
    This means that Samsung is about 0.5-1 year behind in terms of raw performance, which seems the area in which all Android phones lag vs the iPhone platform.

    That said, I wish iOS11 were a better release, is ridden with bugs, instability, a protocol stack that shows big issues when switching from LTE to wi-fi and viceversa, most apps go insane when there is no connectivity (or when the phone thinks there is connectivity to internet via wi-fi, but the wi-fi router is connected to a switched off modem and still the phone does not use LTE instead... because wi-fi assist is based on wifi signal strength, and not on data throughput...) and so on.
    Apple has *great* hardware, but needs to do a lot of work on the software side. They are all over the place with that.

    I never owned an Android phone, so I don't know how good/bad it is to use one in daily life.
    That for me would be the real benchmark, since, as the article said, raw performance is about the same where it counts in real life usage. Until the new iPhone comes out with the A1231232 and benchmarks will maybe show that Apple has raised the bar again...(or maybe not)...

    Not to mention that Apple should stop announcing products and services it "never" releases, or removes from betas after a while...
    edited March 15 baconstang
  • Reply 16 of 66
    arthargartharg Posts: 18member
    It speaks to the prowess of Samsung's engineers that they manage to almost catch up to Apple's flagship phone six months after it ships.
    watto_cobranetmage
  • Reply 17 of 66
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    This comes down to efficiency. Samsung has thus far simply added more RAM, battery, higher gigahertz processor to compensate for being horribly inefficiency. They are fast approaching the limits of this type of design approach. Apple designs with efficiency in mind from conceptualization to finished product. Samsung hasn’t done any of this leg work and in many cases doesn’t have the ability to it even if they had the will to do so. When the limit is reached, Apple will be close to a decade ahead in design/optimization. It’s game over for Samsung as they do not have the ASP necessary support catching up (might not even be possible given they are limited by Android).
    StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 66
    mercelmercel Posts: 16member
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    Lol.  iPhone smokes Samsung in all tests that matter and “Samsung is kicking ass.”

    Uh huh, gotcha.
    StrangeDayscornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 66
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,183member
    mtbnut said:
    I think these results say a whole lot more about how well Samsung is doing, versus how well Apple is maintaining its lead. Given that Apple has 100% control of both software and hardware, one would think Apple would be light years ahead, which doesn't seem to be the case. Either Apple is slipping or Samsung is kicking ass. Or a little bit of both. But I think Apple is slipping, IMHO. Their scores should be off-the-charts compared to Samsung, yet the Korean juggernaut, who also makes refrigerators and washing machines, is right there. 

    If I were Apple, I'd be a little ashamed of how poorly I'm doing compared to a washing-machine company. 

    This is the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris keeping up with me in my Porsche 911 GT3 as I do hot laps at Nürburgring. 
    Nice troll but nobody is biting.
    tmayStrangeDayspscooter63cornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 66
    The tests show impressive improvements by Samsung, especially considering it’s driving a larger screen.

    The most important question is how often are these devices running single core vs. multi core?

    If the majority of the time it’s single core Apple has a massive lead in real world performance.
    edited March 15
Sign In or Register to comment.