Benchmark showdown: Samsung Galaxy S10+ versus iPhone XS Max

Posted:
in iPhone edited August 14
Samsung's latest and greatest Galaxy S10+ is on our test bench, so we pitted it against Apple's flagship iPhone XS Max to see which phone takes the crown in our a benchmarking showdown.

Samsung Galaxy S10+ and iPhone XS Max
Samsung Galaxy S10+ and iPhone XS Max


Apple's iPhone XS Max is now around six months old, but it still has impressive specs. Inside the iPhone is Apple's A12 Bionic processor and 4GB of RAM.

The Galaxy S10+ is using an eight-core Snapdragon 855 processor in the US, and is packing 8GB of RAM.






We ran a slew of different benchmarking tests with both phones, designed to test everyday performance, the limits of the GPU, browser capabilities, and more.

The tests

Starting off, we jumped into Geekbench 4 which runs a battery of tests to simulate real-world tasks. Apple's iPhone XS Max pulled well ahead in the single core with 4828 against the S10+'s 3426 but was edged out by the Galaxy S10+ in multicore where iPhone earned 10355 against the Galaxy's 10466.

Samsung Galaxy S10+ and iPhone XS Max Geekbench 4 results
Samsung Galaxy S10+ and iPhone XS Max Geekbench 4 results


For comparison, our S9+ earned 2007 and 8307 on the single and multi-core tests respectively.

We then moved on to the AnTuTu benchmarking test. The iPhone XS Max was handily beaten by the Galaxy S10+ in total score, and most of the individual tests. The S10+ earned a 362392 against the iPhone's 313461. Apple's handset did manage to win one category, beating the Galaxy in RAM usage.

Samsung Galaxy S10+ and iPhone XS Max
Samsung Galaxy S10+ and iPhone XS Max AnTuTU HTML5 results


Jumping into the browser, we ran the AnTuTu browser JavaScript benchmark. As we were running the test, we knew the iPhone would lose out. Many of the in-browser animations were jumpy or slow on the iPhone where they were smooth on the S10+. Final results gave the S10+ a score of 41673 and the iPhone a score of 39378.

We then turned to the Octane 2.0 test, which while retired, still gives a solid gauge of web performance, especially to compare to previous year's tests like on the S9+ and iPhone X.

Samsung Galaxy S10+ and iPhone XS Max Octane 2.0
Samsung Galaxy S10+ and iPhone XS Max Octane 2.0 results


Here, the iPhone won easily with a score of 37035, significantly above the 25114 we saw from the S10+.

Samsung Galaxy S10+ and iPhone XS Max
Samsung Galaxy S10+ and iPhone XS Max GFXBench results


Our last graphics test was the GFXBench benchmark. There are multiple tests to compare, but when looking at the most recently added high tier Aztec Ruins test, the iPhone earned 1403.77 frames at a 21.8 fps against the S10 which pulled 1642 frames at 26 fps. Close, but the Galaxy S10+ won again here.

Lastly, we tested wireless performance on our home network. Running on a 802.11ac network, our S10+ pulled on average 120Mbps where our iPhone earned around 100Mbps. This will vary a great deal from setup to setup, though.

A new king?

The results here are impressive -- for both handsets. Apple's iPhone held its own, winning in multiple categories despite being six months old. On the other hand, the Galaxy S10+ pulled some great numbers that show significant growth over the previous S9.

Samsung Galaxy S10+
Samsung Galaxy S10+

Where to buy

The Samsung Galaxy S10+ can be pre-ordered from Samsung directly, as well as at Samsung authorized dealers, such as B&H Photo and Amazon.com, with prices starting at $999.

Samsung is also offering a rebate for free Galaxy Buds with S10 and S10+ preorders.

Meanwhile, the following carriers are also offering incentives on both Apple and Samsung devices:

Carrier deals: Stay tuned to AppleInsider for further tests and comparisons between Apple and Samsung's flagship devices.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    jcohjcoh Posts: 4member
    Not to say that the S10 didn’t make huge improvements but my XS Max geek bench scores are.  4821 and 11441. These are consistent scores on my iPhone.  You should be getting better multicore scores.  

    Regardless. Looks like Qualcomm finally figured out how to compete with apple chips.  At least until sept.  

    coolfactorgilly33watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 28
    I wonder why the Qualcom's single core performance is so far behind.
  • Reply 3 of 28
    donth8donth8 Posts: 28member
    The GFXbench scores are not fair the S10 out of the box is running 1080p. You should run the offscreen tests to make it fairer.
    coolfactormacplusplusCarnagewatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 28
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 1,509member
    Impressive that they are both so close in performance. The S10+ does pack twice the RAM, so shows that the iPhone is more efficient. I was embarrassed by that stuttering browser test, though. Could Chrome have optimized some routines that made all the difference, and it's not really a phone-performance issue?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 28
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,193member
    Even if an Android phone was besting an iPhone in (undoped) benchmark speed tests, it still wouldn't show that the iPhone was behind. I can't tell you the number of Android-based devices that people have told me were faster than any iPhone that simply couldn't open, switch, or use apps as fast, nor had the same refinement as an iOS app, not yo mention stuttering, lags, and crashing. Is it still much easier and faster to produce better iOS apps than Android apps using fewer resources?
    edited March 6 donth8chiagilly33redgeminipawatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 28
    red oakred oak Posts: 674member
    So, Qualcomm has effectively caught up to Apple in microprocessors
    edited March 6
  • Reply 7 of 28
    IreneWIreneW Posts: 166member
    Soli said:
    Is it still much easier and faster to produce better iOS apps than Android apps using fewer resources?
    No, it isn't.
  • Reply 8 of 28
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,193member
    IreneW said:
    Soli said:
    Is it still much easier and faster to produce better iOS apps than Android apps using fewer resources?
    No, it isn't.
    Then why do Android devices tend to have faster clock speeds and more RAM despite performing worse on bench-tests where they should shine? What about Xcode, Swift, and their APIs that are making it harder to build sophisticated and modern apps than an OS that is split across a plethora of inconsistent OSes and API levels. Are Android apps still based on Java stolen from Oracle?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 28
    It's already been mentioned, but....


    Primate Labs Geekbench Browser (which aggregates thousands of tests) lists the iPhone XS Max at 4,797 single (very close to yours) but 11,225 in multi (a full 900 pts higher than your result). They don't list the S10 yet, which is typical since they haven't had enough tests performed yet to show up. This happens every 

    AnTuTu lists the iPhone XS Max at 355,762 (I don't know how many results they use to get that figure). They have the Exynos 9820 equipped S10 at 332,850 but no result for the 855 version. Again, your AnTuTu result for the iPhone XS Max is extremely low (by 40,000).

    I just ran both tests on my iPhone XS Max "as is" (meaning I didn't do a cold boot or delete any running Apps - I literally just started the benchmarks when I saw this article pop up). I got 361,314 for AnTuTu and 4767/11,245 for Geekbench.

    Clearly there's something amiss with your iPhone results. Are you on beta software? Running something in the background?


    donth8retrogustofrantisekirelandwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 28
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,958member
    That's nice...
    But, too much emphasis on hardware.   For Apple the hardware need be only "Good Enough" because it is primarily just a delivery system for the Apple software and ecosystem -- which do the real work of giving people what they want and need.
    lwiomcdavewilliamlondon
  • Reply 11 of 28
    ZooStationZooStation Posts: 4unconfirmed, member
    VW / Audi has great emissions scores too -
    williamlondonGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 12 of 28
    KITAKITA Posts: 191member
    Testing sustained performance would also be nice.

    Qualcomm made some claims regarding to that being a highlight of the SoC at launch. 


  • Reply 13 of 28
    KITAKITA Posts: 191member
    donth8 said:
    red oak said:
    So, Qualcomm has effectively caught up to Apple in microprocessors
    They are still a generation behind the testing in this article/video is flawed. He gets lower numbers on the iPhone than usual. anandtech is a better source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13786/snapdragon-855-performance-preview/5
    "The Galaxy S10 actually performs better than the QRD – putting to rest some of the worries we had on the early platform." - Anandtech
  • Reply 14 of 28
    KITAKITA Posts: 191member
    I wonder why the Qualcom's single core performance is so far behind.
    There are a few reasons, but it's mostly due to the fact they use much smaller cores.

    Samsung used their new big core on the Exynos variant which has a score ~4500 in Geekbench.  Of course the larger cores are far more power hungry and are more likely to throttle.

    It's also worth keeping in mind that Geekbench has pauses built in to prevent thermal throttling, thus revealing only the peak performance of an SoC and not always the real world performance post-throttle.
    GeorgeBMacretrogusto
  • Reply 15 of 28
    donth8donth8 Posts: 28member
    KITA said:
    donth8 said:
    red oak said:
    So, Qualcomm has effectively caught up to Apple in microprocessors
    They are still a generation behind the testing in this article/video is flawed. He gets lower numbers on the iPhone than usual. anandtech is a better source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13786/snapdragon-855-performance-preview/5
    "The Galaxy S10 actually performs better than the QRD – putting to rest some of the worries we had on the early platform." - Anandtech
    Yes but not remotely better to overtake the A12 Bionic. I will give them props for the great sustained performance though, the 855 seems to be great at that.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 28
    KITA said:
    Testing sustained performance would also be nice.

    Qualcomm made some claims regarding to that being a highlight of the SoC at launch. 



    Was waiting for you to show up with your usual bullshit posts.
    bestkeptsecretSoliwatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 28
    I wonder why the Qualcom's single core performance is so far behind.

    Because nobody has cores anywhere near as advanced as Apple.

    And Qualcomm, realizing that single core is very important, actually overclocked one core and doubled its cache to try and get a higher single core result. And this is the best they can come up with. Rather pathetic.
    applesnorangeswatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 28
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,979member
    I don’t even need to read to know Apple A chip will whoop ass any Qualcomn or Samsung designed ones. It’s been proven for years.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 28
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,169member
    It's already been mentioned, but....


    Primate Labs Geekbench Browser (which aggregates thousands of tests) lists the iPhone XS Max at 4,797 single (very close to yours) but 11,225 in multi (a full 900 pts higher than your result). They don't list the S10 yet, which is typical since they haven't had enough tests performed yet to show up. This happens every 

    AnTuTu lists the iPhone XS Max at 355,762 (I don't know how many results they use to get that figure). They have the Exynos 9820 equipped S10 at 332,850 but no result for the 855 version. Again, your AnTuTu result for the iPhone XS Max is extremely low (by 40,000).

    I just ran both tests on my iPhone XS Max "as is" (meaning I didn't do a cold boot or delete any running Apps - I literally just started the benchmarks when I saw this article pop up). I got 361,314 for AnTuTu and 4767/11,245 for Geekbench.

    Clearly there's something amiss with your iPhone results. Are you on beta software? Running something in the background?


    So the A12 beats the 855 despite having half the performance cores.
    edited March 7 watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 28
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,169member
    red oak said:
    So, Qualcomm has effectively caught up to Apple in microprocessors
    Not really, main-thread performance is still way down.  Android doesn’t really have native applications it’s bytecode will always be sub-optimal.  I’d also be keen to see video encoding performance, A-series was typically 5x faster.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.