Galaxy Note 10+ vs iPhone XS Max - the benchmarks

Posted:
in iPhone
Samsung's latest and greatest Galaxy Note 10+ is on our test bench, so we put it against Apple's current flagship, the iPhone XS Max to see which phone takes the crown in our benchmarking showdown.

iPhone XS Max and Galaxy Note 10+
iPhone XS Max and Galaxy Note 10+


Apple's iPhone XS Max is almost a year old, but it still has impressive specs. Inside the iPhone XS Max is Apple's A12 Bionic processor and 4GB of RAM.

The Galaxy Note 10+ is using an eight-core Snapdragon 855 processor in the US, and is packing 8GB of RAM or 12GB of RAM if you opted in for the 512GB storage option.






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. While Geekbench 5 is available, it has yet to ship for Android devices. We will repeat some of these tests following the release of the 2019 iPhone lineup that will be announced on September 10.

Apple's iPhone XS Max pulled well ahead in both single core and multi-core tests with 4790 and 11346. While the Note 10+ scored 3506 for its single core and 11247 for its multi-core.

Geekbench 4 results for iPhone XS Max
Geekbench 4 results for iPhone XS Max


Geekbench 4 results for Galaxy Note 10+
Geekbench 4 results for Galaxy Note 10+


For comparison, Samsung's Galaxy S10+ earned 3426 and 10466 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 Note 10+ in total score, and all of the individual tests. The Galaxy Note 10+ earned a total score of 372002 against the iPhone XS Max's 330269.

Overall results for AnTuTu benchmarks
Overall results for AnTuTu benchmarks


Jumping into the browser, we ran the AnTuTu browser JavaScript benchmark gave the Galaxy Note 10+ a score of 41390 and the iPhone XS Max a score of 43912.

We then turned to the Octane 2.0 test. While Octane isn't being updated at present, it still gives a solid gauge of web performance. Here, the iPhone XS Max won easily with a score of 40682, significantly above the 24502 we saw from the Galaxy Note 10+.

Octane 2.0 results
Octane 2.0 results


Our last graphics test was the GFXBench benchmark which utilizes a variety of tests to strain the devices from a graphical processing perspective. Running the 1440p Manhattan test, the iPhone XS Max earned 3312.76 frames at 53.43 fps, against the Galaxy Note 10+ which pulled 2364 frames at 38 fps. It's a close one, but the iPhone XS Max won again here.

GFXBench Benchmark results
GFXBench Benchmark results


We tested wireless performance on our home network. Running on a 802.11ac network, our Galaxy Note 10+ pulled on average 160 Mbps down and 200 Mbps up where our iPhone XS Max earned around 100Mbps and 45 to 50 Mbps up. This will vary from setup to setup, and network to network, though.

Wireless performance between iPhone XS Max and Galaxy Note 10+
Wireless performance between iPhone XS Max and Galaxy Note 10+

A new king?

The results here are impressive for both handsets. Samsung's Note 10+ held its own against the year-old iPhone XS Max, winning two tests, while the iPhone XS Max won everything else. We'll be doing another comparison once we have Apple's new iPhone in the next few weeks, and have more Galaxy Note 10+ content coming soon.

Where to buy

The Samsung Galaxy Note 10 and Galaxy Note 10+ is available now from Samsung directly, as well as at Samsung authorized dealers, such as B&H Photo and Amazon.com, with prices starting at $999.

Meanwhile, the iPhone XS Max can be picked up from major wireless carriers with special offers on iPhones when you switch networks.

Spec Comparison

iPhone XS MaxGalaxy Note 10+
ProcessorA12 BionicQualcomm Snapdragon 855
RAM4GB8GB / 12GB
Storage64GB, 256GB, 512GB256GB, 512GB
PortsLightningUSB-C
Operating SystemiOS 12Android 9 Pie
Price$1099, $1249, $1449$1099, $1199

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    "Running the 1440p Manhattan test, the iPhone XS Max earned 3312.76 frames at 53.43 fps, against the Galaxy Note 10+ which pulled 2364 frames at 38 fps. It's a close one, but the iPhone XS Max won again here."

     Is that supposed to be (oddly placed) sarcasm or a misinterpretation of the data?
    edited September 6 muthuk_vanalingampscooter63PickUrPoisonradarthekatwatto_cobraAppleExposed
  • Reply 2 of 20
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,488member
    Those Wi-Fi results for the iPhone should be retracted, and likely the Samsung results should be, too. I get over 600 Mbps down over a gigabit broadband connection, using Ubiquiti Unifi gear (AC HD AP) with an XS Max.
    edited September 6 redgeminipawatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 20
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,062member
    "Running the 1440p Manhattan test, the iPhone XS Max earned 3312.76 frames at 53.43 fps, against the Galaxy Note 10+ which pulled 2364 frames at 38 fps. It's a close one, but the iPhone XS Max won again here."

     Is that supposed to be (oddly placed) sarcasm or a misinterpretation of the data?

    I was just going to post about that.  It's nearly a 30% difference.  Close?  
    radarthekatwatto_cobraAppleExposed
  • Reply 4 of 20
    cpsro said:
    Those Wi-Fi results for the iPhone should be retracted, and likely the Samsung results should be, too. I get over 600 Mbps down over a gigabit broadband connection, using Ubiquiti Unifi gear (AC HD AP) with an XS Max.
    Why would the results be retracted?  You can't be implying that since you got a different result, theirs are somehow invalidated.  That's not how things work.  Besides. AI, understanding how things work, included this little tid bit:This will vary from setup to setup, and network to network, though.  I can almost 100% guarantee if 20 members tested their phones, we'd get 20 different results that spanned the gamut from terrible to hot damn that's fast.  

    More importantly, if you don't have a Note 10+ running on your network for comparison, that single data point is less than useless. 
    muthuk_vanalingamchiaradarthekat
  • Reply 5 of 20
    Ya there's something wrong with their wifi network.  Probably a fios/frontier wifi router which are garbage.   We had a 200/200 connection with fios and tech guy setting it up would make a lame excuse of "to get those speeds you have to be on ethernet"  when I complained of only being able to get 25-50 on my phone right next to the router.  Hooked up my AirPort Extreme to their router and get a consistent 230/230 all the time.  Even with my current service of Spectrum my airport will hit 400 down on my phone so they should have a standardized wifi router that produces consistent high speeds like the AirPort Extreme.   For me, dealing with several providers and equipment and the gradual increase in internet speeds over the last 10 years when you get a crappy speed result like this one Id go dust off the old AirPort Extreme that they probably retired for some google mesh network and test on something you know gives consistent results on high speed Internet connections.
    radarthekatredgeminipawatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 20
    One other thing.  A simple test of your network.  if you have a 200 internet speed.  Plug your laptop into ethernet on the router.  test the speed sevaral times which will give you your baseline max speed.   then unplug and do the same test on your wifi.   those numbers should be almost the same except for ping numbers.   Can't beat ethernet for ping speed.  A old AirPort Extreme 6th generation with 802.11ac will do just that.   I've tested it on several different provider networks at different houses and it hasn't let me down yet up to 400 lol.  we don't have anything faster than 400 in our area.   People should always test it anyways because why pay the extra money for 200 if all your wifi puts out is 50.
    redgeminipawatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 20
    Yet none of these tests mean squat to me when I can’t leave my phone turned on because the manufacturer won’t allow us boolean aids to block robocalls. Oh yeah, there’s the price thing too. Not going to spend a lot on a phone thats always turned off.
  • Reply 8 of 20
    I would like to see any real life tests where we can see that big difference we see in Javascript and Octane benchmarks. It is my long time desire. \one can easily see Apple huge leap in video processing but not much else.

    Can not wait see in real life launching updated apps in iOS 13 with declared speed.

  • Reply 9 of 20
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,876administrator
    nemaworm said:
    Ya there's something wrong with their wifi network.  Probably a fios/frontier wifi router which are garbage.   We had a 200/200 connection with fios and tech guy setting it up would make a lame excuse of "to get those speeds you have to be on ethernet"  when I complained of only being able to get 25-50 on my phone right next to the router.  Hooked up my AirPort Extreme to their router and get a consistent 230/230 all the time.  Even with my current service of Spectrum my airport will hit 400 down on my phone so they should have a standardized wifi router that produces consistent high speeds like the AirPort Extreme.   For me, dealing with several providers and equipment and the gradual increase in internet speeds over the last 10 years when you get a crappy speed result like this one Id go dust off the old AirPort Extreme that they probably retired for some google mesh network and test on something you know gives consistent results on high speed Internet connections.
    New EdgeRouter X and a UniFi UAP-AC-Pro.

    And, if we were testing with a regular FiOS or Frontier router, that would be a better real-world test anyway, no?
    edited September 6
  • Reply 10 of 20
    KITAKITA Posts: 197member
    "Running the 1440p Manhattan test, the iPhone XS Max earned 3312.76 frames at 53.43 fps, against the Galaxy Note 10+ which pulled 2364 frames at 38 fps. It's a close one, but the iPhone XS Max won again here."

     Is that supposed to be (oddly placed) sarcasm or a misinterpretation of the data?
    When it comes to sustained performance the, A12 is about par with some of the better Snapdragon 855 implementations.

    GFXBench Manhattan 31 Off-screen
    Appleinsider (and many other sites) seem to be attracted to peak performance tests such as Geekbench (a test that has pauses built in just to prevent thermal throttling). These are quick and easy numbers to throw at people.

    While peak performance has its place for some types of workloads, for something like a graphics / gaming test, its rather useless.
    edited September 6 muthuk_vanalingamavon b7spheric
  • Reply 11 of 20
    cpsro said:
    Those Wi-Fi results for the iPhone should be retracted, and likely the Samsung results should be, too. I get over 600 Mbps down over a gigabit broadband connection, using Ubiquiti Unifi gear (AC HD AP) with an XS Max.

    Yes, as others have said, this was a test of these two devices on the same network. The network is going to constraint things for both devices equally, so this demonstrates how each device differs in the same network environment. It's not a test of full max speed each device is capable of, only how they compare against each other within one environment.
    AppleExposed
  • Reply 12 of 20
    *Correction....All Note 10's have 8GB ram and all Note 10 plus's have 12GB ram regardless if you opt for the 256 or the 512. 
  • Reply 13 of 20
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,764member
    microbe said:
    Yet none of these tests mean squat to me when I can’t leave my phone turned on because the manufacturer won’t allow us boolean aids to block robocalls. Oh yeah, there’s the price thing too. Not going to spend a lot on a phone thats always turned off.
    If Apple really wants to leapfrog the competition then they should put a massive “YUP … WHATEVER 🙄” button on the keyboard. 
    watto_cobraAppleExposed
  • Reply 14 of 20
    KITA said:
    "Running the 1440p Manhattan test, the iPhone XS Max earned 3312.76 frames at 53.43 fps, against the Galaxy Note 10+ which pulled 2364 frames at 38 fps. It's a close one, but the iPhone XS Max won again here."

     Is that supposed to be (oddly placed) sarcasm or a misinterpretation of the data?
    When it comes to sustained performance the, A12 is about par with some of the better Snapdragon 855 implementations.

    GFXBench Manhattan 31 Off-screen
    Appleinsider (and many other sites) seem to be attracted to peak performance tests such as Geekbench (a test that has pauses built in just to prevent thermal throttling). These are quick and easy numbers to throw at people.

    While peak performance has its place for some types of workloads, for something like a graphics / gaming test, its rather useless.
    Yikes, the XR is 50% faster than the Galaxy S10+ and twice as fast as a Pixel 3? 

    btw it appears that AI is using sustained performance in the benchmarks OP is quoting.
    watto_cobraAppleExposed
  • Reply 15 of 20
    KITAKITA Posts: 197member
    KITA said:
    "Running the 1440p Manhattan test, the iPhone XS Max earned 3312.76 frames at 53.43 fps, against the Galaxy Note 10+ which pulled 2364 frames at 38 fps. It's a close one, but the iPhone XS Max won again here."

     Is that supposed to be (oddly placed) sarcasm or a misinterpretation of the data?
    When it comes to sustained performance the, A12 is about par with some of the better Snapdragon 855 implementations.

    GFXBench Manhattan 31 Off-screen
    Appleinsider (and many other sites) seem to be attracted to peak performance tests such as Geekbench (a test that has pauses built in just to prevent thermal throttling). These are quick and easy numbers to throw at people.

    While peak performance has its place for some types of workloads, for something like a graphics / gaming test, its rather useless.
    Yikes, the XR is 50% faster than the Galaxy S10+ and twice as fast as a Pixel 3? 

    btw it appears that AI is using sustained performance in the benchmarks OP is quoting.
    Yes, in this test the XR has a significant lead over both phones. In the case of the Pixel it's using an SoC from January 2018. I think this is an issue Google is always going to have if they keep using their current launch window and Qualcomm chips (typically refresh January each year).

    No, Appleinsider is NOT using sustained performance. Their numbers are of the 1440p test while Ananadtech is using the 1080p test. It's the exact same test at different resolutions, so the scores will be higher in the case of the 1080p test.
  • Reply 16 of 20
    Peak performance is fine - when it comes to sustained performance you'll have to deal with thermal design, battery optimisations, etc - there'll be lots of tradeoffs going to be made by all manufacturers. Apple would probably go more conservative than most, having the smallest package for their phones. They'd optimise for real world use, where peak matters most. For games, if the FPS is > 60 no one really cares - so for example if faced with making the iPhone 1mm thicker to add more cooling vs losing some FPS that nobody will ever see anyway, they'd choose the former - obviously. They're so far ahead they will make choices that slow their results down.

    What's missing from the AI overview here is the # of cores on the A12. I am guessing it's 6, then the massive lead in single thread vs the almost non-existent lead in multi thread would make sense - 8 cores vs. 6. Yeah just looked it up, the A12 has 2 high performance and 4 low performance cores.

    So in the multi core tests here you see 6 Apple cores compete with 8 Qualcomm cores. Pretty impressive, Apple is missing 2 players yet still winning most tests.

    Overall it seems the single core lead Apple has is how much faster Apple's processor design is vs the competition - they have a 1 - 2 year lead. Adding more cores of course will even the balances on multi core tests, but in real world apps, there's only so many cores that can be used effectively. Although there is a tendency of both apps and the OS to take more advantage of multi core designs, given that adding cores has been the main way to increase speed over the last 7, 8 years. (Intel and others)

    edited September 7 watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 20
    frantisek said:
    I would like to see any real life tests where we can see that big difference we see in Javascript and Octane benchmarks. It is my long time desire. \one can easily see Apple huge leap in video processing but not much else.

    Can not wait see in real life launching updated apps in iOS 13 with declared speed.

    Because the A12 is the only currently shipping ARMv8.3 SoC, it should always handily best others in JavaScript tests. ARMv8.3 adds an instruction, FJCVTZS, for a conversion that’s uncommon in normal code but happens all over the place in JavaScript.

    The Snapdragon 855 SoC includes Cortex-A76 cores, which only implement ARMv8.2 fully. 2019’s Cortex-A77 (which no shipping Qualcomm SoC implements) is also a ARMv8.2 core which implements a few instructions from newer archs, but AFAICT, not the PAC or FJCVTZS instructions.

    Once non-Apple ARM SoCs implement the FJCVTZS instruction, the Android JavaScript engines (like V8) will have to be compiled with them enabled to see the kind of performance increase JavaScriptCore on the A12 sees.
    edited September 8 bigtdsPickUrPoisonmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 20
    KITA said:
    KITA said:
    "Running the 1440p Manhattan test, the iPhone XS Max earned 3312.76 frames at 53.43 fps, against the Galaxy Note 10+ which pulled 2364 frames at 38 fps. It's a close one, but the iPhone XS Max won again here."

     Is that supposed to be (oddly placed) sarcasm or a misinterpretation of the data?
    When it comes to sustained performance the, A12 is about par with some of the better Snapdragon 855 implementations.

    GFXBench Manhattan 31 Off-screen
    Appleinsider (and many other sites) seem to be attracted to peak performance tests such as Geekbench (a test that has pauses built in just to prevent thermal throttling). These are quick and easy numbers to throw at people.

    While peak performance has its place for some types of workloads, for something like a graphics / gaming test, its rather useless.
    Yikes, the XR is 50% faster than the Galaxy S10+ and twice as fast as a Pixel 3? 

    btw it appears that AI is using sustained performance in the benchmarks OP is quoting.
    Yes, in this test the XR has a significant lead over both phones. In the case of the Pixel it's using an SoC from January 2018. I think this is an issue Google is always going to have if they keep using their current launch window and Qualcomm chips (typically refresh January each year).

    No, Appleinsider is NOT using sustained performance. Their numbers are of the 1440p test while Ananadtech is using the 1080p test. It's the exact same test at different resolutions, so the scores will be higher in the case of the 1080p test.
    Yeah being upwards of a year behind doesn’t help; apparently it’s not a priority to be on-cycle with Qualcomm. The 865 looks interesting but Google won’t be shipping that anytime soon. 

    re: benchmarks thanks for the info wrt 1080p vs. 1440p. 
    edited September 8 watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 20
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,488member
    cpsro said:
    Those Wi-Fi results for the iPhone should be retracted, and likely the Samsung results should be, too. I get over 600 Mbps down over a gigabit broadband connection, using Ubiquiti Unifi gear (AC HD AP) with an XS Max.
    Why would the results be retracted?  You can't be implying that since you got a different result, theirs are somehow invalidated.  That's not how things work.  Besides. AI, understanding how things work, included this little tid bit:This will vary from setup to setup, and network to network, though.  I can almost 100% guarantee if 20 members tested their phones, we'd get 20 different results that spanned the gamut from terrible to hot damn that's fast.  

    More importantly, if you don't have a Note 10+ running on your network for comparison, that single data point is less than useless. 
    They should be retracted because they're meaningless and could convey the wrong impression to the naive.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 20
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,516unconfirmed, member
    Comparing a knockoff to iPhone hours before the new iPhone in unveiled is the best way to be "fair" to android. lol
Sign In or Register to comment.