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

Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
A question of trade offs.
More RAM requires more battery power and 😱 more AI-based processor power management to handle it.
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...
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.