Benchmarks on shipping hardware find iPhone X superior to Samsung Galaxy S9+
With the Galaxy S9 and S9+ now in the hands of tech reviewers, some are beginning to evaluate how Samsung's latest handsets stacks up against Apple's flagship iPhone X. One head-to-head shows the S9's Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 CPU, while speedy, is easily bested by Apple's A11 Bionic power plant.
In a series of tests, Tom's Guide pitted the Galaxy S9+ against iPhone X, last year's Galaxy Note 8, Huawei's Mate 10 Pro and the Google Pixel 2 XL. In all but one trial -- a synthetic graphics test -- Apple's custom silicon came out on top, and in a big way.
Starting with Geekbench, which provides a decent perspective of all-around system performance, iPhone X came in with a multi-core score of 10,357, while the S9+ placed a distant second with a score of 8,295.
Moving on to graphics, Samsung's smartphone managed a 3DMark Sling Shot score of 5,793, outperforming the 3,998 tally put in by iPhone X. Interestingly, iPhone bested the S9+ when running the OpenGL ES 3.0 benchmark in Unlimited mode, scoring 4,994 to Samsung's 4,634.
Apple's chip crushed the Qualcomm CPU in real-world testing, as the iPhone took a mere 42 seconds to transcode a two-minute 4K video file to 1080p using Adobe Premiere Clip. The Galaxy S9+ accomplished the same task in 2 minutes and 32 seconds, just 23 seconds faster than Google's Pixel 2 XL.
Still, the S9+ is a vast improvement over last year's Galaxy S8, which boasts a Snapdragon 835 processor. The year-old Galaxy model took over 4 minutes to complete the video editing test.
Finally, iPhone X took 13 seconds to open the game Injustice 2, a task that took the S9+ 20 seconds. At least part of the speed can be attributed to Apple's integrated software and hardware designs, which are crafted to complement each other.
In a series of tests, Tom's Guide pitted the Galaxy S9+ against iPhone X, last year's Galaxy Note 8, Huawei's Mate 10 Pro and the Google Pixel 2 XL. In all but one trial -- a synthetic graphics test -- Apple's custom silicon came out on top, and in a big way.
Starting with Geekbench, which provides a decent perspective of all-around system performance, iPhone X came in with a multi-core score of 10,357, while the S9+ placed a distant second with a score of 8,295.
Moving on to graphics, Samsung's smartphone managed a 3DMark Sling Shot score of 5,793, outperforming the 3,998 tally put in by iPhone X. Interestingly, iPhone bested the S9+ when running the OpenGL ES 3.0 benchmark in Unlimited mode, scoring 4,994 to Samsung's 4,634.
Apple's chip crushed the Qualcomm CPU in real-world testing, as the iPhone took a mere 42 seconds to transcode a two-minute 4K video file to 1080p using Adobe Premiere Clip. The Galaxy S9+ accomplished the same task in 2 minutes and 32 seconds, just 23 seconds faster than Google's Pixel 2 XL.
Still, the S9+ is a vast improvement over last year's Galaxy S8, which boasts a Snapdragon 835 processor. The year-old Galaxy model took over 4 minutes to complete the video editing test.
Finally, iPhone X took 13 seconds to open the game Injustice 2, a task that took the S9+ 20 seconds. At least part of the speed can be attributed to Apple's integrated software and hardware designs, which are crafted to complement each other.
Comments
microsoft is planning to come out with Windows laptops with the 845 chip. It’s going to be another slow failure like the Surface 3.
This is why iPadPro is faster than entry level SurfacePro easily.
This also shows why Apple Should dump intel chip in MB and MBA.
FYI: The 8 is basically the same as the X, the 7 is about 6000.
Still that’s an impressive improvement by Qualcomm. They’ve finally game a substantial beat on the IPhone 7.
Prior to this, people might has well purchased an IPhone 7 vs. the best Android had to offer (I think the price was similar).
Perhaps, but a major bone of contention for Android fans.
Basically, the results from Tom's Guide seem to differ to his result, especially the video export times.
Also he has a good point about Apple being "cheap" on RAM - essentially the X needs to reload often apps because RAM is not enough, compared to the S9. Is it to save battery life? maybe.
iOS11 for me has been the worst release ever, and I am wondering if a lot of "slow downs" shown by the X are actually due to that. It seems they have a problem with the Protocol Stack for internet/wifi access and lack of RAM requires reloading of apps from scratch more often than necessary, slowing user experience (slow reactions times).
Why the geekbench benchmarks are so bad, only the developer of the app can know.
Still, the S9 will not get any OS updates in 2 years. Rendering it obsolete quite fast. So I don't know if that is worth the differences in benchmark speeds....
Design decisions are not putting tons of memory inside, but putting as much as __required__ (which obviously is dictated by what customers expect from device life expectancy and generally such an expensive device). And obviously, the requirement is that the user has some apps which are accessed very frequently and some assets that get reloaded constantly, it even gets as far as doing all that while combining things like supply chain control (on battery production shortages, as well as sourcing materials in an environmentally friendly way). I have yet to notice any app I use in this pattern to be reloaded once..... I have yet to notice any android manufacturer except Fairphone (which IMO has disadvantage of using this shitty OS) doing meaningful decisions considering these things. And even they dont reach device life expectancy of what an iPhone achieves (just by software update terms alone, thats another AI article for you to read).
BTW, did you know that the decision on which app remains in memory is based on neural net analysis of user application usage patterns stored _ON_DEVICE_?
Sorry for the rant, just needed to clarify some misunderstandings.