- Sep 16, 2012
- 5,534
- 0
- 0
Is the Exynos Processor faster than the Snapdragon 600 one?
- Thread starter smooth4lyfe
- Start date
In terms of cpu performance yes the exynos definitely walks over the 600, the tegra 4 (with the same 4 A15 cores) got 4100 in geekbench 2, the 600 gets 3100 so in terms of cpu performance the octa will win.
Gpu side of it probably quite even id say, due to the high clock speed of the powervr 544 mp3 it probably equals the architecture speed of the adreno 320
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
Gpu side of it probably quite even id say, due to the high clock speed of the powervr 544 mp3 it probably equals the architecture speed of the adreno 320
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
It's only about 10% better in benchmarks compared to the Snapdragon clocked 1.9GHz, so it's not a lot. But it greatly improves the battery life. You can get about 12 hours of video playback from the Exynos verison with the gestures turned off, so it's easily Note 2 levels. You only get about 9 hours and some change on the Snapdragon.
Again I ask, why is the US being screwed over on the processors?
Why not just make one CPU and put it in all the phones?
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
Why not just make one CPU and put it in all the phones?
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
There is a lengthy debate that exists already on the merits of each processor. I suggest going there , we don't need another one.
Regarding that, the main reason i have been able to infer is that the EO5 chip is going to have a production shortage.
One more thing to consider is the availability of AOSP ROMS (and development in general) for the Qualcomm (S600) chip as opposed to the EO5. New and proprietary architectures never suit the amateur dev community, at first.
Regarding that, the main reason i have been able to infer is that the EO5 chip is going to have a production shortage.
One more thing to consider is the availability of AOSP ROMS (and development in general) for the Qualcomm (S600) chip as opposed to the EO5. New and proprietary architectures never suit the amateur dev community, at first.
Yeah it may only be 10% but then the exynos is clocked at 1.6ghz, if this was overclocked to the same 1.9ghz as the 600 it would probably reach 25% or even more in terms of cpu performance
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
jcp007
Trusted Member
- May 17, 2012
- 6,966
- 84
- 0
Why are we even asking the question about why one processor isn't in both the US and international travel versions? It is already set and the benchmark tests speak for themselves. If you want the Exynos processor, buy the international version. If you are in the US and don't care, buy the US version. Both will provide speedy performance to meet the needs and expectations of lesser mortals who choose not to whine and complain about things we can't wait change. We should focus on answering the OP's question and discussing the merits of both processors and how well they will in real life on each carrier network.
Sent From My Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 Tablet
Sent From My Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 Tablet
Actually, I believe the Exynos chip set still doesn't have integrated LTE in its SOC. The Qualcomm S4 and above (S4 Pro, S600, S800) all have the LTE integrated in its SOC so it's get's better battery life in LTE phones (which are all High end phones now).
The A15 cores are clocked at 1.8GHz, it was thought to be clocked at 1.6 but it's not.
Samsung Galaxy S4 i9500 with Exynos 5 Octa Detailed Review by Russian Websites - Samsung Galaxy S4
It has LTE integrated and it 100% supports it, only problem is that for right now it's only known to work on Korean LTE. No word yet on whether or not Samsung has made it so the Exynos will support US bands.
Even at 1.8ghz around 10% improvement is still good but if the exynos was 1.9ghz itll probably gain an extra 5%
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
From what I read, it supports all currently available bands of lte. It was said they couldn't meet the demand initially using the octa, so the next best thing is without a doubt the s600. Navidia likely could never meet their demand to market time frame and their chip is likely far more expensive to use in the first place.
My question is, which costs samsung more? Building their own in house octa? Or buying s600 chips? My guess the s600 chip would be more expensive than making your own, but buying 20 million or so might lower that price quite a bit. Making it the best option to meet demand.
Why not just put off release until enough are made?
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
Wouldn't bother me if it delayed launch for a month or 2, but I don't have the answers or insight of a multi billion dollar company...I can only guess it makes more sense for them to launch sooner rather than later. And to be fair the s600 is not a bad choice, but I hope samsung is still going to remedy this discrepancy one day. For better or worse.
Yeah I read that too, but on XDA it was said apparently the modem in the chip won't support LTE and then you've got articles saying that it only supports LTE in Korea. I don't think anyone fully knows and won't know until the phone comes out, I hope it supports LTE though.
It's probably more of a matter of time as to why 70% of the S4s are Snapdragons, they don't have enough time for 100% Exynos. But I'd imagine buying chips from Qualcomm cost more than them using their own resources. They should have the chip up and running by the time the Note 3 comes out, I don't know if that means if we'll see more Exynos S4s though.
I will absolutely eat crow on this statement if wrong, but I'm 100% sure the note3 will be octa across the globe. Also the sgs4 chipset will stay the same per original market for it's life span.
Side note to the op, if you want to base things solely on benchmarks= true power...look at rank#2 and rank#4 on antutu....rank #2 is verizons sgs4 (s600) and rank #4 is Korea's sgs4 (octa)....pretty even and obviously android authority didn't post their scores, so they hold little merit, at least in my eyes.
Edit; #2 is not verizons version, but rather U.S. cellulars version of the sgs4
Last edited:
If was exactly the same as last year, as soon as the note 2 came out it had the 4412 lte enabled so across the globe the note 2 was always using the exynos
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
Raptor007
Trusted Member
- Apr 18, 2010
- 4,906
- 58
- 0
2 words. Inpatient people.
Courtesy of My LT3VO
Two other words - Apple & Sales. Samsung hates the first and loves the second.
Raptor007
Trusted Member
- Apr 18, 2010
- 4,906
- 58
- 0
Didn't Samsung's division that makes the Exynos SoC actually state that it does support LTE. So its clearly a supply/demand situation. They want to merge processor and radio's into one while Apple still uses two separate pieces resulting in lower battery life, of course when you put a battery in that is nearly 50 smaller than the rest of the market, you have to wonder why they can't put a real battery into the iPhone.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram