In keeping with tradition Samsung once again introduced two hardware variants of its flagship Galaxy S9 phones. Most of the world gets units powered by Samsung's own Exynos 9810 chip, while US and China receive Snapdragon 845 chips instead.
That's been the case for a few years now and with the previous generation - the Galaxy S8 duo and the Galaxy Note8 - the Exynos chip seemed to have more processing power if not much different real-life performance. Spoiler alert - this time around, however, the Snapdragon 845 flexes a bit more muscle overall, compared to the Exynos 9810 Octa.
Before we get to the charts, a few specifics first. On paper, the pair doesn’t really look all that different. Both are based on an efficient 10nm development process and use pretty similar CPU core setup: 4x2.7 GHz Mongoose M3 & 4x1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 on the Exynos and 4x2.7 GHz Kryo 385 Gold & 4x1.7 GHz Kryo 385 Silver on the Snapdragon, respectively. So, there shouldn't be much of a CPU performance difference on paper, right?
Well, not exactly. GeekBench gives a pretty noticeable edge to the Exynos, especially under single-core synthetic loads. Interesting, still, the sheer number variance seems to be a lot bigger than the one observed between the Snapdragon and Exynos versions of the Galaxy S8+ and the Galaxy Note8.
GeekBench 4.1 (single-core)
Higher is better
- Apple iPhone X4256
- Samsung Galaxy S9+3771
- Sony Xperia XZ22454
- Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)2199
- Samsung Galaxy Note81987
- Samsung Galaxy S8+1986
- OnePlus 5T (Oreo)1974
- Google Pixel 2 XL1915
- Huawei P20 Pro1907
- LG V301901
- Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)1862
- Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)1832
The gap is a lot smaller when looking at multi-threaded loads. We area also happy to see the long-standing variance between general CPU performance in the iOS and Android realm get smaller and smaller. That being said, however, these are still nothing more than synthetic scores. Unless you really need to shave a few seconds off some odd complex calculation or massive file compression task, you just happen to frequently run on your phone, the real world difference is negligible.
GeekBench 4.1 (multi-core)
Higher is better
- Apple iPhone X10215
- Samsung Galaxy S9+8883
- Sony Xperia XZ28466
- Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)8349
- Samsung Galaxy Note86784
- OnePlus 5T (Oreo)6759
- Samsung Galaxy S8+6754
- Huawei P20 Pro6679
- Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)6590
- Google Pixel 2 XL6428
- LG V306365
- Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)6301
Plus, even if you are the type of person to take benchmark scores to heart, there is a much broader performance picture to explore, one that includes metrics on other hardware, like the GPU and memory speed, to name a couple.
What it lack in CPU prowess, the Snapdragon 845 clearly makes up in the GPU department. The Adreno 630 is simply hands-down more powerful than the Mali-G72 MP18.
Basemark X
Higher is better
- Sony Xperia XZ244097
- Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)44013
- Samsung Galaxy S8+43862
- Samsung Galaxy S9+42134
- Samsung Galaxy Note840890
- Google Pixel 2 XL39143
- OnePlus 5T (Oreo)38248
- Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)37211
- LG V3036704
- Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)34951
In pure pixel-churning terms, the Adreno can roughly pump out 30%, or so, more frames than its Mali rival.
GFX 3.1 Manhattan (1080p offscreen)
Higher is better
- Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)61
- Sony Xperia XZ255
- Samsung Galaxy S9+47
- Apple iPhone X44
- Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)43
- Samsung Galaxy S8+42
- Samsung Galaxy Note842
- Google Pixel 2 XL42
- LG V3041
- Huawei P20 Pro40
- OnePlus 5T (Oreo)40
- Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)39
GFX 3.1 Car scene (1080p offscreen)
Higher is better
- Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)35
- Sony Xperia XZ235
- Samsung Galaxy S9+28
- OnePlus 5T (Oreo)26
- Samsung Galaxy S8+25
- Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)25
- Samsung Galaxy Note825
- Google Pixel 2 XL25
- LG V3024
- Huawei P20 Pro23
- Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)23
Interestingly enough, the difference is clearly evident in on-screen tests as well. You can actually get up to 10 frames more in certain test scenarios. Again, that doesn’t necessarily translate in better visuals or higher fps in today's mobile games, thanks to optimization and constantly improving engines. Still, if you game a lot and indent to stick to the S9+ for a while, the Snapdragon 845 variant might be a more futureproof option.
GFX 3.1 Manhattan (onscreen)
Higher is better
- Apple iPhone X51
- Sony Xperia XZ251
- Huawei P20 Pro37
- OnePlus 5T (Oreo)37
- Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)34
- Samsung Galaxy S9+24
- Samsung Galaxy S8+23
- Samsung Galaxy Note823
- Google Pixel 2 XL21
- Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)20
- LG V3019
- Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)18
GFX 3.1 Car scene (onscreen)
Higher is better
- Sony Xperia XZ233
- OnePlus 5T (Oreo)24
- Huawei P20 Pro21
- Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)20
- Samsung Galaxy S9+14
- Samsung Galaxy S8+13
- Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)13
- Samsung Galaxy Note813
- LG V3013
- Google Pixel 2 XL13
- Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)12
For an even broader hardware assessment, there is Basesemark OS 2.0. If we assume it to be a more accurate representation of the overall fluidity of the experience, then there might just be some reason to believe the US Galaxy S9+ is a bit snappier than its international sibling.
Basemark OS 2.0
Higher is better
- Apple iPhone X4708
- Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)4196
- Sony Xperia XZ23859
- OnePlus 5T (Oreo)3458
- Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)3424
- Google Pixel 2 XL3379
- Samsung Galaxy S9+3354
- Samsung Galaxy Note83333
- Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)3319
- Samsung Galaxy S8+3298
- Huawei P20 Pro3252
- LG V302705
AnTuTu tells pretty much the same story.
AnTuTu 7
Higher is better
- Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)264044
- Sony Xperia XZ2259244
- Samsung Galaxy S9+246660
- Huawei P20 Pro209884
- OnePlus 5T (Oreo)207072
- Google Pixel 2 XL203119
- Samsung Galaxy Note8201065
- LG V30182374
While our own real-life experience isn't really quantifiable, we did observe an indistinguishably fluent and nearly hiccup-free experience on both devices. So, regardless of the chipset, you should still end up with a supremely, if not exactly equally smooth UX, either way.
When you think about it, this is not a new trend either and one that has a perfectly valid explanation. Samsung has always done its best to optimize and equalize its experience, across the board, regardless of the long-standing, market-specific chipset difference.
Still, that is not necessarily an entirely positive thing, since its has been known to necessitate some artificial hardware feature limiting in order to achieve parity. The Galaxy S9+ is no different in this respect. Generally speaking, it's a back and forth affair when comparing most nitty-gritty hardware aspects of the Exynos 9810 and the Snapdragon 845. A higher DirectX version here, a few different bands there - nothing that can really tip the scale one way or the other. All except one major detail, that is. Technically, the Exynos 9810 is capable of recording video at up to 4K@120fps, while for the Snapdragon 845, that limit is 4K@60fps. Naturally, for the sake of feature parity, both models got caller at 60fps.
This might not be such a big deal, now that Samsung has caught up to Apple in this department, but looking at the broader picture, quickly unearths that the Galaxy S8+ and the Galaxy Note8 are still limited to 4K@30fps for the very same reason. Despite the fact that their Exynos 8895 versions are perfectly capable of 4K@120fps encoding as well. But, we digress.
0 comments:
Post a Comment