Samsung Galaxy S 4 Review - Part 1
by Brian Klug on April 24, 2013 12:01 AM ESTGPU Performance
Both CPU and GPU clocks are higher on Samsung's version of the Snapdragon 600 (APQ8064AB). While the Snapdragon 600 used in HTC's One (APQ8064T) features a max GPU frequency of 400MHz, in the Galaxy S 4 the max frequency moves up to 450MHz. The increase in max frequency alone is modest (~12.5%), but the gains in GLBenchmark are far more pronounced for whatever reason.
As always, we'll start with low level analysis beginning with GLBenchmark's fill rate test:
Interestingly enough, fill rate is actually lower than on the HTC One. With so many variables at work here it's difficult to say exactly why this is, but the lowest hanging fruit is to blame it on memory bandwidth differences. Without getting inside the Galaxy S 4 (or more extensive poking around) it's unclear what speed Samsung is running its memory at, which could explain the differences here. We tried tossing the Galaxy S 4 in the freezer and re-running the test but performance didn't improve substantially. Note that GLB's fill rate benchmark is the only one that did not show the Galaxy S 4 ahead of HTC's One in raw performance.
The low level triangle tests all show significant performance gains over the only other Snapdragon 600 based phone we have (HTC One). Again, I'm not really sure what's going on here with APQ8064AB but the gains here are greater than what clock speed alone can be responsible for. Samsung could be running at higher GPU frequencies more aggressively than HTC or it could have software advantages (a newer Adreno driver perhaps?) or there could be more to this APQ8064AB mystery than we realize.
Egypt HD delivers a fairly sane number however. The Galaxy S 4 manages to outperform the HTC One by around 17% here. Again it's unclear why we're seeing greater performance than clock scaling alone would provide but the net is that the Galaxy S 4 does deliver better GPU performance than other Snapdragon 600 based devices today.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
335 Comments
View All Comments
tarun.chatwith - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
HTC One without a doubt.Enough of plastic
FITCamaro - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
You're just going to wrap it in a plastic/rubber case anyway most likely. So to me it's not much of an issue. I just got a new phone at work and went with the Note 2. Loving it so far. A tad large but I have big hands anyway and can text with holding it in one hand so I'm good.UpSpin - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
Don't generalize. I never used a plastic/rubber case or a screen protector, only used a sleeve/bag to protect and clean the display while in the my pocket. You might enjoy plastic, others enjoy aluminum. Both materials have their advantages and disadvantage, in the end it's a personal decision. However aluminum looks and feels more expensive and looks of higher quality, and considering the price you pay for such a smartphone, it's understandable that people want that the device looks the way it costs.danbob999 - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
It's a phone. Why would you care how expensive it looks?DigitalFreak - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
VanityThud2 - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
The vanity of trying not to appear vain.darwinosx - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
Because when you pay money for something you want it to look and feel good. Obviously.Notmyusualid - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
+1danbob999 - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
Even if it means being larger, heavier, with a smaller display, a smaller battery, and no more resistant?UpSpin - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
But this isn't the case here. It has a larger bezel because of dual front speakers which are obviously better than mono back speakers. As long as it's comfortably weighted, heavier doesn't mean worse. (see complaints about too light iPhone). The display is smaller, but the size is a personal decision. The battery life is identical or even better, not worse. The shiny plastic gets easier dirty, is softer and easier to scratch than the anodized aluminum, it's also easier to break thin parts of the frame and thus buttons than to break a unibody case. But alumium is easier to dent.