Geekbench Scores - Let's Get This Right

[DanteMann]

So before everyone goes off on scores, I think it's safe to say nobody with half a brain truly believes they mean squat in real life operations. Especially when your dealing with two very different OSs. But for those that want the truth, here it is. iPhone 5 running the latest OS and GS3 running it's latest OS. As you all like to say, it's all about the software.

 

[3bs]

I actually got 1841 on my international GS3 running CM9 ICS earlier today.

 

[zbarvian]

The fact that a lowly 1 GHz dual-core chip is in the same league as a top of the line 1.4 GHz quad-core chip should tell you something about which software is better tuned and performance-optimized.

 

[Vegastouch]

So before everyone goes off on scores, I think it's safe to say nobody with half a brain truly believes they mean squat in real life operations. Especially when your dealing with two very different OSs. But for those that want the truth, here it is. iPhone 5 running the latest OS and GS3 running it's latest OS. As you all like to say, it's all about the software.

Your right. I dont even know what those scores are for but allow me to say...who cares!

 

[DanteMann]

The fact that a lowly 1 GHz dual-core chip is in the same league as a top of the line 1.4 GHz quad-core chip should tell you something about which software is better tuned and performance-optimized.

Well here's another one still running ICS and a dual core cpu. Still think these benchmarks mean anything? They don't. Just enjoy your phone of choice I say. They all run just fine and fast enough for everyone. Yes it's that simple.

 

[3bs]

Well here's another one still running ICS and a dual core cpu. Still think these benchmarks mean anything? They don't. Just enjoy your phone of choice I say. They all run just fine and fast enough for everyone. Yes it's that simple.

Image

2283 on ICS but quad core. http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1034669

I ran it a couple more times and it's all over the place ranging from 1200-1900 on mine.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

The fact that a lowly 1 GHz dual-core chip is in the same league as a top of the line 1.4 GHz quad-core chip should tell you something about which software is better tuned and performance-optimized.

Geekbench is the software. So if something in this test is not optimized for Android, then it is Geekbench. Btw, why should we trust Geekbench? Have they some official certification?

Here is a list of official, verified benchmarks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmark_(computing)#Industry_standard_.28audited_and_verifiable.29

 

[Vegastouch]

Geekbench is the software. So if something in this test is not optimized for Android, then it is Geekbench. Btw, why should we trust Geekbench? Have they some official certification?

Here is a list of official, verified benchmarks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmark_(computing)#Industry_standard_.28audited_and_verifiable.29

Well as i said, i dont know what those scores mean as far as what is being tested faster and dont care. But Wikipedia isnt officially anything. It is a place where anybody can go and edit things by just signing up.

So verified by WHO is the question there. For all we know, you posted those. Or whoever did doesnt know about Geekbench.

IMO its all irrelevant anyways. The phones are fast and thats all you need to know.

 

[0m3ga]

I will be comparing a new S3 and iPhone 5, both on AT@T this weekend (or when I get mine from Apple). Geek bench scores are notoriously unreliable. They can read all over the place depending on what you have running on your phone. I'll wait for Anantech and my own results to see which phone is faster and smoother. Until we get real production phones, it's all speculation.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

This will be the actual difference.

 

[Mrg02d]

I will be comparing a new S3 and iPhone 5, both on AT@T this weekend (or when I get mine from Apple). Geek bench scores are notoriously unreliable. They can read all over the place depending on what you have running on your phone. I'll wait for Anantech and my own results to see which phone is faster and smoother. Until we get real production phones, it's all speculation.

The gs3 will likely be running ICS. You need to wait to see one run JB. So much of a difference.

 

[0m3ga]

The gs3 will likely be running ICS. You need to wait to see one run JB. So much of a difference.

Waiting for an official rom from Samsung and approved by AT&T? I think the iphone 6 might be out before that happens. And using a non standard rom is not legal in my book. For me it is gonna be stock vs stock OS running identical apps like twitter. It will be interesting to see which is faster in real life or if it is close (which is what I expect)

 

[Mrg02d]

Waiting for an official rom from Samsung and approved by AT&T? I think the iphone 6 might be out before that happens. And using a non standard rom is not legal in my book. For me it is gonna be stock vs stock OS running identical apps like twitter. It will be interesting to see which is faster in real life or if it is close (which is what I expect)

So wait for an official update...

People still show much higher scores with ICS.

 

[digital.l0gic]

Well here's another one still running ICS and a dual core cpu. Still think these benchmarks mean anything? They don't. Just enjoy your phone of choice I say. They all run just fine and fast enough for everyone. Yes it's that simple.

Image

Wow this is amazing!

The results for Iphone5 ranges from 979-1645

However a Dual Core Samsung glaxy s3 gets 1918!!
This is conslusive proof that Samsung did an awesome job with the S3.

It's either that OR Apple's new A6 is not as groundbreaking as it was claimed to be.


The moment I saw the iphone 5 geekbench results and the supposedly lower GS3 score I knew it was BS, but waited till we had factual evidence to support it. Thank you

Oh and the Quad core GS3 even gets above 2000 easy.

 

[zbarvian]

Wow this is amazing!

The results for Iphone5 ranges from 979-1645

However a Dual Core Samsung glaxy s3 gets 1918!!
This is conslusive proof that Samsung did an awesome job with the S3.

It's either that OR Apple's new A6 is not as groundbreaking as it was claimed to be.


The moment I saw the iphone 5 geekbench results and the supposedly lower GS3 score I knew it was BS, but waited till we had factual evidence to support it. Thank you

Oh and the Quad core GS3 even gets above 2000 easy.

The average iPhone score was 1648. Many tests yield a higher results, many lower. There is huge variation in all devices, but the iPhone never scored a 979. The A6 is FAST, like insanely fast.

 

[digital.l0gic]

The average iPhone score was 1648. Many tests yield a higher results, many lower. There is huge variation in all devices, but the iPhone never scored a 979. The A6 is FAST, like insanely fast.

No

I checked the Geekbecnh site for Iphone5 scores and the higest it EVER got was 1645. And yes..most of its scores do range in/around 1600 but there was no instance of it getting more than 1645.

The A6 is fast all right,And yes there is variance in All devices, but the scores for the iphone 5 top out at 1645. It is still considerably slower than the Dual Core in GS3 as evidenced by geekbench data(Anyone can verify it if they doubt this claim)

 

[cynics]

Meh the gs3 is a faster phone in test. I'm more worried about real world performance and I think both phones are up to par for my standards.

Btw what did the s2 and 4s get. That should be a good comparison/debunking tool.

 

[zbarvian]

No

I checked the Geekbecnh site for Iphone5 scores and the higest it EVER got was 1645. And yes..most of its scores do range in/around 1600 but there was no instance of it getting more than 1645.

The A6 is fast all right,And yes there is variance in All devices, but the scores for the iphone 5 top out at 1645. It is still considerably slower than the Dual Core in GS3 as evidenced by geekbench data(Anyone can verify it if they doubt this claim)

Image

The GS3 is 1.5 GHz, if the A6 was clocked that high it would presumably blow every other chipset away. The fact that it is competing with Krait at a 1 GHz clock speed really testifies to the superiority of the architecture/software combo.

 

[digital.l0gic]

Meh the gs3 is a faster phone in test. I'm more worried about real world performance and I think both phones are up to par for my standards.

Btw what did the s2 and 4s get. That should be a good comparison/debunking tool.

The 4s(OCT 2011) averages at around 630 ish
While the older GS2(Feb 2011) averages around 1100 !

 

[digital.l0gic]

The GS3 is 1.5 GHz, if the A6 was clocked that high it would presumably blow every other chipset away. The fact that it is competing with Krait at a 1 GHz clock speed really testifies to the superiority of the architecture/software combo.

But it was not clocked at that speed.
Over clocking does not give linear performance increases(law of diminishing returns kicks in) in processor performance.

Worse yet, it would result in abysmal battery life.

The Iphone 4S battery life is nothing to write home about and the current iPhone5's battery life claims are actually worse than that of the GS3.

For GS3(claimed)
Talk Time 22 hours
Maximum Standby Time 800 hours

Samsung Galaxy S3 Battery Power Test
http://youtu.be/P62628a76Gc

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/phones/mobile-phones/samsung-galaxy-s3-1078667/review?artc_pg=14


Real world testing is yet to be done on the iphone5 battery claims, but my bet is on the GS3. If Apple clocked the A6 higher, the battery life would be even worse than that of the 4s.

 

[zbarvian]

But it was not clocked at that speed.
Over clocking does not give linear performance increases(law of diminishing returns kicks in) in processor performance.

Worse yet, it would result in abysmal battery life.

The Iphone 4S battery life is nothing to write home about and the current iPhone5's battery life claims are actually worse than that of the GS3.

Image

For GS3(claimed)
Talk Time 22 hours
Maximum Standby Time 800 hours

Samsung Galaxy S3 Battery Power Test
http://youtu.be/P62628a76Gc

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/phones/mobile-phones/samsung-galaxy-s3-1078667/review?artc_pg=14


Real world testing is yet to be done on the iphone5 battery claims, but my bet is on the GS3. If Apple clocked the A6 higher, the battery life would be even worse than that of the 4s.

Engadget procured astounding battery results for the 5, just 10 minutes shy of the Razr Maxx's runtime. And the battery is relatively puny (1440 mAH compared to 2100 mAH of GS3). I imagine the Galaxy S3 battery claims are very exaggerated, as nobody has reported those sort of results.

Face it, the iPhone 5 really is a marvel of engineering.

 

[cotak]

Engadget procured astounding battery results for the 5, just 10 minutes shy of the Razr Maxx's runtime. And the battery is relatively puny (1440 mAH compared to 2100 mAH of GS3). I imagine the Galaxy S3 battery claims are very exaggerated, as nobody has reported those sort of results.

Face it, the iPhone 5 really is a marvel of engineering.

You life isn't better because the iphone 5 is good. Let it go, you spend so much time trolling on every thread that you view is anti iphone.

 

[Vegastouch]

Engadget procured astounding battery results for the 5, just 10 minutes shy of the Razr Maxx's runtime. And the battery is relatively puny (1440 mAH compared to 2100 mAH of GS3). I imagine the Galaxy S3 battery claims are very exaggerated, as nobody has reported those sort of results.

Face it, the iPhone 5 really is a marvel of engineering.

If you say so

Look, nobody really cares that the iP5 has a 1440 mAh battery and the GS3 has a 2100 mAh. All they care about is how long it lasts and the GS3 is powering a much bigger screen while lasting longer. The iP5 is still tiny compared to the GS3.

The iP5 is a nice phone and it is fast. Who really cares which one loads up a second or two faster? I care more about what my GS3 can do that the iP5 cant and is why i switched to Android in the first place.
Most people in this forum care more about the Apple logo on the back anyways.

 

[3bs]

If you say so

Look, nobody really cares that the iP5 has a 1440 mAh battery and the GS3 has a 2100 mAh. All they care about is how long it lasts and the GS3 is powering a much bigger screen while lasting longer. The iP5 is still tiny compared to the GS3.

The iP5 is a nice phone and it is fast. Who really cares which one loads up a second or two faster? I care more about what my GS3 can do that the iP5 cant and is why i switched to Android in the first place.
Most people in this forum care more about the Apple logo on the back anyways.

You can have a look at this comparison of the S3 vs One X batteries just to give you perspective http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s_iii_vs_htc_one_x-review-759p8.php

 

[zbarvian]

If you say so

Look, nobody really cares that the iP5 has a 1440 mAh battery and the GS3 has a 2100 mAh. All they care about is how long it lasts and the GS3 is powering a much bigger screen while lasting longer. The iP5 is still tiny compared to the GS3.

The iP5 is a nice phone and it is fast. Who really cares which one loads up a second or two faster? I care more about what my GS3 can do that the iP5 cant and is why i switched to Android in the first place.
Most people in this forum care more about the Apple logo on the back anyways.

We should reserve judgment about battery life until more scientific benchmarks become available. I imagine the Verge review will be more comprehensive in that regard. And I just get irritated by threads like this; the iPhone is clearly an incredible feat of engineering and expertise.