But the complaints are valid. There are actually hard data in benchmarks and tests showing the inferior performance of the Exynos 990. Some benches even showed the 990 is not any faster than even SD845/855, let alone SD865+.
It's one thing if Samsung delegates the Exynos version into a lower tier price point, like for a Note 20 Lite. But they are charging consumers the same premium as the SD865+ version. Worse, even S Korean version use the Snapdragon model. That shows how "confident" Samsung is on their own chip that they don't even want to use it domestically.
I agree there is a measurable difference in performance between the two processors, but I also believe, NOBODY, would notice the difference in real life everyday usage. Think of it this way, would the average user notice the difference between the i3 and i9? Nope. When it comes to computers and especially phones, the average user takes pics, uses a few office apps, checks social media, surfs the net, and plays a few games. None of that will show the difference in the two processors while performing those tasks. Put it this way, the Exynos Note 20 ultra gets a base storage of 256GB compared to the 128GB Snapdragon. In Canada, we get the Snapdragon. If I had a choice, I'd take the Exynos with the extra storage hands down. Not a doubt in my mind the average user will make more use of the extra storage, over the extra bit of measurable horsepower.
I got an actual real life example of how people swear they see the difference, but really don't. My buddy loves his S20 Ultra with 120Hz. When I asked to see the difference in the 120Hz, I switched it back to 60Hz, and put it on full rez. He didn't notice the difference until I told him a few days later.
