Hi everyone,
In different mobile OSs like android, iOS or WP there are bunch of benchmarks but my problem is that which one of them are really the best ones to measure real-life experience for a user!
Not talking about normal ones like AnTuTu, Quadrant or anything, actually I think they doesn't really work very accurate or even right...! :|
There are more like 3Dmark, GFXbench, PassMark, GeekBench, AndEBench or other JS tests like SunSpider, Octane, Kraken peacekeeper and so on!
In fact some of them should be more technical and the others, more realistic! (i mean some for comparing the architecture n power of a processor n some for just overall performance of whole a "device" example for first is comparing Intel Atom with Qualcomm Snapdragon and for second, comparing HTC One with Galaxy S4 for example!)
For example when looking at GeekBench tests like compress/decompressing text or image, or bluring and sharpenings... do these really happen in real world and when browsing the UI of the phone, working with an app or such these things?
In fact i'm not a hardware expert and don't know much about the technical things of different architectures, so i can't 'completely' understand what these benchmarks do or what happens in-depth when using an application... (even checked that how different versions work, like this or this page...)
Overall i need to know the real-world measurements of devices not just comparing processors! In this part i found GUI benchmark on basemark system here's the link >
http://results.rightware.com/basemark_gui_free/all-all-phone-all-all
But it's just about the graphical instructions and even i think isn't accurate! for example Galaxy S3 is lagging behind all the others almost in 220th place but even the old 2011 droids beat that! I mean something that say about overall speed, opening apps, multi-tasking, web browsing or the actual CPU power.
I know for example about web browsing i should check JS n browser tests, but what about the others?
The another confusion hear for me is that which are more reliable and more accurate! I know the power and these things contain a lot of different parts and you can't tell that which processor is faster by just checking a benchmark, but i don't think real-world performance should be like this...
For example, according to my own information and searchings, ARM Cortex cores should be somewhat more stable than Qualcomm's Krait cores, which are made of buying some license and redesigning the cores! DroidFish is a benchmark i heard of that runs in a long period and here are the results; even the exynos4 Galaxy Note II beats all those snap800 phones like Xperia Z1 and Note3 n905, and this should show that Exynos4 in long-period works more stable than even S800s! or the Intel Atoms like FonePad7 beats S4pro based PadFone2 with a 4core Krait processor in Passmark's CPUmark
http://androidbenchmark.net/phone.php?phone=Asus+K00E
http://androidbenchmark.net/phone.php?phone=Asus+PadFone+2
but when looking at the chart again you completely confuse of how high the result of Cortex-A7 based phones are! They're made to be the lower-efficient version of A9, but they're result is a little too much high! here's the list
http://androidbenchmark.net/cpumark_chart.html
another example is A5 phones like Huawei G525, it's got 4 Cortex-A5 cores clocked at 1.2GHz, and it scores around 6,300 while Xperia SP with 2 Krait200 cores clocked at 1.7GHz is just 600numbers more! does this mean the tests are wrong and unrelible or really their distance is like this?
But the story gets even involved when looking at JS or geekbench results! Atoms are somewhat the same level as A7s, or they doesn't even get close to what Kraits are! what this really mean? somehow overall, the different benchmark results by comparison and the architectures, their logical power they should have and even the real-world performance aren't compatible with eachother by any means... For example 4core A5s are about the same level as krait, or A7s with atom's saltwell, but in performance they are totally different! I know other things like the whole SoC, RAM, Storage, the own software and such things are involved in final performance, but the main processor/CPU shouldn't act as a carrot, should it?! :| this make me really confused...
In fact, i'm not idle or sth, i really "need" this information cuz of my work... for my work (can't call it a job really -__-) i should have a general look of how all phones on the market perform and seperate them one by one in different ratings in my mind... but with these horrible results i can't even think to that!
The bigger problem is that because of my conditions i even don't have access to devices to have an overall experience with'em... didn't even see some of them! someway, should act like a robot in this virtual world -__-
I tried a lot to find out the problem, but even with hours n hours of researching i didn't find anything...! till i decided to have an in-depth research about technicals, but didn't even understand anything... (and i knew it should happen :|) well... i'm just a teenager and can't still study about them, but i really need this information...
I always watch a lot of videos n read all the reviews and different user impressions, but there are some moot points that i basically need to know, for figuring other things...
Talking a lot huh? Ok... sorry :hmm:
Now i just wanna know that which benchmarks are more reliable, accurate and near to real-life experience. and to know that what happens overall in operating a phone (for example sufring the UI and openning apps) and what makes it faster...
and, a mini-questions!
- Which one is more affective in Multi-Tasking?
the speed vs amount of ram?
CPU vs RAM?
(sorry for my terrible english -__- i'm so limited.... and also sorry for talking so much, i'm not a talkative person in fact, just wanna say my purpose within the thread...)
thanks everyone!
In different mobile OSs like android, iOS or WP there are bunch of benchmarks but my problem is that which one of them are really the best ones to measure real-life experience for a user!
Not talking about normal ones like AnTuTu, Quadrant or anything, actually I think they doesn't really work very accurate or even right...! :|
There are more like 3Dmark, GFXbench, PassMark, GeekBench, AndEBench or other JS tests like SunSpider, Octane, Kraken peacekeeper and so on!
In fact some of them should be more technical and the others, more realistic! (i mean some for comparing the architecture n power of a processor n some for just overall performance of whole a "device" example for first is comparing Intel Atom with Qualcomm Snapdragon and for second, comparing HTC One with Galaxy S4 for example!)
For example when looking at GeekBench tests like compress/decompressing text or image, or bluring and sharpenings... do these really happen in real world and when browsing the UI of the phone, working with an app or such these things?
In fact i'm not a hardware expert and don't know much about the technical things of different architectures, so i can't 'completely' understand what these benchmarks do or what happens in-depth when using an application... (even checked that how different versions work, like this or this page...)
Overall i need to know the real-world measurements of devices not just comparing processors! In this part i found GUI benchmark on basemark system here's the link >
http://results.rightware.com/basemark_gui_free/all-all-phone-all-all
But it's just about the graphical instructions and even i think isn't accurate! for example Galaxy S3 is lagging behind all the others almost in 220th place but even the old 2011 droids beat that! I mean something that say about overall speed, opening apps, multi-tasking, web browsing or the actual CPU power.
I know for example about web browsing i should check JS n browser tests, but what about the others?
The another confusion hear for me is that which are more reliable and more accurate! I know the power and these things contain a lot of different parts and you can't tell that which processor is faster by just checking a benchmark, but i don't think real-world performance should be like this...
For example, according to my own information and searchings, ARM Cortex cores should be somewhat more stable than Qualcomm's Krait cores, which are made of buying some license and redesigning the cores! DroidFish is a benchmark i heard of that runs in a long period and here are the results; even the exynos4 Galaxy Note II beats all those snap800 phones like Xperia Z1 and Note3 n905, and this should show that Exynos4 in long-period works more stable than even S800s! or the Intel Atoms like FonePad7 beats S4pro based PadFone2 with a 4core Krait processor in Passmark's CPUmark
http://androidbenchmark.net/phone.php?phone=Asus+K00E
http://androidbenchmark.net/phone.php?phone=Asus+PadFone+2
but when looking at the chart again you completely confuse of how high the result of Cortex-A7 based phones are! They're made to be the lower-efficient version of A9, but they're result is a little too much high! here's the list
http://androidbenchmark.net/cpumark_chart.html
another example is A5 phones like Huawei G525, it's got 4 Cortex-A5 cores clocked at 1.2GHz, and it scores around 6,300 while Xperia SP with 2 Krait200 cores clocked at 1.7GHz is just 600numbers more! does this mean the tests are wrong and unrelible or really their distance is like this?
But the story gets even involved when looking at JS or geekbench results! Atoms are somewhat the same level as A7s, or they doesn't even get close to what Kraits are! what this really mean? somehow overall, the different benchmark results by comparison and the architectures, their logical power they should have and even the real-world performance aren't compatible with eachother by any means... For example 4core A5s are about the same level as krait, or A7s with atom's saltwell, but in performance they are totally different! I know other things like the whole SoC, RAM, Storage, the own software and such things are involved in final performance, but the main processor/CPU shouldn't act as a carrot, should it?! :| this make me really confused...
In fact, i'm not idle or sth, i really "need" this information cuz of my work... for my work (can't call it a job really -__-) i should have a general look of how all phones on the market perform and seperate them one by one in different ratings in my mind... but with these horrible results i can't even think to that!
The bigger problem is that because of my conditions i even don't have access to devices to have an overall experience with'em... didn't even see some of them! someway, should act like a robot in this virtual world -__-
I tried a lot to find out the problem, but even with hours n hours of researching i didn't find anything...! till i decided to have an in-depth research about technicals, but didn't even understand anything... (and i knew it should happen :|) well... i'm just a teenager and can't still study about them, but i really need this information...
I always watch a lot of videos n read all the reviews and different user impressions, but there are some moot points that i basically need to know, for figuring other things...
Talking a lot huh? Ok... sorry :hmm:
Now i just wanna know that which benchmarks are more reliable, accurate and near to real-life experience. and to know that what happens overall in operating a phone (for example sufring the UI and openning apps) and what makes it faster...
and, a mini-questions!
- Which one is more affective in Multi-Tasking?
the speed vs amount of ram?
CPU vs RAM?
(sorry for my terrible english -__- i'm so limited.... and also sorry for talking so much, i'm not a talkative person in fact, just wanna say my purpose within the thread...)
thanks everyone!
Facebook
Twitter