Dam you AT&T

[Renob]

Ordered a new Galaxy Note last week and just found out the swapped out the Exynos thats used in the rest of the world and stuck in a Snapdragon now Im not to sure I want it anymore.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/15/atandt-galaxy-note-review/

 

[Red Storm]

I'm sure it'll still be a great performing phone.

Was messing around with one the other day. The first time I tried one I really thought it was just too big, but after the 2nd time I don't think it's so bad, and it would be fantastic for media consumption (probably what I do most on a phone).

 

[bearxor]

I can't find a direct comparison, but it looks like the Adreno 220 and the Mali-400 are really close to one another performance wise. With the extra 100mhz picked up with the S3, I'd probably consider it a wash.

 

[gorcorps]

I don't know why they keep doing shit like this. They changed the SGS2 with the Skyrocket version as well.

 

[Bateluer]

I can't find a direct comparison, but it looks like the Adreno 200 and the Mali-400 are really close to one another performance wise. With the extra 100mhz picked up with the S3, I'd probably consider it a wash.

Wat? Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark. The Mali-400 in the SGS2s completely destroys the ancient Adreno 200, which launched with the first 1Ghz Snapdragons. It was underpowered compared to the SGX530 and 535s on the OMAP3s of the time.

The Snapdragon S3s in the Skyrocket, TMO SGS2, and AT&T Galaxy Note are using the Adreno 220 though (possibly 225?) Major upgrade from the old 200 found on the Nexus One, Droid Incredible, and Evo 4G.

 

[Red Storm]

I don't know why they keep doing shit like this. They changed the SGS2 with the Skyrocket version as well.

Isn't it because if you want LTE, you can't have Exynos?

 

[Puddle Jumper]

I can't find a direct comparison, but it looks like the Adreno 200 and the Mali-400 are really close to one another performance wise. With the extra 100mhz picked up with the S3, I'd probably consider it a wash.

Actually The Mali 400 completely slaughters the Adreno 220, it's not even remotely close. The Exynos cpu is also significantly faster clock per clock compared to Snapdragon so even at 1.5ghz it's still a significant downgrade.

The Engadget review metioned that the At&t Note wasn't smooth like the normal version so the lower performance is most certainly noticeable.

 

[Renob]

My guess is this is a deal killer for me I will send if back for the Galaxy SII

 

[trmiv]

Exynos isn't currently compatible with LTE so that's why they switched.

 

[bearxor]

Wat? Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark. The Mali-400 in the SGS2s completely destroys the ancient Adreno 200, which launched with the first 1Ghz Snapdragons. It was underpowered compared to the SGX530 and 535s on the OMAP3s of the time.

The Snapdragon S3s in the Skyrocket, TMO SGS2, and AT&T Galaxy Note are using the Adreno 220 though (possibly 225?) Major upgrade from the old 200 found on the Nexus One, Droid Incredible, and Evo 4G.

Sorry, typo. Totally meant to say 220. My bad. I fixed it. Near as I could find out, the Note's S3 is using a 220.

Actually The Mali 400 completely slaughters the Adreno 220, it's not even remotely close. The Exynos cpu is also significantly faster clock per clock compared to Snapdragon so even at 1.5ghz it's still a significant downgrade.

Do you have some benches for this? This is what I've come up:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4243/...mance-1-5-ghz-msm8660-adreno-220-benchmarks/2
Adreno 220 - Egypt - 37fps
Adreno 220 - Pro - 58fps

To this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4686/samsung-galaxy-s-2-international-review-the-best-redefined/17
Mali-400 - Egypt - 42.5fps
Mali-400 - Pro - 67.1fps

I'm not sure if that qualifies as 'slaughters' or 'not even remotely close'.

This is the only bench on the page the makes me concerned:

But it's doing native resolution. A Mali-400 WVGA (800x480) screen vs a 220 qHD (960x540) screen. Of course more pixels are going to result in lower performance. I think the off-screen test is the only fair way to decide performance.

 

[poofyhairguy]

On the xda forums I have seen developers wig out about the lack of Exynoses in some SGS2s and the note- "crapdragon."

 

[dguy6789]

The Exynos cpu is also significantly faster clock per clock compared to Snapdragon so even at 1.5ghz it's still a significant downgrade.

This here is incorrect. The Exynos is faster clock for clock but it's slight, it is in no way shape or form as significant as you make it sound. The Exynos CPU is a completely stock, run of the mill, unmodified Cortex A9; it's exactly the same clock for clock as the Omap4 and the A5. The current Snapdragon is somewhere in the middle of being faster clock for clock than a Cortex A8 and slower clock for clock than the A9. 1.5 vs 1.2 puts them really close, too close for anyone to care.

GPU performance is the reason people love Exynos, not CPU performance(it's good obviously, but it's also run of the mill compared with everything else).

 

[Puddle Jumper]

This here is incorrect. The Exynos is faster clock for clock but it's slight, it is in no way shape or form as significant as you make it sound. The Exynos CPU is a completely stock, run of the mill, unmodified Cortex A9; it's exactly the same clock for clock as the Omap4 and the A5. The current Snapdragon is somewhere in the middle of being faster clock for clock than a Cortex A8 and slower clock for clock than the A9. 1.5 vs 1.2 puts them really close, too close for anyone to care.

GPU performance is the reason people love Exynos, not CPU performance(it's good obviously, but it's also run of the mill compared with everything else).

The Note is 1.4ghz not 1.2ghz so there is certainly a difference.

Also Exynos is actually compatible with LTE, just look at the Tab 7.7. For whatever reason At&t seems to require Snapdragon for LTE devices.

 

[bearxor]

But heck, here's a link that has both and tested them:

http://www.androidauthority.com/att...hip-with-lower-performance-than-exynos-51403/

Galaxy Note with Exynos
GLBenchmark 2.1 Egypt High: 2827 Frames (25.0 Fps)
GLBenchmark 2.1 Egypt Standard: 3012 Frames (26.7 Fps)

Galaxy Note with Snapdragon
GLBenchmark 2.1 Egypt High : 1014 Frames (9.0 Fps)
GLBenchmark 2.1 Egypt Standard : 2425 Frames (21.5 Fps)

I don't know what the difference is between 'High' and 'Standard', but the numbers would certainly have me a little alarmed. Think it would come down to how much I plan to play some games.

 

[soccerballtux]

Actually The Mali 400 completely slaughters the Adreno 220, it's not even remotely close. The Exynos cpu is also significantly faster clock per clock compared to Snapdragon so even at 1.5ghz it's still a significant downgrade.

The Engadget review metioned that the At&t Note wasn't smooth like the normal version so the lower performance is most certainly noticeable.

actually the CPUs are very similar in performance. Exynos is 25% faster clock/clock compared with Snapdragon. Guess what's 25% larger than 1.2ghz?

 

[poofyhairguy]

actually the CPUs are very similar in performance. Exynos is 25% faster clock/clock compared with Snapdragon. Guess what's 25% larger than 1.2ghz?

1. The Exynos Note is clocked at 1.4GHz.

2. The higher clocks of Snapdragons lead to worse battery life. Outside of LTE and NEON support, across the board Snapdragons are worse.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

1. The Exynos Note is clocked at 1.4GHz.

2. The higher clocks of Snapdragons lead to worse battery life. Outside of LTE and NEON support, across the board Snapdragons are worse.

Gg return, get gnex, proft

 

[vshah]

snapdragon architecture is 2 years old at this point. it was very competetive with the A8 generation but can't keep up with A9 implementations in TI/Samsung parts. krait will be the one to watch from qualcomm - 28nm and fully out of order.

 

[lothar]

1. The Exynos Note is clocked at 1.4GHz.

2. The higher clocks of Snapdragons lead to worse battery life. Outside of LTE and NEON support, across the board Snapdragons are worse.

This.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

lol its like I got the SGS2 the other week and they shipped me I9100G which is a TI OMAP variant (same hardware as a Nexus). I demanded a replacement of a regular i9100, and they said ok. I want my Exynos dammit!

 

[Lyfer]

You have too much time on your hands to cry over a few
Fps for video games on a phone.

 

[Bateluer]

snapdragon architecture is 2 years old at this point. it was very competetive with the A8 generation but can't keep up with A9 implementations in TI/Samsung parts. krait will be the one to watch from qualcomm - 28nm and fully out of order.

Krait also boasts the higher clocked Adreno 225, with the more powerful Adreno 3xx following it. They claim Xbox 360/PS3 level GPU power with the 3xx series.

 

[poofyhairguy]

You have too much time on your hands to cry over a few
Fps for video games on a phone.

I find this comment INCREDIBLY offensive and ignorant:

1. It is more than just "a few Fps for video games." Testing with my Prime (namely underclocking) has shown me that with ICS the GPU really really matters. I can underclock my Prime to lower speeds than my friends Xoom, and it is still FAR better when it comes to interface responsiveness (especially the app drawer). The GPU really matters going forward with Android, and so a weaker GPU means the device is obsolete that much faster.

2. The Note has a 720p resolution, so the GPU matters even more. With a weaker GPU it is not that games are a little more stuttery- in some cases they might be unplayable.

3. It is not just the GPU that sucks with the AT&T Note. The CPU is also slower clock-for-clock and every review has mentioned how it is not as smooth as the Exynos version. Worse than that, the Crapdragon CPU actually uses more battery than the Exynos even though it is slower. Lose-lose.

AND THE REASON I GOT OFFENDED

4. This is the freaking Anandtech forum. People have had holy wars for years on this forum about GPUs that are barely better than each other. I have seen people act like a 5% FPS bump on some PC first person shooter saves their soul!

But the difference between a Crapdragon and a Exynos is not 5%. More like 50%. HUGE in discrete GPU terms, and you act like it is nothing.

Who are YOU to look down upon "video games on a phone?" My phone and tablet happen to be my primary gaming platforms currently due to MY preference. And it is not due to a lack of hardware- I have a Wii and 360 along with a quad desktop. I PREFER mobile games because they have the simplicity and commitment levels of games from my childhood.

Playing higher-end games on my Exynos-Powered SGS2 is a HUGE difference compared to any other Android phone, and I have experience with MANY high end units (the GNex, the Razr, the Skyrocket, and the Evo3D). Once you play Shinerunner on a SGS2 and experience the silky smooth framerates, every other device (including my Prime actually) feels like a hot mess.

Simply put, the GPU might be the most important part of a phone from this generation (especially considering that A9 parts will extend into 2012) and it is harmful for any potential buyers to minimize how much the Crapdragon Note sucks compared to the Exynos version.

It is not "too much time" to research into a device that you are locked to for two years.

 

[Renob]

so the note just showed up very nice screen, this is my first smart phone I wonder where I can look to see what cpu it has?

 

[poofyhairguy]

https://market.android.com/details?...SwxLDEwOSwiY29tLm10b3JyZXMucGhvbmV0ZXN0ZXIiXQ..