Holiday Smartphone round-up misleads readers

[deputc26]

OK the title is a little inflammatory but this article continues the trend of reviewers calling one SOC "faster" than another SOC because of the GPU.

For iOS and WP7 that have GPU accelerated GUIs I think this wording would be fine but for Android (and webOS) it is just misleading. Assuming equal CPUs an Android Phone with a faster GPU will not be faster for normal use. The UI won't be faster, web pages won't be faster, transition animations won't be faster the phone simply will not be faster for everything but apps that use the GPU and even then most apps that use the GPU will not benefit noticeably from anything faster than a 3430.

For us smartphone enthusiasts we know that "faster" is only referring to graphics performance but when the review just says "Hummingbird is faster than Snapdragon" most readers will assume that there will actually be a noticeable difference, they will assume that the GUI and browser and everything will be faster... which they won't be, in fact hummingbird will be slightly slower due to the Scorpion cores FP advantage.

Really this is minor point but I would like to see the CPU and GPU components treated with greater distinction, rather like AT does with x86 machines. And on Android, the CPU is much more important than the GPU, hopefully that will change soon, as apparently people want a GPU accelerated GUI on Android.

http://www.droidforums.net/forum/dr...ould-you-most-like-see-2-3-a.html#post1016691

 

[Deeko]

A lot of people play games on their smartphones.

 

[deputc26]

A lot of people play games on their smartphones.

And a lot of games don't stress the GPU at all. I'm not saying a faster GPU has no benefits (I'd prefer one of course) I'm saying that exactly what a faster GPU does needs to be clearly distinguished from exactly what a faster CPU does. Just calling one SOC "faster" will mislead a lot of readers.

 

[Deeko]

And a lot of games don't stress the GPU at all. I'm not saying a faster GPU has no benefits (I'd prefer one of course) I'm saying that exactly what a faster GPU does needs to be clearly distinguished from exactly what a faster CPU does. Just calling one SOC "faster" will mislead a lot of readers.

But, its true. the SOC is the sum of its parts, its not just a CPU. As a whole, the Hummingbird IS faster than the Snapdragon. Does that mean it will perform better in every situation? Nope, but its still factually correct to call one faster than the other.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

OK the title is a little inflammatory but this article continues the trend of reviewers calling one SOC "faster" than another SOC because of the GPU.

For iOS and WP7 that have GPU accelerated GUIs I think this wording would be fine but for Android (and webOS) it is just misleading. Assuming equal CPUs an Android Phone with a faster GPU will not be faster for normal use. The UI won't be faster, web pages won't be faster, transition animations won't be faster the phone simply will not be faster for everything but apps that use the GPU and even then most apps that use the GPU will not benefit noticeably from anything faster than a 3430.

For us smartphone enthusiasts we know that "faster" is only referring to graphics performance but when the review just says "Hummingbird is faster than Snapdragon" most readers will assume that there will actually be a noticeable difference, they will assume that the GUI and browser and everything will be faster... which they won't be, in fact hummingbird will be slightly slower due to the Scorpion cores FP advantage.

Really this is minor point but I would like to see the CPU and GPU components treated with greater distinction, rather like AT does with x86 machines. And on Android, the CPU is much more important than the GPU, hopefully that will change soon, as apparently people want a GPU accelerated GUI on Android.

http://www.droidforums.net/forum/dr...ould-you-most-like-see-2-3-a.html#post1016691

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=17125

That's the best analysis comparing the two SoC's I have seen so far and it agrees that Hummingbird is the faster SoC. Sure Snapdgon has a slight edge on the cpu front however Hummingbird's massive lead in gpu performance more than makes up for it IMO.

 

[Deeko]

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=17125

That's the best analysis comparing the two SoC's I have seen so far and it agrees that Hummingbird is the faster SoC. Sure Snapdgon has a slight edge on the cpu front however Hummingbird's massive lead in gpu performance more than makes up for it IMO.

Yea, its really not even close.

 

[deputc26]

But, its true. the SOC is the sum of its parts, its not just a CPU. As a whole, the Hummingbird IS faster than the Snapdragon. Does that mean it will perform better in every situation? Nope, but its still factually correct to call one faster than the other.

Obviously I haven't explained myself very clearly.

Yes, I know that it is technically correct that Hummingbird is faster than snapdragon (for example). But when you are taking two different processing units that perform two distinct functions you can never accurately communicate the performance of the chip by applying one adjective to both. from a performance standpoint it is practically irrelevant that both GPU and CPU sit on the same piece of silicon, they do different things, and they need to be evaluated separately if you want people who aren't familiar with SOCs to understand exactly what the chips strengths are. Saying one SOC is "overall faster" than another SOC is as inadequate a description as calling a Celeron paired with a GTX 580 faster than a 980X paired with an integrated 845G (yes I know that's impossible). The layman will never come away with an accurate picture of the SOCs performance when this kind of description is used.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Obviously I haven't explained myself very clearly.

Yes, I know that it is technically correct that Hummingbird is faster than snapdragon (for example). But when you are taking two different processing units that perform two distinct functions you can never accurately communicate the performance of the chip by applying one adjective to both. from a performance standpoint it is practically irrelevant that both GPU and CPU sit on the same piece of silicon, they do different things, and they need to be evaluated separately if you want people who aren't familiar with SOCs to understand exactly what the chips strengths are. Saying one SOC is "overall faster" than another SOC is as inadequate a description as calling a Celeron paired with a GTX 580 faster than a 980X paired with an integrated 845G (yes I know that's impossible). The layman will never come away with an accurate picture of the SOCs performance when this kind of description is used.

Untrue. By pairing the functions it together they become one. Once upon a time all FPU units were external, then they internalised, yet no one breaks down performance of a CPU just based on integer performance alone.

So, if one pairing results in better performance, no matter the origin, then that is the faster of the two.

 

[deputc26]

Untrue. By pairing the functions it together they become one.

Functions are not paired together, they are functionally distinct. That's why we have different names for them, when everything is GPU accelerated, then I'll agree with you but until then it will be important to distinguish between each components level of performance.

Once upon a time all FPU units were external, then they internalised, yet no one breaks down performance of a CPU just based on integer performance alone.

If integer performance had the greatest affect on total system performance 90% of the time they would have. Also an FPU is less distinct from a CPU than a GPU is from a CPU. Android phones for instance can function without an FPU but not without a GPU.

So, if one pairing results in better performance, no matter the origin, then that is the faster of the two.

True but incomplete. It's not that cut and dry. Just like the example of a Celeron with a gtx580 and a 980x with an 845g, different SOCs will yield different levels of performance for different applications. To understand what SOCs will perform best with what applications GPU performance needs to be distinguished from CPU performance especially considering that the VAST majority of tasks performed on Android phones are far more dependent on CPU power than on GPU power.

I'm surprised that anyone is arguing with me on this. It seems rather obvious that when AT says "Hummingbird is faster than Snapdragon" uninformed readers will make the following assumptions:

Hummingbird will render web pages faster.

Hummingbird powered UIs will be smoother.

Hummingbird will score higher on CPU benchmarks.

All of these assumptions are false so while the statement is technically correct it is still misleading.

 

[Deeko]

I'm surprised that anyone is arguing with me on this. It seems rather obvious that when AT says "Hummingbird is faster than Snapdragon" uninformed readers will make the following assumptions:

Hummingbird will render web pages faster.

Hummingbird powered UIs will be smoother.

Hummingbird will score higher on CPU benchmarks.

All of these assumptions are false so while the statement is technically correct it is still misleading.

If Android were designed like the iPhone, WP7, etc...the first two would be true. Its not the fault of the silicon that the software isn't getting the job done. What if Microsoft added support for Hummingbird, or the newer TI OMAP processors, to WP7? Now, suddenly, those first two are indeed true. The last one is absolutely not true - "uninformed reader" doesn't know what a benchmark is, let alone the difference between a CPU and GPU benchmark.

Look, I don't see why you're so up in arms about this. The Hummingbird IS a faster SoC than the Snapdragon. It just is. Playing GPU-accelerated games on the phone (which, by the way, the "uninformed reader" does plenty of) will be like night and day. If Google ever adds GPU acceleration, various parts of the UI will be smoother too.

Converse to your argument - why should people not give the Hummingbird the credit it deserves? As mentioned above, its a superior SoC. Why should someone dumb it down and essentially tell a mistruth just so someone that doesn't know what they're talking about doesn't make a false assumption? Its neither Samsung nor the writer's fault that Google doesn't implement GPU acceleration. They said nothing misleading, its not their fault if someone takes a straightforward, factual statement and derives incorrect meanings.

 

[MrX8503]

The CPU is similar, but the GPU on the Hummingbird is quite a bit faster. So I could see the reasoning why Anandtech stating the Hummingbird being the faster SOC.

 

[deputc26]

If Android were designed like the iPhone, WP7, etc...the first two would be true.

Right. But it's not.

Its not the fault of the silicon that the software isn't getting the job done. What if Microsoft added support for Hummingbird, or the newer TI OMAP processors, to WP7? Now, suddenly, those first two are indeed true.

We've been over this, of course there's possible scenarios where it would be true.

The last one is absolutely not true - "uninformed reader" doesn't know what a benchmark is, let alone the difference between a CPU and GPU benchmark.

I guess this depends on your definition of uninformed, most people who have graduated from junior high know what a benchmark is. Most don't know the difference between an Adreno 200 and an SGX540.

Look, I don't see why you're so up in arms about this.

I'm really not "all up in arms", I just had a friend who thought Galaxy S phones were fastest at loading web pages, I don't even know what article he read but after reading the round-up I see how he got that impression. It's obviously not a big deal but I think the average reader would benefit from a clearer identification of the benefits of a faster GPU vs. a faster CPU.

The Hummingbird IS a faster SoC than the Snapdragon. It just is.

For the eighteenth time yes. I know. But that's not the whole story.

Playing GPU-accelerated games on the phone (which, by the way, the "uninformed reader" does plenty of) will be like night and day.

Oh really? tell me what games your talking about, certainly not "Angry Birds" (Which uninformed readers will spend the most time playing) or pretty much any other game (until Rage shows up). For most games an SGX530 is more than enough, and no one will be able to tell the difference.

If Google ever adds GPU acceleration, various parts of the UI will be smoother too.

Yes I know, and when they do that I'll shut up. But they haven't done that.

Converse to your argument - why should people not give the Hummingbird the credit it deserves?

They should. This is exactly what I want. It should be recognized as the best all round SOC but added that most important things like web page load times and UI responsiveness will not be any faster.

Why should someone dumb it down and essentially tell a mistruth

They shouldn't but this is what is exactly what is happening, that's why I'm taking time out of my day to stare at a screen and reiterate the same things to you and /0.

just so someone that doesn't know what they're talking about doesn't make a false assumption?

Because the point of a review is to convey information unambiguously.

Its neither Samsung nor the writer's fault that Google doesn't implement GPU acceleration.

But the fact that they haven't is the reality that the writer should be addressing, not Deeko's smartphone utopia where everything should be evaluated by how we wish it was instead of by how things actually are.

They said nothing misleading, its not their fault if someone takes a straightforward, factual statement and derives incorrect meanings.

It's not straight forward, just like saying a celeron/GTX580 is faster than a 980X/845g is not straight forward. If it was straight forward and factual it wouldn't mislead people, which it does.

 

[deputc26]

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=17125

That's the best analysis comparing the two SoC's I have seen so far and it agrees that Hummingbird is the faster SoC. Sure Snapdgon has a slight edge on the cpu front however Hummingbird's massive lead in gpu performance more than makes up for it IMO.

Thanks I hadn't read that, this is the kind of unambiguous performance breakdown that is needed.

 

[Deeko]

You really don't seem to get it. The average person absolutely does not understand what a computer benchmark is, what it tests, or what it entails. Yea, they might understand the definition of the word "benchmark", but that's different. And the average person absolutely doesn't understand the difference between a CPU and a GPU, they don't know what GPU-accelerated UI is, or any of these technical terms you're tossing around. They also want to fire up Need 4 Speed (oops, looks like there ARE GPU-accelerated games that are popular, so much for your attempt to shoot that down) to run smoothly.

Hummingbird, as a system, is faster than Snapdragon. Period, end of story. On Android, it does not necessarily mean it will move around the UI faster, but the reviewer is still absolutely correct to state that Hummingbird is faster. You do realize that the world extends beyond Android, right? For example - all Windows Phone 7 devices use Snapdragons, and iPhones use chips very similar to Hummingbirds.

I just had a friend who thought Galaxy S phones were fastest at loading web pages, I don't even know what article he read but after reading the round-up I see how he got that impression.

Ahh, and finaly we come to the crux of the problem. Its not the fault of the reviewer that your friend is misinformed. However, why don't you explain the JIT in Froyo that the Galaxy S phones lack....get back to us with how that goes.

Stop with your drivel-esque CPU/GPU comparison. The differences between CPUs in those two SoCs are minor, whereas the differences in GPU are absolutely massive, unlike your silly analogy. Also, recall that those are separate components. Like it or not - the SoC is a cell phone is one system, and is described as such. Just because you associate with people that don't understand that, and rather than rationally explain the differences to them, you'd rather bitch on the internet about some big bad reviewer misleading your poor hapless friend....well, that's just not our problem.

Anyway, you clearly came into this thread expecting everyone here to agree with you, and you're feelings are hurt that we're not, so this discussion isn't worth my time anymore. Ta ta.

 

[whitewarrior11]

Wow, can't recall the last time I've seen someone flamed like this. He has the right to express his opinion, I think? Just like you just did.

 

[deputc26]

*snip*

Hummingbird, as a system, is faster than Snapdragon. Period, end of story.

Wait for it...

On Android, it does not necessarily mean it will move around the UI faster,

...well well, I guess that's not the end of the story.

but the reviewer is still absolutely correct to state that Hummingbird is faster. You do realize that the world extends beyond Android, right?

It also extends beyond smartphones, but right now I'm talking about Android.

For example - all Windows Phone 7 devices use Snapdragons, and iPhones use chips very similar to Hummingbirds.

Yes I know, we've been over this.

Ahh, and finaly we come to the crux of the problem. Its not the fault of the reviewer that your friend is misinformed.

You don't seem to understand that these reviews are meant to be educational, they are meant to be read by people that don't know hardware as well as you and I. And these same people that the review is aimed at are being mislead.

Stop with your drivel-esque CPU/GPU comparison. The differences between CPUs in those two SoCs are minor

Exactly my point, this why the speed differences in each phone will be minor for at least 95% of use-time.

whereas the differences in GPU are absolutely massive, unlike your silly analogy. Also, recall that those are separate components. Like it or not - the SoC is a cell phone is one system,

Go look up the word "system" in a dictionary, desktops are also accurately described as "one system".

and is described as such. Just because you associate with people that don't understand that, and rather than rationally explain the differences to them, you'd rather bitch on the internet about some big bad reviewer misleading your poor hapless friend....well, that's just not our problem.

The reviewer may be big but is certainly not bad, or I wouldn't read his stuff. Again this is a minor point but a valid one none-the-less.

Anyway, you clearly came into this thread expecting everyone here to agree with you, and you're feelings are hurt that we're not, so this discussion isn't worth my time anymore. Ta ta.

No I started this thread hoping there was a ~1% chance that it would attract enough attention to lead to clearer terminology in SOC reviews. It remains unlikely but it's worth a shot.

 

[MrX8503]

Wait for it...
Go look up the word "system" in a dictionary, desktops are also accurately described as "one system".

You're reaching here. An SoC incorporates both the CPU/GPU on a single chip and cannot be compared to a desktop, especially since you can actively choose any CPU/GPU combo you wish in a desktop.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Agree with me or die.

No.