• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Samsung Exynos Thread (big.LITTLE Octa-core)

S

Sweepr

Diamond Member
Just got a Samsung Galaxy Note 4 today, our local version (N910C) is based on the 20nm Exynos 5433 (Exynos 7 Octa) chip.
This is the first Cortex A57/A53 SoC to market and next year's Snapdragon 810 should pack a similar CPU configuration (probably different clockspeed though). I am running the usual benchmarks from AnandTech's smartphone/tablet reviews (Javascript tests @ stock browser). Let me know if there's anything in particular you'd like me to test.

Exynos-7-octa-core-chip-from-Samsung-offers-a-57-gain-in-performance-over-previous-generation-chip.jpg


Exynos 5433 (Exynos 7 Octa)
CPU: 4x Cortex A53 @ 1.3GHz + 4x Cortex A57 r1p0 @ 1.9GHz (ARMv8-A)
GPU: Mali T760MP6 @ 700MHz
3GB RAM
Samsung 20nm HKMG
Android 4.4.4 (32 bit)

68372.png


Screenshot_2014-11-10-15-10-56_zps175cbbc8.png


68373.png


Screenshot_2014-11-10-15-15-04_zpsfb55f07f.png


68374.png


Screenshot_2014-11-10-15-19-04_zps4fcc9e18.png


68375.png


Screenshot_2014-11-10-21-29-43_zpsae165013.png


More to come...

* Overall I'm very impressed by the performance.
* AnandTech reviewed the Snapdragon 805 based Note 4.
www.anandtech.com/show/8537/samsungs-exynos-5433-is-an-a57a53-arm-soc
http://anandtech.com/show/8613/the-samsung-galaxy-note-4-review/7
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Very nice. Pretty much in line with my expectations. I wonder if Samsung went custom with Exynos 7? They stated they'd be going that route eventually.

Qualcomm needs to stop dragging its feet.
 
monstercameron said:
Surprised you didn't wait for an Intel powered phone
Click to expand...

Basicaly that s a Baytrail class CPU with a better GPU, and BT is not up to an ancient Bobcat be it in IPC or for the GPU, i dont understand all the hype for what are quite average chips, indeed thoses CPUs did find a safe harbour in Geekbencheries, GFXs and other non verifiable browser benches whose settings are changed from a run to another even within AT.
 
Some x86 Bay Trail/Mullins comparisons. 🙂

63095.png


Exynos 7 Octa: 390

63094.png


Exynos 7 Octa: 4218

63096.png


Exynos 7 Octa: 470

z000054-geek64netz.PNG


Exynos 7 Octa: ST 1260 / MT 4295

MullinsChart-7.jpg


Exynos 7 Octa: 37 FPS
 
Last edited:
Power figures under 3DMark suite would be insightfull with both graphic and cpu tests, interesting to see what their 20nm is worth.
 
3DMark Ice Storm Unlimited. Quick run in a hot day (@ battery) but that's it for now. 😉
GFXBench battery tests and other comparisons later today.

3dmarkkk_zps028c9cde.png
 
That's performance... now where is energy consumption? I'd like to know if A57 is A15 2.0.

Intel17 said:
Moorefield in the 4.5" FFRD scores 21752 😛

Too bad Intel didn't actually get that part into phones...
Click to expand...

Why doesn't everyone use Moorefield? It's built on the most advanced process. It has an impressive energy consumption. They don't have a Qualcomm-like monopoly; which sucks money out of every 3G (and presumably 4G) patent. Intel has a compelling roadmap and commitment to Atom: they have LTE, they have some of the best architects and a 2 year Tick-Tock cadence, it is built on the most used architecture, and Intel has a massive process lead.

I don't think Broxton will change everything, like you envisioned 1 year ago. Intel really has to deliver next week.
 
Intel17 said:
Moorefield in the 4.5" FFRD scores 21752 😛

Too bad Intel didn't actually get that part into phones...
Click to expand...

do you have a link and what is a moorefield? also what was the gfx score?

ok this is moorefield !

Intel atom Z3560
icestorm physics/graphics score 17504/18258 which is pretty good.
@5.2W max in a tablet formfactor
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Atom-Z3560-SoC.123972.0.html

amd's a4 micro-6400t mullins can on do:
icestorm physics/graphics score 8697/22434
@12.5W in a notebook formfactor.
http://www.notebookcheck.com/Test-HP-Stream-14-z050ng-Notebook.128400.0.html

makes me wonder about those power figures for the note although 20nm should help
 
Last edited:
Intel17 said:
Moorefield in the 4.5" FFRD scores 21752 😛

Too bad Intel didn't actually get that part into phones...
Click to expand...
They can't get their Core M in products to behave as in their demonstration platform so what would you expect of Moorefield in a end-user product? :ninja:
 
witeken said:
That's performance... now where is energy consumption? I'd like to know if A57 is A15 2.0.
Click to expand...
What would be A15 2.0 in your mind?

Why doesn't everyone use Moorefield? It's built on the most advanced process. It has an impressive energy consumption. They don't have a Qualcomm-like monopoly; which sucks money out of every 3G (and presumably 4G) patent. Intel has a compelling roadmap and commitment to Atom: they have LTE, they have some of the best architects and a 2 year Tick-Tock cadence, it is built on the most used architecture, and Intel has a massive process lead.

I don't think Broxton will change everything, like you envisioned 1 year ago. Intel really has to deliver next week.
Click to expand...
Being technically the best (and even that has to be proved) is not enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top