Hummingbird vs. Snapdragon: The 1 GHz Smartphone Showdown
The following is by Sean the Electrofreak, ABT Guest Contributor. As with everything that we publish at AlienBabelTech, the opinions expressed are solely those of the individual writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and the opinions of the rest of the ABT staff.
Hummingbird vs. Snapdragon: the 1 GHz Smartphone Showdown
If you follow smartphone technology at all, you’re sure to have heard of the Qualcomm Snapdragon processor. It’s the reigning smartphone CPU heavyweight; a 1 GHz processor packed with a multitude of features, based upon the same ARM CPU technology that modern smartphones such as the Droid, Palm Pre, Nokia N900 and iPhone 3GS use. However, unlike those processors, the Snapdragon runs at 1 GHz while the others run at 600 MHz and under, and thus has become the chip of choice for premium smartphones.
The Snapdragon SoC (System on a Chip) has appeared on the market in several devices recently. The most well-known example is probably the Google Nexus One, though it had already appeared in a previous device, the HTC HD2. The HD2, released November 11th 2009, had a Snapdragon processor as well as a massive 4.3-inch display (diagonally measured), and received rave reviews that almost unanimously ended with one major complaint: the Windows Mobile 6.5 operating system. It’s an operating system largely unchanged from its predecessors and prone to software problems. In addition, to really make good use of the processing power of the phone, applications needed to exist that made use of that power, and the majority of applications written for Microsoft’s mobile OS just didn’t take advantage. The industry begged for an HD2 with Google’s Android mobile operating system, and HTC responded that it wasn’t going to happen.
In a surprise move, Sprint announced the HTC EVO 4G at the CTIA 2010 trade show, and the mobile industry collectively went wild. Here was the phone everyone had been dreaming of with a 4.3-inch display and 1 GHz Snapdragon like the HD2, as well as a deployable kickstand, 8MP rear camera, 1.3MP front camera, HDMI port, and 4G WiMAX connectivity. The HD2 had essentially been reborn, new and improved, for the Android OS. Judging by the limelight cast upon the EVO 4G by the mobile enthusiast community, the EVO 4G is positioned to become one of the best selling smartphones of the year.
However, another device debuted at CTIA 2010 that was largely overshadowed by the launch of the EVO 4G: the Samsung GT-i9000 Galaxy S. This new phone, in contrast, has a 4-inch Super AMOLED display (more on that later), 5MP rear camera, 0.3MP front camera, (GSM/HSPDA) 3G/3.5G connectivity… and was mentioned almost as an afterthought to contain Samsung’s own 1 GHz processor. Samsung spent a lot of time at CTIA 2010 talking about the Super AMOLED display, and in contrast only a few moments disclosing details on the new SoC, stating that it has over 3x better performance than the leading competition (referring to graphics performance), and bests all other smartphone processors on the market today. Only later was it confirmed that the SoC was Samsung’s new 45 nm “Hummingbird” platform, the only production 1 GHz ARM processor thus far to challenge Qualcomm’s Snapdragon.
When the news of these phones hit the tech blogs, nearly all of the attention went to the HTC EVO 4G. The EVO 4G was what many had been waiting for, and the Samsung was typically given hardly a second glance. But let’s take a moment to really compare the hardware of these two Android 2.1 smartphones, and then we’ll even go a bit deeper into how the SoCs actually stack against one another when it comes to CPU and GPU processing power.
HTC EVO 4G and the Samsung i9000 Galaxy S
When it comes to built-in storage, the Galaxy S pulls ahead of the EVO 4G with its included 8 / 16 GB internal hard drive (there are indications that different models will be available for each size), while the EVO 4G comes with only 1 GB on board. It may be a moot point however, as both phones include microSD ports for removable memory and the EVO 4G is likely to come with a 16 or 32 GB microSD memory card included. It should be pointed out that due to current limitations within the Android OS, you can’t install apps onto removable memory (unless you root the phone) but 1 GB should still be plenty of room for your mobile applications.
Regarding video capture, both phones can record 720p HD video without any trouble, thanks to integrated video encoders in both SoCs. The Galaxy S has a 5MP camera while the EVO 4G has an 8MP, but it should be pointed out that pixel count alone shouldn’t be treated as an indicator of camera performance. Image noise, focus, performance in low-light conditions, color accuracy, etc are all variables that won’t be determined until cameras in both phones can really be used side-by-side. It should be pointed out that the Galaxy S at CTIA 2010 did not have an LED flash of any sort, which is surprising considering this is fairly standard-faire now on most smartphones. However, the Samsung press kit is noticeably devoid of any photos or renders of the rear of the phone, which could indicate that this might change. Interestingly, both phones include a second camera on the front of the device. The EVO 4G has a 1.3MP front-facing camera, while the Galaxy S manages a VGA (0.3MP) unit. These cameras could be used for video conferencing (among other uses), though except when connected to a wireless network, the EVO 4G’s WiMAX connection would probably be better suited to such a task.
Speaking of wireless connectivity, while we’ve already covered the 3G / 4G differences of the phones, a major feature of the EVO 4G is its ability to function as a mobile 4G wireless hotspot for up to 8 devices. The Galaxy S can be set up to act as a hotspot as well, but only after rooting the Android OS, an administrative access hack which many users won’t want to have to bother with. It’s also interesting to note that the Samsung Galaxy S has Bluetooth 3.0, while the EVO 4G has the standard Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR. Additionally, the Samsung apparently also supports 802.11n for connection to wireless n-only networks, while the EVO 4G can only connect to wireless b/g networks (or wireless n networks supporting b/g devices).
The displays of both phones are key selling points for each. The Samsung Galaxy S possesses a 4-inch Super AMOLED display, which Samsung claims is 20% brighter than a regular AMOLED display, consumes 20% less power, and is 80% easier to see in direct sunlight. In addition, Samsung states that the Super AMOLED manages to integrate the touchscreen directly into the display instead of laying it over the top as in conventional LCD and AMOLED displays, which allows for a slimmer display, and thus a slimmer device.
In contrast, the HTC EVO 4G has a larger 4.3-inch display, but isn’t AMOLED. This is not necessarily a bad thing; high-quality displays like the 3.7-inch LCD display on the Motorola Droid may not be quite as vibrant or energy-efficient as AMOLED, but are still very impressive. The EVO4G’s screen is essentially the same, if not exactly the same, as the screen on the aforementioned HTC HD2. That screen received a very good response from mobile reviewers, and it’s likely that the EVO 4G’s screen will be no different. Compared to an AMOLED display, colors may not look as bright, and since the LCD display is backlit, blacks will not look quite as dark. Viewing angle is also more of a concern for LCD displays than it is on AMOLED displays, which is one reason why the EVO 4G includes a kickstand for viewing media (aside from general convenience). For viewing on a separate display, the EVO 4G features an HDMI-out port, furthering its usefulness as a media device. Samsung counters with a wireless solution on the Galaxy S, streaming video wirelessly via DLNA to compatible displays, (and it’s no coincidence that this includes higher-end Samsung ones!) Ultimately, it becomes a toss-up for the consumer whether they want the larger display of the EVO 4G, or the brighter, sunlight-friendly, and more energy efficient display of the Galaxy S.
To most smartphone users, the display is one of the most important factors in deciding upon a phone, hence the enthusiasm over the EVO 4G, with one of the largest smartphone displays on the market. But underneath a beautiful display there needs to be a processor that can handle the complex processing needs of the application-intensive Android market, encode and decode high-definition audio and video, as well as fluidly handle 2D and 3D graphics for software and gaming, all while keeping power consumption to an absolute minimum. The modern-day smartphone is a marvel of engineering, essentially inserting a miniature computer into a device we come to rely upon for information, communication, and entertainment.
Detailed specifications of popular SoCs in modern smartphones
CPU Performance
Before I go into details on the Cortex-A8, Snapdragon, Hummingbird, and Cortex-A9, I should probably briefly explain how some ARM SoC manufacturers take different paths when developing their own products. ARM is the company that owns licenses for the technology behind all of these SoCs. They offer manufacturers a license to an ARM instruction set that a processor can use, and they also offer a license to a specific CPU architecture.
Most manufacturers will purchase the CPU architecture license, design a SoC around it, and modify it to fit their own needs or goals. T.I. and Samsung are examples of these; the S5PC100 (in the iPhone 3GS) as well as the OMAP3430 (in the Droid) and even the Hummingbird S5PC110 in the Samsung Galaxy S are all SoCs with Cortex-A8 cores that have been tweaked (or “hardened”) for performance gains to be competitive in one way or another. Companies like Qualcomm however will build their own custom processor architecture around a license to an instruction set that they’ve chosen to purchase from ARM. This is what the Snapdragon’s Scorpion processor is, a completely custom implementation that shares some similarities with Cortex-A8 and uses the same ARMv7 instruction set, but breaks away from some of the limitations that the Cortex-A8 may impose.
Qualcomm’s approach is significantly more costly and time consuming, but has the potential to create a processor that outperforms the competition. Through its own custom architecture configuration, (which Qualcomm understandably does not go into much detail regarding), the Scorpion CPU inside the Snapdragon SoC gains an approximate 5% improvement in instructions per clock cycle over an ARM Cortex-A8. Qualcomm appeals to manufacturers as well by integrating features such as GPS and cell network support into the SoC to reduce the need of a cell phone manufacturer having to add additional hardware onto the phone. This allows for a more compact phone design, or room for additional features, which is always an attractive option. Upcoming Snapdragon SoCs such as the QSD8672 will allow for dual-core processors (not supported by Cortex-A8 architecture) to boost processing power as well as providing further ability to scale performance appropriately to meet power needs. Qualcomm claims that we’ll see these chips in the latter half of 2010, and rumor has it that we’ll begin seeing them show up first in Windows Mobile 7 Series phones in the Fall. Before then, we may see a 45 nm version of the QSD8650 dubbed “QSD8650A” released in the Summer, running at 1.3 GHz.
You might think that the Hummingbird doesn’t stand a chance against Qualcomm’s custom-built monster, but Samsung isn’t prepared to throw in the towel. In response to Snapdragon, they hired Intrinsity, a semiconductor company specializing in tweaking processor logic design, to customize the Cortex-A8 in the Hummingbird to perform certain binary functions using significantly less instructions than normal. Samsung estimates that 20% of the Hummingbird’s functions are affected, and of those, on average 25-50% less instructions are needed to complete each task. Overall, the processor can perform tasks 5-10% more quickly while handling the same 2 instructions per clock cycle as an unmodified ARM Cortex-A8 processor, and Samsung states it outperforms all other processors on the market (a statement seemingly aimed at Qualcomm). Many speculate that it’s likely that the S5PC110 CPU in the Hummingbird will be in the iPhone HD, and that its sister chip, the S5PV210, is inside the Apple A4 that powers the iPad. (UPDATE: Indications are that the model # of the SoC in the Apple iPad’s A4 is “S5L8930”, a Samsung part # that is very likely closely related to the S5PV210 and Hummingbird. I report and speculate upon this here.)
Lastly, we really should touch upon Cortex-A9. It is ARM’s next-generation processor architecture that continues to work on top of the tried-and-true ARMv7 instruction set. Cortex-A9 stresses production on the 45 nm scale as well as supporting multiple processing cores for processing power and efficiency. Changes in core architecture also allow a 25% improvement in instructions that can be handled per clock cycle, meaning a 1 GHz Cortex-A9 will perform considerably quicker than a 1 GHz Cortex-A8 (or even Snapdragon) equivalent. Other architecture improvements such as support for out-of-order instruction handling (which, it should be pointed out, the Snapdragon partially supports) will allow the processor to have significant gains in performance per clock cycle by allowing the processor to prioritize calculations based upon the availability of data. T.I. has predicted its Cortex-A9 OMAP4440 to hit the market in late 2010 or early 2011, and promises us that their OMAP4 series will offer dramatic improvements over any Cortex-A8-based designs available today.
GPU performance
There are a couple problems with comparing GPU performance that some recent popular articles have neglected to address. (Yes, that’s you, AndroidAndMe.com, and I won’t even go into a rant about bad data). The drivers running the GPU, the OS platform it’s running on, memory bandwidth limitations as well as the software itself can all play into how well a GPU runs on a device. In short: you could take identical GPUs, place them in different phones, clock them at the same speeds, and see significantly different performance between them.
For example, let’s take a look at the iPhone 3GS. It’s commonly rumored to contain a PowerVR SGX 535, which is capable of processing 28 million triangles per second (Mt/s). There’s a driver file on the phone that contains “SGX535” in the filename, but that shouldn’t be taken as proof as to what it actually contains. In fact, GLBenchmark.com shows the iPhone 3GS putting out approximately 7 Mt/s in its graphics benchmarks. This initially led me to believe that the iPhone 3GS actually contained a PowerVR SGX 520 @ 200 MHz (which incidentally can output 7 Mt/s) or alternatively a PowerVR SGX 530 @ 100 MHz because the SGX 530 has 2 rendering pipelines instead of the 1 in the SGX 520, and tends to perform about twice as well. Now, interestingly enough, Samsung S5PC100 documentation shows the 3D engine as being able to put out 10 Mt/s, which seemed to support my theory that the device does not contain an SGX 535.
However, the GPU model and clock speed aren’t the only limiting factors when it comes to GPU performance. The SGX 535 for example can only put out its 28 Mt/s when used in conjunction with a device that supports the full 4.2 GB per second of memory bandwidth it needs to operate at this speed. Assume that the iPhone 3GS uses single-channel LPDDR1 memory operating at 200 MHz on a 32-bit bus (which is fairly likely). This allows for 1.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is approximately 38% of what the SGX 535 needs to operate at its peak speed. Interestingly enough, 38% of 28 Mt/s equals just over 10 Mt/s… supporting Samsung’s claim (with real-world performance at 7 Mt/s being quite reasonable). While it still isn’t proof that the iPhone 3GS uses an SGX 535, it does demonstrate just how limiting single-channel memory (particularly slower memory like LPDDR1) can be and shows that the GPU in the iPhone 3GS is likely a powerful device that cannot be used to its full potential. The GPU in the Droid likely has the same memory bandwidth issues, and the SGX 530 in the OMAP3430 appears to be down-clocked to stay within those limitations.
But let’s move on to what’s really important; the graphics processing power of the Hummingbird in the Samsung Galaxy S versus the Snapdragon in the EVO 4G. It’s quickly apparent that Samsung is claiming performance approximately 4x greater than the 22 Mt/s the Snapdragon QSD8650’s can manage. It’s been rumored that the Hummingbird contains a PowerVR SGX 540, but at 200 MHz the SGX 540 puts out 28 Mt/s, approximately 1/3 of the 90 Mt/s that Samsung is claiming. Either Samsung has decided to clock an SGX 540 at 600 MHz, which seems rather high given reports that the chip is capable of speeds of “400 MHz+” or they’ve chosen to include a multi-core PowerVR SGX XT solution. Essentially this would allow 3 PowerVR cores (or 2 up-clocked ones) to hit the 90 Mt/s mark without having to push the GPU past 400 MHz.
Unfortunately however, this brings us right back to the memory bandwidth limitation argument again, because while the Hummingbird likely uses LPDDR2 memory, it still only appears to have single-channel memory controller support (capping memory bandwidth off at 4.2 GB/s), and the question is raised as to how the PowerVR GPU obtains the large amount of memory bandwidth it needs to draw and texture polygons at those high speeds. If the PowerVR SGX 540 (which, like the SGX 535 performs at 28 Mt/s at 200 MHz) requires 4.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, drawing 90 Mt/s would require over 12.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, 3 times what is available. Samsung may be citing purely theoretical numbers or using another solution such as possibly increasing GPU cache sizes. This would allow for higher peak speeds, but it’s questionable if it could achieve sustainable 90 Mt/s performance.
Qualcomm differentiates itself from most of the competition (once again) by using its own graphics processing solution. The company bought AMD’s Imageon mobile-graphics division in 2008, and used AMD’s Imageon Z430 (now rebranded Adreno 200) to power the graphics in the 65 nm Snapdragons. The 45 nm QSD8650A will include an Adreno 205, which will provide some performance enhancements to 2D graphics processing as well as hardware support for Adobe Flash. It is speculated that the dual-core Snapdragons will utilize the significantly more powerful Imageon Z460 (or Adreno 220), which apparently rivals the graphics processing performance of high-end mobile gaming systems such as the Sony PlayStation Portable. Qualcomm is claiming nearly the same performance (80 Mt/s) as the Samsung Hummingbird in its upcoming 45 nm dual-core QSD8672, and while LPDDR2 support and a dual-channel memory controller are likely, it seems pretty apparent that, like Samsung, something else must be at play for them to achieve those claims.
While Samsung and Qualcomm tend to stay relatively quiet about how they achieve their graphics performance, T.I. has come out and specifically stated that its upcoming OMAP4440 SoC supports both LPDDR2 and a dual-channel memory controller paired with a PowerVR SGX 540 chip to provide “up to 2x” the performance of its OMAP3 line. This is a reasonable claim assuming the SGX 540 is clocked to 400 MHz and requires a bandwidth of 8.5 GB/s which can be achieved using LPDDR2 at 533 MHz in conjunction with the dual-channel controller. This comparatively docile graphics performance may be due to T.I’s rather straightforward approach to the ARM Cortex-A9 configuration.
Power Efficiency
Moving onward, it’s also easily noticeable that the next generation chipsets on the 45 nm scale are going to be a significant improvement in terms of performance and power efficiency. The Hummingbird in the Samsung Galaxy S demonstrates this potential, but unfortunately we still lack the power consumption numbers we really need to understand how well it stacks up against the 65 nm Snapdragon in the EVO 4G. It can be safely assumed that the Galaxy S will have overall better battery life than the EVO 4G given the lower power requirements of the 45 nm chip, the more power-efficient Super AMOLED display, as well as the fact that both phones sport equal-capacity 1500mA batteries. However it should be noted that the upcoming 45 nm dual-core Snapdragon is claimed to be coming with a 30% decrease in power needs, which would allow the 1.5 GHz SoC to run at nearly the same power draw of the current 1 GHz Snapdragon. Cortex-A9 also boasts numerous improvements in efficiency, claiming power consumption numbers nearly half that of the Cortex-A8, as well as the ability to use multiple-core technology to scale processing power in accordance with energy limitations.
While it’s almost universally agreed that power efficiency is a priority for these processors, many criticize the amount of processing power these new chips are bringing to mobile devices, and ask why so much performance is necessary. Whether or not mobile applications actually need this much power is not really the concern however; improved processing and graphics performance with little to no additional increase in energy needs will allow future phones to actually be much more efficient in terms of power. This is because ultimately, power efficiency relies in a big part on the ability of the hardware in the phone to complete a task quickly and return to an idle state where it consumes very little power. This “burst” processing, while consuming fairly high amounts of power for very short periods of time, tends to be more economical than prolonged, slower processing. So as long as ARM chipset manufacturers can continue to crank up the performance while keeping power requirements low, there’s nothing but gains to be had.
Conclusion
The Samsung Galaxy S with a 45 nm Hummingbird beating for a heart looks to be the most powerful ARM SoC available in the near future, however, the 45 nm Snapdragons and the Cortex-A9 TI OMAP 4 series will almost certainly reclaim that title later this year and onwards into 2011. The EVO 4G, while having an impressive set of specifications, still runs a 65 nm chip that is less power efficient and pales in terms of graphics performance when compared to the Galaxy S. If you happen to live under Sprint’s WiMAX umbrella and can’t resist a 4.3-inch screen, the EVO 4G may be a hard opportunity to resist. But if you’re looking for the better performer and display with unsurpassed quality, a Samsung Galaxy S looks like the choice to make assuming it lands on a carrier that works for you. AT&T is likely, signs point to T-Mobile as well, and it’s speculated that it’ll eventually end up on all 4 major US carriers. Both phones are headed our way in “Summer 2010”. One thing is certain; it’s not going to be an easy wait!
I’ve been looking for weeks for a breakdown like this, so: thanks. I hope you update it when the device is released and there’s more information available; I look forward to it, in fact.
In doing my research (no citation, sorry, this is just what I recall seeing) it seems that because the 3GS has a high pixel/second refresh rate, it has a “smooth” feel to it–as compared with the nexus one, specifically. Obviously apples to oranges with android vs iPhone OS, but still.
I just want a smooth android experience… hope the galaxy S makes that a reality.
I realise that I might be a bit less knowledgeable in the area, but the HTC Desire running a Snapdragon (QSD8250) seems like a good choice.
How does the QSD8250 compare to the QSD8650 in terms of performance and battery usage? They are both 1GHz and I have not been able to find a comparison anywhere.
They are both the same. One is a GSM version, the other is the CDMA version.
Jordan, thanks for your feedback, it’s much appreciated.
I think a lot of it has to do with the OS itself. The Apple iPhone OS sacrifices a lot of the functionality that more complex mobile OS like Google’s Android have, but it allows for a very smooth user experience. It’ll take some impressive hardware and a very efficient UI before Android can match that kind of performance.
If Samsung isn’t jerking our chain and the Galaxy S really does have that kind of graphics power, we should see a phone with an Android that’s buttery smooth. I can’t wait for the day that I can get both the EVO 4G and the Samsung Galaxy S in my hands to see how they stack up.
I’d be happy to write a followup to this article with those impressions when that day comes!
One of ABT’s editors might be able to get his hands on a demo unit or two in the near future, so I’ll see if I can drag some hands-on impressions out of him 😉
Crone, MrK nailed your question. There isn’t any difference between the two other than the integrated radio chip (8250 is GSM, 8650 CDMA). I was considering referring to it as the 8×50 in the article, but didn’t want to cause any unnecessary confusion.
Update: GSMArena.com has confirmed that the Samsung Galaxy S contains 512 MB of RAM, equaling the EVO 4G.
I still would like a direct confirmation that the memory is LPDDR2 though.
Thanks for this sensible and clear analysis. It’s a real rarity in too much tech blogging these days.
Your comparisons dug down into the screens’ appearances, but didn’t touch on the point of resolution and clarity that this week’s “retina” announcement prompts. Specifically, previous AMOLED screens are reported to have only two colors per pixel, so only 2/3 the number of directly-addressable locations as an otherwise like-resolution screen. So, the modestly more detailed iPhone4 spec actually has 80% more independent loci—about a third more in each dimension. Does this matter? For red-on-blue or your blue-on-black signature above, it reduces 800X480 to about 400X240, no? Even for black-on-white, It could matter a lot for legibility.
Here’s where my knowledge hits the wall. First, I know Samsung makes these Pentile screens, but does the Galaxy S also use one? Other commenters say yes, but I dunno how authoritatively.
Second, I know that both Windows and MacOSX have long had very clever OS text rendering routines that address individual sub-pixels in displays, so that a slice across a row might go
… r g b r g B R G B R g b r g b …
(where caps show “ON” and lower shows “off.”)
That is, rather than deciding what level of gray to set each pixel triad, the OS lights up individual sub-pixels, making its own boundaries, often not worrying about including a full set of all three colors in each run. Adobe Reader has also allowed you to use “sub-pixel rendering” since the early days of LCDs, when it became very valuable. So, the $64K questions: are these very smart text rendering routines at work on either iPhones or Android devices? … both portrait & landscape?
Thanks in advance.
“Inquiring Minds Want to Know!” ®
Woops, 400X480 for AMOLED colors.
Very interesting question Walt, and definitely one I’ll have to look into.
In writing this article, I read a very interesting piece on how the PenTile display system works and its limitations. Some rather complex algorithms are used to determine the proper color pattern on those types of screen. Looks like I’ll need to find out more.
Check out these articles if you haven’t already:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2010/03/secrets-of-the-nexus-ones-screen-science-color-and-hacks.ars/
http://www.displaymate.com/Nexus_One_ShootOut.htm
I suspect highly that the Galaxy S will feature a PenTile screen on its Super AMOLED, but I don’t know for certain until I can see one under a microscope.
Thanks for the great links.
The shootout page was especially interesting to me: the OLED display only uses less power for rather dark areas of the screen; for black-on-white text, the OLED would seem to net-net use more power, as well as suffer from poorer resolution (since DisplayMate opined that the LEDs just couldn’t be packed any tighter without the reliability problems that Ars found). Makes it an especially curious choice unless over-saturation is the goal.
I’ll look forward to the lab tests of color etc, which I presume those links will provide soon, and still hope for some more clarity about advanced resolution, especially for clarity of reading.
thanks! this was quite helpful!
Walt; the pictures in this article lead me to believe that the Super-AMOLED does indeed use the PenTile LED arrangement.
http://www.engadget.com/photos/iphone-4-vs-samsung-galaxy-s-displays-at-full-brightness/
Hey everyone, just for the record, this article is a few months old now. When it was written, I had very little material to work with aside from some Samsung / HTC PR statements, a handful of specs, and some camera shots for each phone.
Just had some inattentive (and very impolite) fellow do a drive-by on my blog ridiculing the fact that I didn’t do a side-by-side comparison. Given that the phones had just been announced and were not available for review, it would have been a tad bit difficult. 😉
Really nice writeup.
Thanks.
Really looking forward to the new HTC Android, it looks awesome!
Awesome breakdown! Although its a little late to post any comment on the article, but recent video reviews of the two phones (actually vibrant and droid incredible) show that vibrant(galaxy) performs a little better than droid incredible( evo 4g). Although there are lot of assumptions on the UIs of the two phones, and lots of other things.
Nice Review! but you complete forgot to mention TEGRA2!!!!
So, overall, which processor is the best, if one must choose??
For what its worth to anyone reading this article as research in piicking a phone:
My roomate got a DroidX this week, and I just picked up the Vibrant, TMobiles Galaxy S. Speeds while firing up and scrolling through and opening apps appear to be very similar between the two phones side by side. That being said, I am very pleased to say as far as the graphics go the Galaxy phone really surges ahead. The picture quality and color especially in both video playback and in web browsing are both clearer and richer on the Galaxy. Also, major kudos to Samsung for how visible the Galaxy is in sunlight, I can hadly see the DroidX at all. Also the audio quality and volume are better on the Galaxy.
Thanks for the great article and useful info!
@boybawang: Tegra 2 is Cortex-A9, like the OMAP 4440 I touched upon. Since there is very little documentation to describe any differences between the OMAP 4440 and the Tegra 250 (for example) I did not cover the topic.
However, as more information on the specific manufacturer’s implementations of Cortex-A9 come through, I look forward to writing about them. I assume that early on in Cortex-A9 production, the primary differences between the chips will be the graphics solution, and I’m sure that nVidia will not disappoint.
@hunter: The best *current* response can be seen here: http://androidandme.com/2010/07/news/droid-x-vs-galaxy-s-and-more-with-quadrant-professional/
However, I know that AlienBabelTech has taken an interest in starting to benchmark smartphones. Knowing the editor who is going to be doing the benchmarks, I can assure you that ABT will do an excellent job.
whata great website. the true comparison to the limited features of the iphone creating a better user experience was intersting. something oi have said alot to people. yesterday i was at a marketing reasearch panel that was trying to figure out if all this “DROID” branding for verizon was worth it. but the 2 people on the panel were iphone users and they were the most difficult. they proved that regardless of weather or not it performs better or worse they only will use iphones. i think 77% of iphone users upgraded to the new 4. the new droid X laked “text reflow” which was a killer for me. if that samsung galaxy sported a flash i would be all over it. the iphone screen seems so small to me now. 4 or 4.3 seems to be the correct size for me. keep up the great blog!
Great article!
GREAT ARTICLE, I enjoyed so much reading it, I use to look on a daily basis to Engadged but many times it leaves me with the bad taste of knowing too little, now I will take a look at this site!!
Why doesn’t this website not show any images in firefox browser ?
Excellent Article.
Quite well written, a lot more informative then other sites I’ve been browsing through. I actually own a galaxy s vibrant and love it. In regards to processing power I hope developers start producing apps that actually use most of the phones capabilities.
Galaxy does support with 2.2 which i am currently using
Solves any doubts , nice article…
Really nice, you are appreciated.
Vendetta_revived , I viewed read in fire fox.
hi alienbeltech, it appears you do not tribute the actual name of your “by Guest Contributor on Apr.26, 2010” and that’s a shame as they seem to be king amount the blind 😉 and actually provide real hard information, rather than marketing speak , and thanks for that.
id like to know their name and keep and eye on all their written work as i found it most refreshing… but moving on.
would it be possible to provide real life data for al these ARM v7 like SOC especially their SIMD throughput tests please and especially x264 data for all the NEON 128bit capable devices please….
it might be interesting to see numbers for that Marvell 1.6GHz, quad-core ARMADA XP SOC too
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/11/intels-former-arm-team-hits-back-at-chipzilla-with-new-server-chip.ars?comments=1&p=21012558
“its a shame it doesn’t seem to include a Bunch of 128bit NEON SIMD, but rather that Intel extended WMMX2 SIMD thing (a reasonable assumption, until someone asks them to clarify,if you look at the other existing ARMADA lines) ,what ever that is, and how it perform’s ?
Do we have Any Real Life x264 encoded 720P or even 640×360 at Ultrafast crf=24 etc performance figures for this WMMX2 SIMD compared to the standard MMX2 in the same 1.6 Ghz range ?
this real life Benchmark test came from the old x264-dev logs if anyone’s interested in the real life Number’s , and StippenG’s number’s came from an older Quad A9/NEON developer board at Uni apparently, and the generic single core A8/NEON Beagle board OC.
640×360 at Ultrafast: 38.59 seems like a very good start without these extra SIMD patches being written yet
“2010-08-24 15:39:19 Some X264 Benchmarks (Rush Hour 640×360, preset=medium, crf=24): 4-core Cortex-A9 @ 400 MHz gives 5.55 fps, Beagleboard (A8 @ 720MHz) gives 1,65. Really nice speedup, considering the much higher frequency of the A8
2010-08-24 15:39:56 It’d go a lot faster if you used a faster preset.
2010-08-24 15:40:01 Or if you wrote some of the asm we’re missing
2010-08-24 15:40:26 But yeah, that scales surprisingly well. about 3.5x faster
2010-08-24 15:40:27 Yes. Superfast gives 22.07. Ultrafast: 38.59
2010-08-24 15:41:23 Guess the out-of-order execution and shorter pipeline is really quite a bit better for performance
2010-08-24 15:41:35 Well, the A9 is known to be a lot faster
“
oops, i meant alienbabeltech not alienbeltech 😉
it also seems this site among several strips greater than, less than and so removed the contributor’s names so here’s that part again to be clear and fair.
“2010-08-24 15:39:19 StippenG Some X264 Benchmarks (Rush Hour 640×360, preset=medium, crf=24): 4-core Cortex-A9 @ 400 MHz gives 5.55 fps, Beagleboard (A8 @ 720MHz) gives 1,65. Really nice speedup, considering the much higher frequency of the A8
2010-08-24 15:39:56 Dark_Shikari It’d go a lot faster if you used a faster preset.
2010-08-24 15:40:01 Dark_Shikari Or if you wrote some of the asm we’re missing
2010-08-24 15:40:26 Dark_Shikari But yeah, that scales surprisingly well. about 3.5x faster
2010-08-24 15:40:27 StippenG Yes. Superfast gives 22.07. Ultrafast: 38.59
2010-08-24 15:41:23 StippenG Guess the out-of-order execution and shorter pipeline is really quite a bit better for performance
2010-08-24 15:41:35 Dark_Shikari Well, the A9 is known to be a lot faster”
sorry se ve interesante pero me choca el que no tenga flash que clase de basura es algo muy basico para mi ese movil no existe
Diesel, eres un pendejo. El galaxy S de sprint, US Cellular, AT&T y verizon tiene flash.
asi es ke mejor conose los factores antes de abrir el ocico.
I dont feel like reading ur blog because of the color selection. Hate the black background. Otherwise i would love to. Please change
Phenomenal review and comparison, you should look into doing this professionally!
‘It competes with the next iPhone”, writes Sascha Segan for PC Mag.com…. That last statement is the clincher. Samsung already is one generation ahead of Apple.”-Joe Wilcox
I find the site informative however the information concerning the galaxy phones is way off base. The ratings on the new phones and specifically at&t models rates them far less than actually true ratings. Even comparisons.done on line show the true ratings as compared to phones such as the EVO and so on. As a matter of fact the gallaxy series cpu’s are 1.2 and [ 1.5gigs]. Screens Are 4.3 NOT 4.0. Cameras ARE 8MEG and 2MEG front. I realize that phone come out at a very fast rate but current rating
I find the site informative however the information concerning the galaxy phones is way off base. The ratings on the new phones and specifically at&t models rates them far less than actually true ratings. Even comparisons.done on line show the true ratings as compared to phones such as the EVO and so on. As a matter of fact the gallaxy series cpu’s are 1.2 and [ 1.5gigs]. Screens Are 4.3 NOT 4.0. Cameras ARE 8MEG and 2MEG front. I realize that phone come out at a very fast rate but current ratings should be reflected. Thank you.
This phone was purchased for my girlfriend as she wanted a android phone that was small with a physical keyboard
The product has good call quality. I prefer all of the features this phone has. Used to do battle with the device restarting itself.
My first Android phone. Works well but internal app memory (RAM) somewhat limited methinks.
We’re a group of volunteers and opening a brand new scheme in our community.
Your site provided us with helpful information to work on. You have
performed a formidable job and our entire neighborhood shall be thankful to you.
Review my blog post: was bedeutet offshore,offshore-konto,offshore konten,was ist ein offshore konto,offshore konto eröffnen,offshore konto,offshore banking,offshore bank,fintech banken,eigene bank gründen,fintech bank,euro pacific bank,Weil Dein Geld Dir gehört!,Weil Dein Geld Dir gehört,heuermann Weil Dein Geld Dir gehört,heuermann banken ebook,heuermann offshore banken,staatenlos offshore banken ebook,tax free,how to live tax free,legal tax free,legal ohne steuern