yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Galaxy S III General] Tomatoes8:
The display models of the Galaxy Nexus lags quite a bit but I have never owned it so I can't say for sure. My Exynos quad doesn't stutter and neither did the Exynos in the GS2. Yet, the Qualcomm S3 and Qualcomm S4 stutters for me. Can you notice a pattern here?

Besides, even if it is 2 cores vs. 2 cores for everything else like you say, which I don't think there is enough evidence to conclusively say that is a fact, we can't really conclusively say that ICS is taking advantage or will ever take advantage of the A15 goodies either. For all we know all the improvements in the S4 Krait could be as "useless" as the two extra cores in the quad.

Here is an interesting article.........

Whereas TSMC cancelled its 32nm node entirely concentrating on High-k MG launching only on 28nm; apparently sometime around now, although we think TSMC's roadmaps are optimistic at best - Global Foundries on the other hand, is firing ahead with High-k metal gate at both 32nm and 28nm.

The 32nm node is its 'High Performance' technology, which is already well into development, with real products (AMD Llano) arriving somewhere into the first half of next year.

Click to enlarge

28nm uses the same production technology as 32nm, but Global Foundries design is for lower power, lower leakage devices only: it's not suitable for CPUs. Compared to 40nm, 28nm cuts the same die size in half (and future 20nm goes half again), while promoting a 50 per cent increase in switching speed and energy reduction per switch.

Both Global Foundries and TSMC are hitting the 28nm stride about the same time, but the difference between both companies is that where Global Foundries is putting its 'High Performance' stamp on 32nm, TSMC is pushing the same thing at 28nm having learnt from its previous expertise in high performance half-nodes at (110nm, 80nm,) 55nm and 40nm.

These competing roadmaps are not directly comparable however, and the specialisation of part type and techniques of manufacturing will see who gets the customer. For 28nm at least, both AMD and Nvidia should be sticking with TSMC. The next question being: will it hurt AMD for sticking to 40nm in its upcoming Radeon HD 6000 series?

Beyond that, direct competition could potentially offer competitive pricing between the two companies, which means cheaper chips for us.
[Galaxy S III General] lude219:
ITT: bewildered S4 users justifying for their purchase. ;)

Fact of the matter is, if QC exynos was LTE-capabled for the US market, we would'nt even be having this discussion. We would already know what the outcome would be. :D
[Galaxy S III General] Tomatoes8:
We would still be having this discussion, just in the One X vs GS3 thread.lol

I notice that the Qualcomm S4 and HTC One X side refuse to back down though.
[Galaxy S III General] neyenlives:
you confuse things and seem confused yourself.....at least you are confusing me because you don't seem to have read what I typed....perhaps I can clarify for you?

you see, here where I live, I shop for the best service, then get the best device that works with that service. I had the choice to drop my line and go to any other carrier I want. I could have purchased a International SGSIII, with Exynos and no LTE and could have banged out games and benchmarks until my fingers bled. But I work for a living......and LTE data is one of the most important features of a handset for MY USE.

Verizon here is the states has the best overall service, works better in more areas than the rest, and also happens to have the most dependable 4G LTE data service.

I could have (repeating myself because you seem to have missed it) moved to ATT with an International SGSIII and used HSPA+ data. But that would have crippled my device because of the loss of LTE data. It doesn't matter if it plays a video game faster or gives me higher AnTuTu benchmark scores if it doesn't have LTE data ability.

I don't know how to make this any clearer.....this has nothing to do with justifying anything other than justifying LTE usage....

end of story bro? :rolleyes:
[Galaxy S III General] pewpewbangbang:
I was just trying to be sarcastic about the stuttering on the SGS3 quad to whoever said the GPU was the cause of stuttering on S4 SGS3.

I haven't found the Qcom chips to be laggy or stutter anymore than any other SoC. Don't see the pattern you seem to feel. Not really sure what your quoting either about GPU dies and fabrication sizes. It says at the end 28nm is better?
[Galaxy S III General] LNJ:
So again you're going on about how LTE is important to you above all else!

What am I missing here?

Are you confused by what you yourself are saying?

You choose the phone for LTE but somehow seem to be justifying Krait vs Exynos!

You had no choice dude!

Stop fooling yourself!

You sure as hell aren't fooling the rest of us!

I'll be getting the S4 too but I'm not gonna start a crusade over the Exynos over something I have no choice over cause I have a 6gb LTE plan too!
[Galaxy S III General] neyenlives:
how exactly does this have anything to do with the topic? other than saying they use the HKMG process technology in the production of the Exynos SoC? yes, HKMG is superior, it's the only reason the A9 based Exynos can even be close to the S4 Krait in IPC performance. It's also the thing that allows 4 Exynos cores to keep up with two S4 Krait 28nm cores.

Interesting enough it wasn't enough to integrate an LTE radio. Samsungs approach to the 32nm die shrink was almost completely about power efficiency and frequency increases. They really didn't do much at all to the internal workings of the core that they *could* have done. On the other hand Qualcomm really made some significant changes to the older A9 technology and expanded on it loosely following the Cortex A15 design. They used the shrink to actually increase IPC performance so that on a per core basis the CPU cores would be stronger than what was out there, including the mostly A9 Exynos cores.

http://highgreatworld.blogspot.com/2011/10/qualcomms-snapdragon-s4-msm8960-krait.html

---------- Post added at 12:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 AM ----------

I could have chosen the International version with HSPA+ data and used it on ATT if benchmarking and video games were my priority. That's the point. I had a choice. I could have had unlimited HSPA+ data to boot. I could have had the Exynos if I thought it offered anything worth having. After having time to look into the performance of the two handsets, the choice was obvious to me. There is nothing at all that would benefit me by going to the International version because I don't play games or benchmark......I work a job and use mostly data. Therefore, any increases in gaming and benchmarking performance would do me no good whatsoever.

If you don't get that you need to find another way to spend your time other than trolling this thread.
[Galaxy S III General] Tomatoes8:
Oh, I edited my last post with another paragraph if you care to read it.

Oh the article said that the 28nm process shouldn't really be used in SOC's and is pretty much the same process as 32nm but is less performance oriented.

---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 PM ----------

See my reply to pewpew
[Galaxy S III General] lude219:
I wouldnt back down also had I knowingly bought an inferior chip only for the sake of having LTE so i could stream my porn 5mbps faster than those on HSPA+ :laugh::laugh:

i kid i kid...
[Galaxy S III General] neyenlives:
fixed for you :D
[Galaxy S III General] lude219:
I guess when you dont have access to wifi nearby, there's no other choices but to pay out of the butt for LTE.:good:
[Galaxy S III General] LNJ:
Wow you obviously don't know how deductive reasoning works.

You keep stating how LTE was imperative to have so really the Exynos version is out of consideration!

But seriously do you expect to win your argument here?

It's like 1 vs the entire Exynos owners plus you have yet to produce any conclusive data other than personal opinions.

Btw why don't synthetic benchmarks count?

How do you think manufacturers test their hardware?

Those are objective tests and numbers don't really lie!

Why is it okay to use benchmarks for comparing Intel vs AMD but not S4 vs Exynos?

If we follow your reasoning, the Apple A5 has to be the best dual core out there cause my iPad2 is way smoother and more fluid than my Transformer Prime with a Tegra 3!

Anyway like I said you're just wasting your breath....Samsung would not give the rest of the world a crappy cpu and NA the better one....its always the other way!

Even the Korean carriers are going to be using the Exynos so what does that tell you?
[Galaxy S III General] Baphometa:
Id personally take the 2 gigs of ram and a nice dual core over the quad and 1GB ram any day.
[Galaxy S III General] neyenlives:
it's not that expensive, I pay $140/mo for two lines with more than double the needed voice minutes, more than double the needed texting limits and unlimited 4G LTE data.....and have the two top of the line phones available, the Razr Maxx on one line and my SGSIII on the other....I feel it's a rather good deal and have no problem with it considering it gives me 4G LTE everywhere I go on both lines. Verizon has done a very good job with their LTE here. I am more than happy to be on it. WiFi is weak compared to what I get on LTE, I sit in an office all day and have WiFi everywhere in the building and I don't even use it......I stay on 4G LTE.

Im sorry you are having such a hard time with the english language.

If you read that and get out of it that "OMG YOU HAD NO CHOICE!" Then your reading comprehension fails. Why would I logically choose a handset that has the same performance in daily tasks, no warranty support from any US carrier, and lacks 4G data? There is not a single reason that makes sense. As you said....deductive reasoning....I deduce that you don't understand the words on your screen.
[Galaxy S III General] LNJ:
You still have yet to produce valid and conclusive evidence about your crusade!
[Galaxy S III General] BlueCross:
I pay $80 a month for unlimited data on 2 lines. I live in a large city where LTE coverage is abundant and reliable. I rarely game on my phone - mainly use navigation and communicate. Clearly the US variant is best for me. And besides, I can't use the international version with my carrier.

Also, there's a very noticeable difference between 3G and LTE. It's not as minuscule as some have claimed.
[Galaxy S III General] xTristinx:
saw the at&t run quadrant and the cpu was reallllly low. It was lower than the one x while the international one is higher than the one x. Also the 2 gigs isnt alot really as the reasoning with the 2 gigs was because that cpu uses more.
[Galaxy S III General] alchemist316:
I know benchmarks mean nothing really but why would evo lte out perform the sgs3 us and the international outperform both not have any lag some reason on both s4 phones I have app installs lags up the phone to which it does not on the i9300 also evo lte gets much hotter than the s3 doing similar things all of them are great phones leaps past my epic touch I don't really like Android vs android pissing contests but even if it began civil they always lead to bashing .

We all have or will great phones we will enjoy who gives a sh*# who's is a tiny bit faster damn ..
[Galaxy S III General] jayharper08:
I'm tired of coming in here cleaning up. Do not argue about petty things and keep it polite. XDA is a place to learn and share, not bicker and pester each other. Final warning.
[Galaxy S III General] nativestranger:
The adreno 220 is not the cause of a laggy sensation. I had a sensation XL prior to this and that phone performed pretty smoothly with its adreno 205.
[Galaxy S III General] neyenlives:
Agreed. Ive been in it as much as anyone but I have tried very hard to talk on facts only. To focus on the data. Unfortunately there are members who want to respond to factual information with personal snotty immature responses that are far from on topic. I'll let the poll speak for itself as it has from the beginning. I wont be posting in this thread much longer anyways. Perhaps these Samsung Exynos stockholders will have an easier way to go once we get our own discreet forum sections. Cheers all.
[Galaxy S III General] incubus26jc:
Very well said. I currently have an OG Incredible with similar but even worse specs then yourself. So This is a huge upgrade for me. I did have an Evo 3D for Development purposes but never had a chance to use is as my phone.

The only thing I can say is that app devs won't push the limits to far beyond what the Adreno 225 can offer as they know that the majority of Android users are in the Adreno 200/225 range.
[Galaxy S III General] Tomatoes8:
Here is a comparison video that bodes well for the S4 fanboys. Looks pretty much the same in that video but I would have to get my hands on one to be sure.

http://pocketnow.com/2012/06/25/showdown-quad-core-vs-dual-core-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-video/

So what is the consensus here? Some people have already came to the conclusion that two extra cores is useless for most smartphone tasks. How do we know for sure if the A15 improvements over the A9 are not also useless for most smartphone tasks? Or how do we not know how much better Samsung knows the Exynos compared to the Qualcomm S4? We don't and it is all pretty much subjective here.

The only things that we do know is that in benchmarks the GS3 wins and the S4 has LTE speeds.

I also know that my GS3 is a lot smoother than my HTC One XL was but that is just my perception.
[Galaxy S III General] neyenlives:
like you said, pretty much subjective

that review wasn't at all biased which is what I like, an objective viewpoint, not necessary to even make a S4 fanboy comment because the review is rather straightforward and without bias

that review was pretty much what I have been expecting all along, that there is no discernible difference between the two in everyday tasks. the only place you can even see a difference is when running benchmarks, which mean squat anyways and nobody uses other than to justify e-peen on internet forum boards

i didn't see the "OMG stutter" people keep talking about.....and while the quad seemed to refresh the screen a fraction of a second quicker at times, the actual application readiness seemed to happen a fraction of a second quicker on the S4....sort of a rubber band type thing going on on the quad

that coincides with another reviewers comments that the quad is initially quicker but because of inconsistent speed ends up being about the same

it's hard to watch that video and draw any other conclusion no matter what side of the fence you are on

If you asked me which one I wanted in a blind test with no other details but only one had LTE I would choose the one that supports LTE.

One thing is for sure. They seem to both equally rock.

I am now interested in overclocking overhead and software inefficiencies. Will be interesting to see where the two stand in 6 months on optimized code and with overclocked cpu's.
[Galaxy S III General] alchemist316:
I've been thinking that already I really don't know how this will turn out with over clocked cores but I've noticed a trend that most over clocked cores Max at 1.8 on avg at least most the phones I've owned .. but where I'm confused is the relatively lower score compared us s3 to evo lte not by much on avg but s3 us is yet to pass my evo lte on testing although there is more lag on evo due to sense .. I've yet to have lag on the quad core not a fan boy I own both variables of s3 I will try to make video later of all three evo lte us s3 and international. Also when the Korean one comes ill try to grab it too .
[Galaxy S III General] Tomatoes8:
Might be some masking effects in use here. I remember reading somewhere that IOS and Windows mask their lag with animations or something else. Maybe Samsung incorporates it better in the Exynos.
[Galaxy S III General] neyenlives:
Im certain once we get efficient cleaned up code on these there will be no lag. July 9th is so far away still lol
[Galaxy S III General] nativestranger:
Pretty much neck to neck in everything except the S4 version loaded up the heavy pocketnow.com desktop page faster than the international. Pop and play video is suppose to really show the strength on a quad core device even though its not a typical usage scenario and both devices perform just as well on it.

What's surprising is gaming. With all the talks here about how many gazillion times stronger the mali 400 is compared to the crappy Adreno 225, there's no difference at in actual gaming. Both device are buttery smooth according to the commentator.

Even though I love my international exynos quad GS3, quad core is still pretty underwhelming to me.
[Galaxy S III General] oswade:
That is the only flaw in the comparison imo. They tested one game, which may not be the most grapically demanding (dunno, I haven't played the game, not much of a gamer myself to be honest). So there can be no conclusive judgement.

In this sense, 3d benchmarks may actually be a useful indicator of the kind of FPS/fluidity we get in hardcore games.

Finally, people may be a buying this phone expecting it to be somewhat future proof. As games/apps/android becomes more intensive/complex, any differences in the specs may become increasingly apparent (I'm not saying this is in exynos quad's favour, only that we cannot know for certain at the current time).
[Galaxy S III General] nativestranger:
Because actual game performance and benchmarks are 2 different things. I don't buy phone primarily for gaming but even my previous phone the sensation xl with its Ardeno 205 plays any game that I throw at it without a problem. The 225 despite its deceptive naming is 4-6x the performance of the 205 and roughly 1.6-2x the 220. So while it may not be the fastest gpu out there it still compares well with tegra 3 ULP. By the time games run unacceptable on it, I would have long upgraded to a better phone.
[Galaxy S III General] ferris2375:
I often wonder how many that brag about the GPU are even playing games, or just like flexing their e-peen via useless synthetic benchmarks. I seriously can't take gaming serious on a cell phone, especially to the point where I need a GPU that can run Crysis. On the contrary 2GB of system memory is something that I would make use out of daily using my phone in a productive manner.

They are both excellent, if you are a heavy gamer then maybe it makes sense to buy the Int version, but seriously are there hardcore phone gamers? lol
[Galaxy S III General] alchemist316:
I agree .

Let me clear things idc about benchmarks at all but as of now its really the only way other than just look we have to incorporate the power we have in are hands it is silly but it is the way it is gaming on both are good some things just are a bit faster on the int version that's all and likewise for the us version so this entire comparison is silly but I seem drawn into it lol .

I love these phones and the evo lte as well all great that's all that matters to me in the end
[Galaxy S III General] neyenlives:
Well said
[Galaxy S III General] alchemist316:
I also remember qualcomm saying the adreno 220 was faster than s2s on paper real performance was much different being the epic touch spanks the evo 3d all day
[Galaxy S III General] Vibrant03:
Well, if the UI lags and stutters.. Then it shows what the soc is.. In other words it's weak.

If I owned a phone that lags or stutters, i'd admit to its shortcomings rather than be blind of them because of my pride!

Pffft..
[Galaxy S III General] stjs:
I have the S3 quad core and won a S3 LTE last week. So after reading this entire thread a few days ago I decided to open the LTE model and give it a test run to see how much better the quad core would be. The surprising thing is that the LTE version is just as fast as the quad core. Anyone would be hard pressed to tell the two models apart. I do not have LTE in my area yet (coming next month)so I fully intended to sell the LTE model. But after using it...I have decided to sell the quad core! The s4 model is faster at day to day tasks. The quad core is a little smoother but it's so small that unless you have both in hand you'll never tell. The 2gb of ram and LTE wins out in my opinion. The quad core only has 100-150mb left after you open a few apps. How many people here have used both to give there advice on which is better? I am a phone junkie and have always had the fastest device,and I would say that either phone is a win. So anyone here buying the LTE version should not feel like they got a inferior model! A pic to prove I have both;)
[Galaxy S III General] neyenlives:
sounds like an unbiased objective opinion with both devices in hand, thanks for the input, can't say I am surprised by your assessment :good:
[Galaxy S III General] nativestranger:
Thanks for the info. Pls test gaming on Riptide GP, multitasking and sound quality before selling. I am curious to see if gaming and sound quality is that much better on the exynos version.
[Galaxy S III General] dasistsparta:
I tested them both. Idk why the us version felt like it had cheaper plastic. Its lock button and home button didnt feel right. Anyways yes was nice to se that there is 1gb free ram left in the usa version. They pretty much are par when comes to daily usage. What worried me was the reception. The usa versiononly had 2 bars while the intl had 4. I might just keep the usa version since it cost me less and once I know for sure the korean model is compatible I will get that. Although I think att will soon surprise us with a gs3 skyrocket...
[Galaxy S III General] neyenlives:
What would an ATT GSIII Skyrocket be like? I can't imagine it would be any better than the GSIII....
[Galaxy S III General] graffixnyc:
It would be like the korean version that was announced today with quad core exynos 2gb of ram and lte, that would be my guess anyway. I could see them doing that considering they released the GS2 skyrocket shortly after the galaxy s II on att. They released the normal GS2 then a few months later came out with the skyrocket which had a 4.5 inch screen instead of the 4.3, and had LTE when the normal GS2 was HSPA+. Plus the skyrocket was introduced exclusively in korea first very much like the one announced today branded the GS2 LTE. So I could really see ATT doing that again and getting the quadcore exynos, 2gb of ram and lte.
[Galaxy S III General] stjs:
I was also wondering about the sound difference with the quad core having "wolfren" so I did a sound comparison with a set of sennheiser headphones and found the quad S3 to be warmer sounding,and the S4 to be louder...very similar to to iPhone sound in my opinion. Both sounded good,but neither was better then the other. Will give Riptide a go latter at home. But I did notice that Temple run was smoother on the quad core. But very playable on the S4.
[Galaxy S III General] dasistsparta:
the heat is a little bit annoying in the usa gs3...maybe because it is 103 outside lol
[Galaxy S III General] Totòòò:
I think att will for sure get it by second half of june, while about tmobile I doubt it...
[Galaxy S III General] Tsukurimashou:
I hope there will be benchmark, battery life tests, multitasking tests, etc... soon, I really don't know which one to pick and people are just saying ****, some will say the dual core is more powerful, some are saying quad is better, some will say 2gb is a must, other will say 2gb is useless...
[Galaxy S III General] coolmil:
Quad core + 1gb.

Isn't that enough, the ram almost never gets full.
[Galaxy S III General] DaveBG:
... if you run 1 app at a time....
[Galaxy S III General] Totòòò:
interesting article http://www.tmonews.com/2012/05/editorial-why-a-snapdragon-s4-galaxy-s-iii-is-awesome/