yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[HTC Pico (Explorer)] manthan808:
Have u forgot to resize the launcher..

Please resize it..
[HTC Pico (Explorer)] Hemanth97:
Why not try searching in Google as '' touchwiz 4 launcher mdpi'':confused:
[HTC Pico (Explorer)] manthan808:
Searched like hell...if u can find it than please post the link..I want it badly..and some of the launchers don't work on ics.. so please..ill be very thankful..
[HTC Pico (Explorer)] manthan808:
Anybody there..???
[Galaxy S 4 General] yahyoh:
[YOUTUBE]JN-L7fMlBj4[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]AFLerUq8nTg[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]PeSbGnhdueU[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]VxmsEfrB5pU[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]AVWUJd5Gemk[/YOUTUBE]

here is video from phonearena but cpu look throttled on Antutu

[YOUTUBE]hOCpY9y4woU[/YOUTUBE]

GLbenchmark

from GSMarena review :

those benchmarks are really on the Qualcomm S600 version ( GT-I9505 )
[Galaxy S 4 General] not_a_username:
what about Galaxy S4 (Exynos Octa 1,6 GHz, PowerVR SGX 544MP) vs Galaxy S4 (Snapdragon 600 quad-core 1.9Ghz, Andreno 320) including battery live tests?
[Galaxy S 4 General] BoneXDA:
Samsung will only start manufacturing the Octa-core in Q2, so don't expect release-ready 5410 benchmarks anytime soon. Which poses the question: what CPU will the international version feature?
[Galaxy S 4 General] yahyoh:
Sasmsung Exynos page said all the non US versions will have Exynos Octa :rolleyes:
[Galaxy S 4 General] BoneXDA:
Yet the release date of the SIV is earlier than the announced manufacturing date of the Exynos 5401 Octa. That's why I'm asking.
[Galaxy S 4 General] Toss3:
They are wrong. Never believe anything they tweet.
[Galaxy S 4 General] SaschaHa:
Here in Germany we will get the S600 version instead of Exynos Octa :(
[Galaxy S 4 General] yahyoh:
how did u know ?
[Galaxy S 4 General] yahyoh:
Hmm...IDK but they are Really an Official Samsung page

http://www.samsung.com/global/busin...X6UGrhEUgpxncvSSQJXQWhzya8tUdiOnHLLJq3ie_1g==

look at the end of the page :rolleyes:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...99272.356011241142009&type=1&relevant_count=1 ( read the comments )
[Galaxy S 4 General] daniel4653:
Can't believe people complain about the processor. I'm fine with a snapdragon 600. I

http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb374/TexasEpic/ThePeoplesROM-KennyGlass123/daniel4653.png
[Galaxy S 4 General] hot_spare:
Sunspider on Qualcomm 600 1.9 GHz:

SunSpider on Exynos 5410 @ 1.2 GHz:

Octane on Exynos 5410 @ 1.2 Ghz:

Forget about the Tegra 4 comparison. That's just pure benchmarking.
[Galaxy S 4 General] daleski75:
Everything is shaping up for the qualcomm and the exynos to be neck and neck performance wise.
[Galaxy S 4 General] BoneXDA:
IMO Snapdragon 600 is clocked at 1.9GHz for the very reason to match the Octa performance.
[Galaxy S 4 General] daleski75:
I agree and also I reckon the exynos will win some benchmarks and vice versa but overall I doubt there will be any difference.

Battery life however that will be very interesting to see when the phone officially ships and the reviews start flooding in.
[Galaxy S 4 General] BoneXDA:
Personally I wouldn't even mind if 5410 underperformed in benchmarks as it will not be noticeacble in real life performance, but a step forward in battery life. Which is the reason I'd underclock any A15 quad anyway, so 1.6GHz for the main 4 and 1.2GHz for the A7s looks ideal for battery : performance ratio.
[Galaxy S 4 General] hot_spare:
Anandtec/Arstechnica are saying that it's 1.2Ghz for big core and 1.6Ghz for little core.

UPDATE: Anand now says that he is yet to verify the clocks of A15/A7. He was just "told" these values and will confirm the information later.

It's clearly aimed at improving the battery performance.

Clear that even at 1.2 Ghz, it outperforms the 600 @ 1.9Ghz.

Also, it outperforms HTC One/XZ. I would be delighted if it's running at 1.2Ghz. This would mean exceptional battery life. I am more than willing to give up a few brownie points for benchmark and gain 2 more hours of battery life.
[Galaxy S 4 General] rapidcat:
but indonesia version have Qualcomm processor (+ LTE maybe) under name GT-I9505X
[Galaxy S 4 General] BoneXDA:
The A15 cores will be the higher clocked ones obviously. This prototype actually runs the A15s up to 1.8GHz, AnTuTu lands around the SD600@1.9 mark. 1.6GHz Octa clock should land somewhere just below the SD600, but it's still very early to jump to conclusions, as Octa-core is still not yet ready.
[Galaxy S 4 General] djbenny1:
will be interesting to see how the a15s throttle.

sure, theyre more powerful - but for how long and at what cost on battery life.

at this point i definitely think the s600 gs4 is the one to have.
[Galaxy S 4 General] hot_spare:
I don't worry, nor care about Antutu. It's a

device

benchmark, not a CPU benchmark. Ridiculously inconsistent results.

As for prototype device, it's just an engineering model. They have already announced the clocks for production model. So. possibilities are at this time A15 @1.6Ghz and A7 @1.2Ghz. Or the reverse order.
[Galaxy S 4 General] Squirrel1620:
Drivers make a big difference too. Also pure aosp has less things running that the heavier sense and touchwiz ui
[Galaxy S 4 General] touness69:
Could've been a valid point but Optimus G that is essentially the same hardware as the Nexus 4 is constantly 3000-4000 below it..

This bench is completely biased
[Galaxy S 4 General] shox22:
The One is running with 4.1.1 and old qualcomm drivers. The nexus is on 4.2.2 and newest drivers.

The qualcomm drivers for 4.2.2 will increase the opel gl performance on the one. (as they did on the s4 s600 and n4).
[Galaxy S 4 General] touness69:
it seems so yeah

wait and see
[Galaxy S 4 General] supersain08:
Does not matter this test. Nexus 4 has the latest drivers from Qualcomm and Adreno 320 is one of the fastest gpu.
[Galaxy S 4 General] jianlinooi:
http://translate.googleusercontent....v.html&usg=ALkJrhiuR9YsGsJsSYlgPrcchab63cTyfw

1.6ghz octa score 3.5k in geekbench while 1.9ghz s600 3.1k

octa has more potential..

http://9to5google.com/2013/03/18/th...ekbench-score-of-iphone-5-and-blackberry-z10/
[Galaxy S 4 General] touness69:
The problem is that HTC One has ADRENO 320 too but it got a far lower score than nexus 4
[Galaxy S 4 General] -]Megacharge[-:
Older drivers and OS.
[Galaxy S 4 General] Baldilocks:
Meh, they both have great potential and I doubt anyone will be able to even notice any difference between the two.
[Galaxy S 4 General] Toss3:
Logic tells us that there shouldn't be a difference, but there still might be one, due to architectural differences(my Nexus 4 still sometimes feels like it is lagging in games, where as my SGS3 had no such issues, even though the latter should be considerably slower).
[Galaxy S 4 General] i9100g user:
More benchmarks and stress benchmarks came up
[Galaxy S 4 General] yahyoh:
:cool::cool:
[Galaxy S 4 General] i9100g user:
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Base...hes-on-Android-Galaxy-S4-ranks-on-top_id41718

This is s600 version though

sent from an Galaxy s3 GT I9300

Running perseus kernel 33.1 , XELLA 4.1.2 leaked build

:D xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1784401

The other side of XDA :rolleyes:
[Galaxy S 4 General] touness69:
Yes it will be very informative to see Basemark score of the OCTA version : )
[Galaxy S 4 General] CLARiiON:
Greetings! I am interested in getting a new phone. Options for me are GS4 and One. Both have certain advantages. Was also looking at XZ initially, but not impressed with it.

Was looking at 3DMark scores with interest as this is a new benchmark. Qualcomm seem to do better in that. I saw in the forums that One was scoring better (in Default mode) compared to Exynos version of GS4.

Today I saw the 3DMark scores for GS4 9505 version with qualcomm 600.

techhive.de/ htc-schlagt-galaxy-s4-im-3d-mark-benchmark-1042673/

(remove space after de/ in above link)

Notice that the Qualcomm and Exynos version of GS4 seem to give almost identical scores.

Extreme scores are quite similar for One and GS4 (both versions).

Default scores are much better in HTC One compared to both versions of GS4.

No idea why same SOC would give such different results on different phones. Maybe beta software in GS4.
[Galaxy S 4 General] dlutz8:
Att S4 after latest firmware update.
[Galaxy S 4 General] yahyoh:
Good :good:
[Galaxy S 4 General] CLARiiON:
RL Benchmark SQLite

This is the best number I have seen from a mobile. I have always felt that this is one area which is ignored by many reviewers. AFAIK, even Anand/Brian Klug failed to test the HTC One storage performance.

[YOUTUBE]eAcMV1uvs4M[/YOUTUBE]

Ask any Asus Transformer owner about bad storage performance, and you will know the importance of good NAND.

I don't know about HTC One, but this should be among the best numbers for this test.

GS3 was taking about 20 secs for this test last year. Someone can try this to compare. Just search for RL Benchmark SQLite.

Yet to get results for Androbench.

Xperia Z numbers in this youtube video - 4I0hCB8hq-0
[Galaxy S 4 General] yahyoh:
^^

Note 2

edit : my GS2
[Galaxy S 4 General] yahyoh:
GT-I9505 benchmarks

[YOUTUBE]ek6XdaJ-DG4[/YOUTUBE]

:good:
[Galaxy S 4 General] Canard caché:
25000 and not 23000 anymore!!!! vs28000 octa... closer! :D
[Galaxy S 4 General] AVTR1337:
i exactly thought the same, i think i really will stay with the i9505 in austria,

i dont want to wait some months for the i9500 octa version.
[Galaxy S 4 General] Canard caché:
for me it's clear: 9505... also for the support (and new firmware rapidely?^^)

3000 you will see nothing as difference...

And gpu is better on 9505... can't wait!
[Galaxy S 4 General] AVTR1337:
adreno 320 is better than the powervr chip?

really? do you have sources for me? sounds interesting.

i had the s3, i had the paranoid android ROM on it, for me, i dont want another rom than this, the phablet mode is so damn awesome!

sadly the s3 had an exynos, which sucked, because u dont get any sources, and so the ROM buildes have work on it for themselves.

so from this viewing angle, the i9505 is also better, and also 70% of all S4s will be the snapdragon version.
[Galaxy S 4 General] Canard caché:
It's not in benchmarks but with video about gaming with the two models:

9505 are no problem and it's fluent perfectly...

9500 have fps drop ... and sluggering (a little) ... you can see it in the subject gaming...
[Galaxy S 4 General] AVTR1337:
yeah, well, fps drops an sluggering means for me: software not optimized to 100% they will fix it.
[Galaxy S 4 General] Canard caché:
yes... but perhaps not in the same time...

developping a software on a new gpu+cpu not very spread is less interestiing ^^
[Galaxy S 4 General] AVTR1337:
hmm not pleased with that, well the important thing is that it reaches 25k, and the octa 27k, that's a difference im okay with.

custom ROMs will come out more on the i9505 and if i wake up one day, thinkin that my e-peen is too small, then i'll just overclock this ****ing thing,

till i get the scores from the i9500 :D
[Galaxy S 4 General] CLARiiON:
^^

I am not sure how fps drops can be attributed to 'worse' GPU.

Last few years when the IE used to freeze a lot, used to stutter, nobody blamed it on the Intel/AMD processor.
[Galaxy S 4 General] Canard caché:
... the results... is the important thing...
[Galaxy S 4 General] Toss3:
Well, if it runs great on other GPUs, then it's probably a bad GPU driver, or just too slow a GPU. Simple logic. IE froze and stuttered on all CPUs, which is why no one blamed AMD or Intel.
[Galaxy S 4 General] Mondoz:
Nobody ever seems to compare the benchmarks for the S4 to my phone.

I wonder if that means my glorious HTC Evo 4G is faster. :silly:
[Galaxy S 4 General] i9100g user:
GT-I9500 scores 29293 in antutu;)
[Galaxy S 4 General] jianlinooi:
awesome....pawns the leak toshiba tablet powered by tegra 4 which score 28k something

exynos octa is on par with tegra 4 for cpu performance....
[Galaxy S 4 General] :
What is it that you all love about benchmarks on phones? I don't get it as you wont see the difference in real life use. My missing something here that I should be excited about or is it just a geek thing ;)
[Galaxy S 4 General] resore:
@up

maybe because thread is called '.:::::Galaxy S4 Benchmarks thread:::::.'
[Galaxy S 4 General] :
Well that doesn't explain why your all love benchmarks does it. Read what I said. :good:
[Galaxy S 4 General] touness69:
there is no explanatikn bro, that is just the famous "who have the biggest one" contest that we all know and love for years ;)
[Galaxy S 4 General] lostmyphone:
As you may or may not know, phones are getting almost PC like: 1.9GHz quad-core? 2Gb RAM??...In a phone??? (-:

Benching will stress its components to give an idea of capability. So you'll probably see games get a little more intense and larger in the not-so-far future. We'll probably even have Android ports of new PC games soon. /shrug

Been benching my PC's for over 10 years. Now I can bench my phone? Hell yea. Cool stuff.
[Galaxy S 4 General] resore:
well it kinda does, it attracts ppl who actually are interested in benchmarks. imho paying attention to benchmarks has nothing to do with love
[Galaxy S 4 General] bala_gamer:
here
[Galaxy S 4 General] :
You have also misunderstand what I have said.

I'm asking why it means so much to some of you guys. None of you have explained why other than trying to be funny and failing.
[Galaxy S 4 General] PLUG313:
you know, those 3000 points in antutu over the snapdragon version for example really do matter

you have to know which device will work better in the long run, because one day maybe the snapdragon version may struggle with some games while those 3000 points of the A15's make a huge difference

and that's just an example, I'd say the same over choosing the One or the S4 IF we were discussing the processing power only

that's why I care (and I don't even care THAT much tbh, I am just curious to know)
[Galaxy S 4 General] :
Thank you, a proper answer. :good:
[Galaxy S 4 General] MaKTaiL:
I have yet to see a video of S4 running a benchmark of Epic Citadel. Anyone?
[Galaxy S 4 General] bala_gamer:
it should be a piece of cake for both s4 variants, s3 with mali400 scores 55+ fps easily with the new mali drivers.
[Galaxy S 4 General] MaKTaiL:
Mali400 is a pretty bad GPU. My mom's Galaxy Note 2 scores 48.6FPS whereas my friend's Galaxy Grand Duos with PowerVX scores locked 60FPS.

Since i9500 now has a PowerVX and i9505 has an Adreno 320 it should be a piece of cake. :victory:

I still wanna see a benchmark for it though. Hehehehehe.
[Galaxy S 4 General] system.img:
Grand Duos has Broadcom VideoCore IV GPU and not "PowerVX"! :p
[Galaxy S 4 General] hung2900:
720p and 480p is much much different man.
[Galaxy S 4 General] AVTR1337:
Someone ordering from there :D ?

http://www.sammobile.com/2013/04/17/order-your-galaxy-s4-in-china
[Galaxy S 4 General] ChronoReverse:
Some very interesting results if you take a look at all the available information.

As expected, the PowerVR GPU (equivalent to the new iPads) is faster than the Adreno 320 (but the margin is small enough that if the +50% claim for the Adreno 330 is true, then that'll be the new top dog).

But the A15 unexpectedly has a smaller edge over the Snapdragon 600 than what many have been saying. In fact, the Snapdragon 600 at 1.9GHz is _slightly faster_ than the 1.8GHz A15 when doing floating point operations.

However, integer is significantly slower and memory bandwidth isn't even close. So the A15 is still definitely the better CPU.
[Galaxy S 4 General] i9100g user:
Where did you get that ? Source please .

And A15s are clocked at 1.6ghz according to what we know now.
[Galaxy S 4 General] CLARiiON:
Check the Geekbench scores for Exynos and 600. It should include those parameters. Don't know which was higher though.
[Galaxy S 4 General] ChronoReverse:
Antutu floating point benchmarks. It's in this thread so I shouldn't have to hunt it down for you. The A15 numbers have ranged from 5500ish to 5900ish but the S600 numbers are in the 6000ish range. It's one of the most unexpected results for me anyway (although it does lend credence to Qualcomm's claims that their Snapdragon 800 will match/beat the A15).

As for the the clock speed of the A15 in the GS4, it was claimed 1.6GHz at the announcements but for some reason everyone is benching at 1.8GHz. For all we know, it'll be 1.6GHz at launch or the benchmarking tools are just misreading the clocks (maybe taking the A7 clocks? but the A7 was only supposed to be at 1.2GHz).
[Galaxy S 4 General] yahyoh:
HMM

and

krait 300 will never ever be powerful as A15 cores with HKMG ( S600 @1.9 scored about 26k in antutu Octa @1.6 scored 28k-29K ) ;)

edit : don't forget the Octa has slightly higher memory bandwidth too , BTW Octa scored about 3650 in Geekbench @1.6 S600 scored 3200 @1.9 :D
[Galaxy S 4 General] ChronoReverse:
Um, that top screenshot shows the Exynos scoring 5939 in floating point. At 1.8GHz I might add. It's written on the bottom.

The S600 scores 6011.

So maybe you shouldn't be all smug and going "HMM". Especially since I was actually digging into the useful scores like memory bandwidth, floating point, integer and 3D as separate things instead of one general mishmash number.
[Galaxy S 4 General] yahyoh:
^^

its @1.6 ( just wrong reading by Antutu ;) )
[Galaxy S 4 General] ChronoReverse:
So yeah, if you had definite information (the second screenshot is also Antutu it seems so it's not exactly proof of anything) you only need say "Antutu's just inaccurate" and posted the info.
[Galaxy S 4 General] CLARiiON:
HTC One Geekbench showing the Qualcomm 600 numbers.

Now for GS4 Qualcomm version, it should be like 10-15% better because of clock speed.

For Exynos version:

Even though Exynos is clocked slower, it beats 600 in integer and floating point operations.
[Galaxy S 4 General] ChronoReverse:
I'm assuming those numbers are supposed to be in the same order for both screenshots? Seems REALLY off to me.

It's showing much higher bandwidth for the S600 compared to the Exynos but we know the Exynos should have much better bandwidth?

It wouldn't be unusual for a benchmark to happen to be optimized in a way such that a result is skewed a bit but a complete flip of results seems unusual?
[Galaxy S 4 General] CLARiiON:
These are in same order.

Bandwidth number is more in Exynos, memory performance is lesser.
[Galaxy S 4 General] ChronoReverse:
There are also more problems. The HTC One is using slower RAM than the GS4 is as well as a lower version of Android.

Geekbench isn't a good enough benchmark to not be skewed by that in the past so this is a strange result.
[Galaxy S 4 General] yahyoh:
there is definitely something wrong with the Octa geekbench ( my note 2 score about 1600 in memory ) :eek:

just wait for the final version :rolleyes:

BTW here's I9505 geekbench

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1814996

edit : as u can see the N10 score about 2500 in memory ;)

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1876024

so the Octa should score even higher

another one

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1852982 with 2780 in memory :D
[Galaxy S 4 General] ChronoReverse:
Ah that's an interesting one. Looks like for Geekbench, the CPU results increase more than just the clockspeed boost when going from the Htc One to the GS4.
[Galaxy S 4 General] CLARiiON:
RAM isn't the only parameter. Yes, GS4 uses LPDDR3.

If you check the figures, it says memory bandwidth performance is more on Exynos.

You can find discrepancy in every benchmark.

Here's the explanation on these 2 parameters in Geekbench.
[Galaxy S 4 General] ChronoReverse:
I'm not sure you understood what I meant. The numbers on the supposed Exynos GS4 seem very unusual considering what we already know of the Exynos performance.

yahyoh has posted much more useful results from Geekbench's site.

Hmm, the composite floating point and integer numbers isn't as useful number it seems for comparing the dual A15 and quad S600. It's a combined score of both multi and single core versions of the same tests and thus is bit skewed towards the dual core.

Looks like we'll have to wait for the result from the GS4 Exynos to have a better comparative.
[Galaxy S 4 General] yahyoh:
memory bandwidth better on Exynos 4412 with LPDDR2 than S600 with LPDDR3 :D :p

and cpu integer about the same with Exynos 4412 :eek: ( compared to HTC One )

my N2 @1.6 :cool:
[Galaxy S 4 General] ChronoReverse:
Yeah, that's just weird. As much as the Snapdragon S4 isn't as fast as the A15, it's also pretty conclusively faster than the A9.
[Galaxy S 4 General] i9100g user:
I disagree that S600 has some sort of advantage in float point performance over A15.

Take a look at tegra 4 benchmarks below , which has a A15 quad core. (Clocked at 1900mhz same as S600).

The reason(s) for exynos octa scoring so low are many,it might be throttling due to heat/power constrains, or maybe A7 cores were active for some time.

S800 would be the competitor for A15 (with that higher clock frequency on Krait 400 cpu, yet A15s should have higher ipc) this year not S600.

1.6Ghz is the clock frequency of A15s in exynos octa, Anandtech said that and no current benchmarking application can read the clock frequency of A15 or A7 cluster correctly.
[Galaxy S 4 General] ChronoReverse:
No, A15 is designed for slightly lower target clocks than the Snapdragons are.

That's why you can't directly compare a tablet A15 with the phone one (and also the reason it's 1.6GHz versus 1.9GHz).

Without the constraints of a phone, you can clock the Snapdragon higher as well so it's not something you can directly compare since they haven't made a S600 tablet.

In any case, if you have an A15 that is theoretically faster but isn't faster in practice because it keeps throttling itself, then you really can't cite the max theoretical numbers. It's worthless unless it's actually usable.
[Galaxy S 4 General] Terrorantula:
The A15 uses a lot of power, I have my doubts over how much it'll be used and when it is what is the battery life like. For example when you're playing a game I'm guessing it'll use the A15, maybe under power saver it'll use the A7, now what will the battery life be using the A15 and the performance be of the A7

Looking at the CPU benchmarks, the Exynos scores around the same as the Snapdragon 600, there is barely any difference. It's the GPU that makes all the difference but we'll have to see how they both stack up in day to day use.

Also DDR2 and DDR3 I bet you see no difference what so ever, I mean you could use DDR2 on your PC if it allowed it and you'd see no performance differences in anything other than benchmarks.
[Galaxy S 4 General] dlutz8:
Here is a benchmark from epic citadel on the at&t S4 with the adreno 320
[Galaxy S 4 General] yahyoh:
games mostly need GPU power more than CPU power so mostly games will run on the A7 which should be more than enough for games

i hope u r not joking :cyclops:

S600 @1.9 barely scored 26k in antutu while Octa [MENTION=1247388]1.6[/MENTION] scored 28-29K , in geekbench cpu integer scored 2500 for Octa and 2300 for S600

while cpu floating point for Octa 6300 and S600 scored 5100

and there is no big difference but DDR3 still faster with lower latency + higher bandwidth ( but Snap S600 seems don't support 800MHz RAM clock , Octa scored 1420 in ram bandwidth while S600 scored 650)
[Galaxy S 4 General] Baldilocks:
Silly arguments. Both of these variants are nearly identical. If both were unlabeled you wouldn't notice any difference. Childish.

Sent from my HTC One X
[Galaxy S 4 General] i9100g user:
Actually A15s(currently) clock upto 2GHz and S600 maxes out at 1890mhz, but due to various constrains at 28nm, you would not see such high clocks this year on a A15 SoC, and by next year we will see 2Ghz+ clocked A15s.

Still we don't have enough evidence to say that those benchmarks were running on A15 cores not A7 cores, and there are new benchmarks coming up constantly (exynos scores 29k in latest benchmark)

which we are yet to see in detail.

sent from an Galaxy s3 GT I9300

Running perseus kernel 33.1 , XELLA 4.1.2 leaked build

:D xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1784401

The other side of XDA :rolleyes:
[Galaxy S 4 General] PLUG313:
so no overclocking for us i9505 users?