Slashdot Mirror

Galaxy S III > Iphone 5 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?q=Samsung+Galaxy+S+III

I think he is looking at the data from Geekbench directly.

Search for galaxy s iii here and you find a plethora of results ranging from 1271 to 2081 on the first page itself most of which when compared against the IPhone 5,2 page here shows higher scores for memory tests on the iPhone 5.

Just wondering why they chose the 1560 result over the others.

I think he is looking at the data from Geekbench directly.

Search for galaxy s iii here and you find a plethora of results ranging from 1271 to 2081 on the first page itself most of which when compared against the IPhone 5,2 page here shows higher scores for memory tests on the iPhone 5.

Just wondering why they chose the 1560 result over the others.

The summary is bollocks. The iPhone 5 is faster than the dual-core Galaxy S III. The quad-core Galaxy SIII is faster than the iPhone 5.

The summary is bollocks. The iPhone 5 is faster than the dual-core Galaxy S III. The quad-core Galaxy SIII is faster than the iPhone 5.

That chart is not an average.
See here a list of all Galaxy S III scores.

I'm looking at the linked article, and that doesn't seem to be the case. It shows the Galaxy SIII at 1560 while it shows the iPhone 5 at 1601. Care to elaborate?

Actually, it's not.

There seem to be plenty of S3's in their database that still beat the iP5. There are dual and quad core variants of the S3. Though it doesn't matter because it seems the S3 is actually still faster according to the current, real data on their site.

Sorry, I can't find the text you mention as "from the linked article". Can you please point out where one of the linked articles says that?

The only thing I could find is this page saying that the A6 running at 1.02 GHz scored 1601, while this chart says that the average Galaxy S3 running at 1400 MHz gets a score of 1560, i.e., the S3 scores slightly lower even though the clock runs 37% faster.

What am I missing?

Sorry, I can't find the text you mention as "from the linked article". Can you please point out where one of the linked articles says that?

The only thing I could find is this page saying that the A6 running at 1.02 GHz scored 1601, while this chart says that the average Galaxy S3 running at 1400 MHz gets a score of 1560, i.e., the S3 scores slightly lower even though the clock runs 37% faster.

What am I missing?

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?page=1&q=S+III&utf8=%E2%9C%93

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1012560
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/995810
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/912975

s3 is not slower. my bet that the variance in benchmarks is totally related to the cpu wantonly clocking down to save power while running the benchmark (eg it wasn't plugged into power at the time and the benchmark doesn't have root access to force the cpu to to clock speed). thus reality is you actually have to take the highest numbers as the real number given interference with clocking down and maybe even other running tasks will drag the benchmark down.

one thing the iphone5 is good as it memory bandwidth. that is where it kicks butt. it'll help memory constrained tests a lot.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?page=1&q=S+III&utf8=%E2%9C%93

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1012560
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/995810
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/912975

s3 is not slower. my bet that the variance in benchmarks is totally related to the cpu wantonly clocking down to save power while running the benchmark (eg it wasn't plugged into power at the time and the benchmark doesn't have root access to force the cpu to to clock speed). thus reality is you actually have to take the highest numbers as the real number given interference with clocking down and maybe even other running tasks will drag the benchmark down.

one thing the iphone5 is good as it memory bandwidth. that is where it kicks butt. it'll help memory constrained tests a lot.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?page=1&q=S+III&utf8=%E2%9C%93

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1012560
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/995810
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/912975

s3 is not slower. my bet that the variance in benchmarks is totally related to the cpu wantonly clocking down to save power while running the benchmark (eg it wasn't plugged into power at the time and the benchmark doesn't have root access to force the cpu to to clock speed). thus reality is you actually have to take the highest numbers as the real number given interference with clocking down and maybe even other running tasks will drag the benchmark down.

one thing the iphone5 is good as it memory bandwidth. that is where it kicks butt. it'll help memory constrained tests a lot.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?page=1&q=S+III&utf8=%E2%9C%93

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1012560
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/995810
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/912975

s3 is not slower. my bet that the variance in benchmarks is totally related to the cpu wantonly clocking down to save power while running the benchmark (eg it wasn't plugged into power at the time and the benchmark doesn't have root access to force the cpu to to clock speed). thus reality is you actually have to take the highest numbers as the real number given interference with clocking down and maybe even other running tasks will drag the benchmark down.

one thing the iphone5 is good as it memory bandwidth. that is where it kicks butt. it'll help memory constrained tests a lot.

Can you provide a citation for those numbers? TFA links here, which lists Galaxy SIII and Galaxy Nexus at 1560 and 1039 respectively.