Samsung Caught Boosting Galaxy S4 Benchmarks

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Caught Boosting Galaxy S4 Benchmarks

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @12:12AM from the not-that-you-should-buy-a-phone-for-its-benchmarks dept.

A recent forum post at Beyond3D made an interesting claim: that the Samsung Galaxy S4's GPU ran at 532 MHz for certain whitelisted benchmark applications, and at 480 MHz for everything else. The folks at AnandTech decided to investigate and found out that the phone does indeed let its GPU run at a higher frequency when particular benchmark software is running. They found a similar oddity with the CPU — it wasn't restricted for other apps, but it was forced to run at max speed during benchmarks. Then they decided to look for direct evidence that this was intentional. "Poking around I came across the application changing the DVFS behavior to allow these frequency changes – TwDVFSApp.apk. Opening the file in a hex editor and looking at strings inside (or just running strings on the .odex file) pointed at what appeared to be hard coded profiles/exceptions for certain applications. The string 'BenchmarkBooster' is a particularly telling one. ... Quadrant standard, advanced, and professional, linpack (free, not paid), Benchmark Pi, and AnTuTu are all called out specifically. Nothing for GLBenchmark 2.5.1 though, despite its similar behavior."

234 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 00:15 · Score: -1, Troll

Newsflash. Apple do exactly the same thing, as does every other manufacturer.
1. Re: And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 00:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Source, proof, evidence or STFU.
2. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by beltsbear · 2013-07-31 00:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, they don't. There is a difference between optimizing a system and overclocking just for specific benchmark apps. Samsung could get fraud charges on this one if they advertised or published the benchmarked speed. It is less obvious if they did not do the publishing themselves.
3. Re: And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 00:24 · Score: -1
  
  Here you go
  http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57593426-92/debate-sparked-about-benchmark-for-intel-arm-chips/
4. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 00:26 · Score: 0
  
  No, they don't.
  Though I agree the burden of proof is on the accuser, that is a very definitive statement, how do you know for sure? We didn't know this about Samsung either before recently, and digging into this on other phones could reveal more. Without such information I agree with the other response to the OP though:
  
  "Source, proof, evidence or STFU".
5. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 00:33 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  Posts like this is proof to me that as much as the Fandroids out there claim they have a better gizmo in their pocket that they know the truth is that Apple is better. You don't compare yourself to someone who you think you're leaving in the dust. A real winner doesn't look back at the competition and spit in their eye to make themselves feel better... they feel better because they are better.
  
  No different than how Samsung made tons of commercials poking fun of iPhone users. If you make a better product just show the product. If you make an inferior product then take cheap shots at the competition.
6. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Joce640k · 2013-07-31 00:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No different than how Samsung made tons of commercials poking fun of iPhone users. If you make a better product just show the product. If you make an inferior product then take cheap shots at the competition.
  Yep. Apple would never make adverts poking fun at the competition...
  
  --
  No sig today...
7. Re: And you think they're the only one why? by Geoffrey.landis · 2013-07-31 00:38 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Here you go
  http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57593426-92/debate-sparked-about-benchmark-for-intel-arm-chips/
  Meh. That link basically says that there are different results from different benchmarks. It says that it's a "not uncommon assertion" that companies "have attempted in the past to "manipulate" benchmarks", but that's not the same as finding code that overclocks the chip specifically when it's running benchmark programs
  
  --
  http://www.geoffreylandis.com
8. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by gnasher719 · 2013-07-31 00:41 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Yep. Apple would never make adverts poking fun at the competition...
  Apple makes fun of competitors. Samsung makes fun of their competitor's customers. Big difference.
  
  Microsoft on the other hand also did an advert making fun of fanboys and fandroids (in other words, not the typical user) which was quite funny for everybody who cares for these things (and probably went over everyone else's head).
9. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by dugancent · 2013-07-31 00:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's nice. It's still unethical and should be treated as such.
  
  --
  SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
10. Re: And you think they're the only one why? by Mabhatter · 2013-07-31 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  They lose TWO INTERNETS today!
  Don't make us take away another one.
11. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 00:53 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  So those Apple Commercials where the Apple spokesman is a "hip guy" while the "PC" guy is some nerd are not making fun of the customers?
12. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Xest · 2013-07-31 00:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Except they're not overclocking anything because the GPU is rated for 533mhz.
  They're just making sure that even if the benchmark apps don't tell it to work in it's most high performance profile that it does, because the whole point in benchmarks is to give a benchmark of the optimal performance of a device.
  The danger is that if they don't do this then the benchmark programs will give a misleading view of the performance capabilities of the device because they'll only be running it in the more power saving oriented default mode.
  What's the alternative, they don't do this and shitty benchmark apps that take no advantage of the optimisation options for the device suggest it's not as powerful as it really is and so they get slated for it being underpowered even if that's not true?
13. Re: And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  Nope. Those ads are making fun of PC guys.
14. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  You know this how? There's no way to tell if Apple does this or not since their OS is closed source..
15. Re: And you think they're the only one why? by dimeglio · 2013-07-31 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  This is just like steroids in sports. Shameful.
  
  --
  Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
16. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by NatasRevol · 2013-07-31 01:09 · Score: 0
  
  How is it not true that it's underpowered if it only runs in power-saving mode for the user?
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
17. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Wow. Did you even read the article. Or even the summary? They aren't doing this to ensure the device isn't running in power saving mode. The enhanced frequency is _ONLY_ available to benchmark tests. The code even refers to it as BenchmarkBooster. What do you possibly think BenchmarkBooster does?
  Seriously, you are the personification of "fandroid" right now.
18. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by hattig · 2013-07-31 01:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  But the device doesn't do 533MHz for the GPU in any other use case, the top clock for the GPU is 480MHz.
  This isn't "forcing the system into optimal mode for benchmarks so that power saving, etc, doesn't futz the result".
  This is forcing the GPU into a state that never can be attained by any other software on the system.
  Of course I'm not ignoring the fact that another Samsung device runs at 533MHz and this was a bad cut and paste job onto the new device!
19. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Xest · 2013-07-31 01:11 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  It doesn't. Other applications can run at 533mhz, it's just that that's not usually necessary and hence preferable to save power.
20. Re: And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  And "PC guys" are customers of IBM PC compatible brand. so yes, they made fun of the competitions customers.
21. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Xest · 2013-07-31 01:16 · Score: -1, Redundant
  
  "But the device doesn't do 533MHz for the GPU in any other use case"
  Yes it does, and given that the rest of your post is based on that incorrect premise then you are simply wrong.
22. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Provide an example of a thirdparty app running at 533MHz on the S4.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
23. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 01:20 · Score: 2
  
  Does it?
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
24. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by whisper_jeff · 2013-07-31 01:22 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It doesn't. Other applications can run at 533mhz...
  No. They can't. Please try reading the article.
  http://www.anandtech.com/show/7187/looking-at-cpugpu-benchmark-optimizations-galaxy-s-4
  
  ...all other apps/games were limited to 480MHz.
  Other applications can NOT run at 533. The only applications that have access to that speed boost are benchmark apps.
  The ONLY apps.
  Please read the article before you continue spreading your misinformation.
25. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by NatasRevol · 2013-07-31 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  Other applications being other benchmarks?
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
26. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Xest · 2013-07-31 01:27 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  "No. They can't. Please try reading the article."
  A wrong article is still wrong. Samsung themselves have quoted a number of their apps that run at 533mhz. You'll have to let other vendors tell us whether they use the same optimisations or not.
  Realistically the biggest problem is that most people don't bother to optimise specifically for the GS4 because it's extra work for not really any worthwhile benefit (an extra 53mhz isn't going to change that much, especially at the expense of higher power consumption) so not many apps will run at the full 533mhz and I agree that's an issue, but it doesn't change the fact that 533mhz is the correct clock speed to benchmark the phones optimum capability at.
27. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  You are a liar who's spamming the hell out of this thread with your lies. The original article clearly states that 533MHz is not available for any other apps nor games - it's only available for benchmark tests.
  Stop spreading lies.
28. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  That's nice. It's still unethical and should be treated as such.
  They are no different than any other modern corporation, just assume everything they say or publish is a lie and go from there. You'll never be disappointed and sometimes (though rarely) you'll be pleasantly surprised when the advertized hype is somewhat close to the truth.
29. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  You are feeding a troll/flamebait.
  Easy to start a flamewar pointing to Apple, while the facts of the story have to do with GPU which is specced at 533 MHz but running it at that speed causes overheating. Apple does not use a GPU clocked at 533 Mhz - it uses a 350 Mhz GPU which is of a similar architecture, but without Direct X.
30. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 01:35 · Score: 2
  
  Your unstated major premise is "what Samsung has told me is accurate". This is a mistake. Samsung's explanation is a rival hypothesis to Anandtech's. At the moment you have to compare the two hypotheses with the presented data. That data tends to favour Anandtech's explanation.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
31. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by beltsbear · 2013-07-31 01:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If no apps other then the benchmarker run at 533Mhz, then overclocking is a fair word even if the CPU is rated for 533Mhz. If even 20% of the apps were allowed to run at 533Mhz then I would say otherwise, but NONE of the other apps are allowed to run at 533Mhz, just the benchmarker.
  It is fraud.
32. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by gutnor · 2013-07-31 01:35 · Score: 2
  
  The alternative is to do a benchmark of the performance that the user will really get. What's the point knowing the potential of the phone when at the end of the day it is configured in such a way that you will never reach them.
33. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Xest · 2013-07-31 01:40 · Score: -1, Redundant
  
  That's the problem, some other apps do run at 533mhz, hence why it's not fraud.
34. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 01:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Which ones?
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
35. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-07-31 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Samsung could get fraud charges on this one if they advertised or published the benchmarked speed. It is less obvious if they did not do the publishing themselves.
  25 years ago, Byte was notorious for forcing Mac benchmarks they used to be compiled with SANE turned on, to make PC benchmarks look a lot better. SANE was Apple's "Standard Apple Numerics Environment", a library which took the results from the Mac float processor and massaged the last few bits to ensure they were the same as the Apple II.
  Recompiling that stuff in Lightspeed C without it gave very favorable results.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
36. Re: And you think they're the only one why? by Penguinisto · 2013-07-31 02:22 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe they just need to rename the benchmarking binary (I vote quack.exe)?
  I jest, but only partly. You see, there is truly nothing new under the sun.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
37. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by mwvdlee · 2013-07-31 02:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They're just making sure that even if the benchmark apps don't tell it to work in it's most high performance profile that it does
  If I run a normal app (say, a game), does the GPU get this "most high performance profile" as well?
  
  because the whole point in benchmarks is to give a benchmark of the optimal performance of a device.
  The point of a benchmark is to give a benchmark of REALISTIC performance on a device, as a user would get under normal daily usage.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
38. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Xest · 2013-07-31 02:48 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  "If I run a normal app (say, a game), does the GPU get this "most high performance profile" as well?"
  Depends on the app, for some yes, for most no.
  "The point of a benchmark is to give a benchmark of REALISTIC performance on a device, as a user would get under normal daily usage."
  I think this is where the real problem is, there's no real consistent definition of what benchmarks are meant to represent and I agree with other posters in this thread that the best option is to stop caring about benchmarks at all and just focus on how well the device works in practice. If you mostly just use Samsung's apps that do run at 533mhz then the benchmarks would be realistic for you, if you use a bunch of 3rd party apps that only run at 480mhz then this benchmark wont be representative and that's the problem with figuring out what a benchmark even means in practice.
  It started getting awkward enough with cores/multiple CPUs where the type of processing can be effected drastically by concurrency, but when you have specific optimisation options too then it just becomes too messy to extract any meaningful comparisons from benchmarks. Even years ago this could be a problem where processors could be compared directly with benchmark applications but some benchmark applications didn't check for and make use of SIMD optimisations when they first came about meaning the result simply weren't fair because the processors with SIMD instructions weren't being used to their greatest extent. It's only got worse since then as we have ever more optional optimisations.
39. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Xest · 2013-07-31 02:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  All the ones Samsung listed for a start:
  S Browser, Gallery, Camera, Video Player
40. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  ...that's it?
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
41. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by gnasher719 · 2013-07-31 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  So those Apple Commercials where the Apple spokesman is a "hip guy" while the "PC" guy is some nerd are not making fun of the customers?
  One said "I'm a Mac" and the other said "I'm a PC". Not "I'm a Mac customer" and "I'm a PC customer".
42. Re: And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  Wow. My comment above asking for evidence has gone from +something to -1, off topic and back to +1, Insightful.
  The comment rating system doesn't work anymore on /.
  I've observed that quite often (almost always) in the last months. Say something against Google or Samsung or just be not a cheering fanboy and paid shills and fanboys vote it into oblivion. No matter how factual or objective. Doesn't happen to that extent with other companies.
  I'm seriously depressed about the state of /.
  It's not a nerd fest any longer. It's a battle ground between companies.
  Android Army vs the Apple Cult.
  Day after day. It's exhausting boring, annoying.
  PLEASE : no more Samsung, Google or Apple news for a whole month. That would be refreshing.
43. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  And you believe them? Why?
  Samsung isn't trustworthy.
44. Re: And you think they're the only one why? by Russ1642 · 2013-07-31 03:45 · Score: 2
  
  Steroids in sports actually improve your performance. Speeding up benchmarks only affects the benchmark, not actual device performance.
45. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by zieroh · 2013-07-31 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with other posters in this thread that the best option is to stop caring about benchmarks at all and just focus on how well the device works in practice.
  Exactly. Now we just need to devise some way to uniformly measure how well the device works in practice, distilling that experience down to a single number, where larger numbers are better.
  
  --
  People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
46. Re: And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  If *anything* on /. 'seriously depresses' you, you need to get out more ...
47. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Holi · 2013-07-31 04:04 · Score: 2
  
  Yes it does.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
48. Re: And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 04:04 · Score: 0
  
  PC guys are ... PC guys. What's not to make fun of?
49. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by arekin · 2013-07-31 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Your unstated major premise is "what Samsung has told me is accurate". This is a mistake. Samsung's explanation is a rival hypothesis to Anandtech's. At the moment you have to compare the two hypotheses with the presented data. That data tends to favour Anandtech's explanation.
  Hypothesis implies something that is not known. Samsung knows the clock speed on their phone, and seeing as you have read the article you surely know that this is verified when you run the benchmark tests. For the other side of the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/10213672/Samsung-deny-performance-boosting-hardware-in-Galaxy-S4.html
  
  --
  Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
50. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Holi · 2013-07-31 04:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  An article cannot be wrong?
  S browser, gallery, camera, video player all run at 533mhz
  Others can as well if they need to. It's just how many developers out there are going to optimize for one phone?
  Just because you don't want to do any research your self because you lazy and would prefer to insult people does not mean that anyone else lied. It just means that you took someones word without verifying it.
  Now apologize the the GP for calling them a liar.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
51. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Holi · 2013-07-31 04:08 · Score: 2
  
  Because they are not going to hand you evidence of fraud.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
52. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Holi · 2013-07-31 04:11 · Score: 1, Redundant
  
  Why would others optimize their apps for one phone? I can see that Samsung would because those apps are designed for that phone.
  So instead of being obtuse how about using a little common sense.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
53. Re: And you think they're the only one why? by pipatron · 2013-07-31 04:37 · Score: 2
  
  Seems to me that it works well. After some up and down while moderators battle about what would be the best option, it has come out as somewhat insightful.
  If you've been on slashdot as long as you claim, you must also have seen all those newbies whining as soon as their comment is down-modded, not realizing that there are actually more than two moderators reading, and that the score will vary during the course of a day or two. Don't be one of them.
  
  --
  c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
54. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by arekin · 2013-07-31 04:55 · Score: 2
  
  You are a liar who's spamming the hell out of this thread with your lies. The original article clearly states that 533MHz is not available for any other apps nor games - it's only available for benchmark tests.
  Stop spreading lies.
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/10213672/Samsung-deny-performance-boosting-hardware-in-Galaxy-S4.html The original article is wrong.
  
  --
  Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
55. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by wootcat · 2013-07-31 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  "Making fun" of PC's? Yes. Making fun of customers, no. "I'm a Mac" and "I'm a PC".
  
  --
  I'm really a low 5-digit Slashdotter, but this ID is where I am now.
56. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  In a word, yes. If the "optimisation options" for all other operations involve capping performance to save battery life/operating temperature/stability/whatever, then the benchmark should reflect the performance actually available to users.
  The foaming-at-the-mouth morons would be all over this as a hate crime against humanity had it been Apple doing this. Samsung has a long and distinctly unvaried history of shady tactics and scams like this that tends to be quietly ignored for the most part. Both companies have their fanboys and their antifanboys that should be ignored, but this discussion is surprising for the turned tables in "benchmarking doesn't matter" versus every other mobile phone flamewar talking up benchmarking and performance numbers.
57. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Savage-Rabbit · 2013-07-31 05:19 · Score: 2
  
  You know this how? There's no way to tell if Apple does this or not since their OS is closed source..
  C'mon don't be so hard on poor Samsung, they copied Apple's devices, they copied the look of Apple's mobile OS and now they are seeking to copy Apple's weaselyness.
  
  --
  Only to idiots, are orders laws.
  -- Henning von Tresckow
58. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by thetoadwarrior · 2013-07-31 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  prove it.
59. Re: And you think they're the only one why? by mjwx · 2013-07-31 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they just need to rename the benchmarking binary (I vote quack.exe)?
  I jest, but only partly. You see, there is truly nothing new under the sun.
  This.
  
  Does anyone honestly think anyone is not optimising their product for the products favourite benchmarking programs? Does anyone honestly think they aren't using every dirty trick in the book to get a few points more?
  
  I have no trouble believing that Samsung has optimised their phones for benchmarking, the same as I have no problem believing that Apple optimises their phones for benchmarking (Apple would be even worse, blocking benchmark applications that dont give them favourable results). The only difference is that someone is calling out Samsung.
  
  ATI, Nvidia, Intel, IBM, Apple, HTC... Everyone is doing it because you (the general you, no the parent) have made these benchmarks important to decision making.
  
  Also it's trivial to over clock an android phone. So an easy test for this would be to get an SGS4 and sert it to 480 MHz, test it then OC it to 532 MHz, test it again and compare both results to a non OC'd SGS4.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
60. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by darkfeline · 2013-07-31 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  The point of a benchmark is to give a benchmark of REALISTIC performance on a device, as a user would get under normal daily usage.
  Is it? In my mind, the point of a benchmark is to test the maximum performance of the device. If I wanted to measure normal daily usage, I'd test it under, y'know, normal daily usage conditions. Which for most people is checking email and playing Angry Birds on Power Saver mode, in which case I doubt the CPU and GPU would hit half of either of their (claimed or otherwise) max clock speeds. So a benchmark should only test the CPU clock speed for low-demand applications? Sure, whatever you say.
61. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 13:49 · Score: 0
  
  It depends on whether S4 allows third party apps to run at 533MHz at all.
  If yes - this benchmark makes sense, if no - I'd prefer to have numbers for 480MHz that would let me know what to expect from games running on my phone.
  Apps that they mention in their reply as running at 533 too, like Gallery and Video, are, y'know, "normal daily usage" far from needing maximum performance. If top speed's limited to those, the benchmark is useless.
62. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Bananana · 2013-07-31 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  Running browser, gallery, and camera at 533mhz? They really need to tweak their codes.
63. Re:And you think they're the only one why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-02 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  The big problem is that while the cpu might hit 533Mhz, the entire phone might not. For example, the CPU package might not have enough thermal draw to maintain 533Mhz, having to run at 400Mhz for periods of time to prevent overheating.
  If the "run policy" is to switch between 533 and 400 based on some arbitrary temperature based (or time slice based) policy, no big deal. If the switch is "benchmark programs run fast, everything else is slow", then we know that they are looking for performance benchmarks which do not actually reflect the preformance of the device, which is fraud.
Government Regulation by ElementOfDestruction · 2013-07-31 00:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

When every sixth topic on Slashdot is about the evils and perils of Government Regulation, why are we constantly seeing examples of companies misleading, blatantly lying, to their customers? We need more teeth on consumer regulation. I bought my Samsung Galaxy S4 on certain assumptions of power. Remember Hyundai blatantly lying about their fuel numbers for half a decade? They were doled out a punishment, but the boost in sales due to in part by their chain-wide efficiency offset any net losses.

Slashdot readers will remember this, and probably choose an S4 when faced with so few choices. Samsung sees no benefit to not skewing numbers in the future.
1. Re: Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 00:21 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  Samsung is blacklisted in my house. Would definitely not choose an S4 even if it would be the last remaining Smartphone.
  Samsung = Scamscum.
2. Re:Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 00:29 · Score: 0
  
  Because you can't opt out of government regulation. Nobody's forcing you to buy an S4.
3. Re:Government Regulation by Bornhuetter · 2013-07-31 00:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Arguments about whether "more regulation" is good or bad are in my experience almost always misguided. We need better regulation, but that is much harder to define, and doesn't make for as good a soundbite.
4. Re: Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 00:35 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  And in my house:
  Sony = Pony
  Panasonic = Wankasonic
  Apple = Crapple
  Nokia = Cock-ia
  I live alone.
5. Re:Government Regulation by __aaltlg1547 · 2013-07-31 00:46 · Score: 2
  
  You bought the phone on certain assumptions of power. OK, that's fine. Would a difference of at most 10.8% difference in the benchmark results have changed your choice? Or would you still have bought the Galaxy S4 for its features? Do your applications run acceptably fast? Has the slow speed made you wish you had bought a different phone?
  This is not at all the same thing that Hyundai did. They actually lied about their test results from standard tests and were caught when the EPA did the same test and got much lower numbers. If you run the benchmarks on your phone, you will apparently get the same numbers as Samsung published, even if nothing else on your phone is allowed to run that fast.
  I'm not saying what Samsung did was right. I'm just saying you're exaggerating the significance.
6. Re:Government Regulation by the+computer+guy+nex · 2013-07-31 00:47 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  Samsung has received no punishment to date for creating a 150 page report on how to change their phones to look more like iPhones. Until they are actually punished, they will continue to mislead the public.
  
  The other recent topic is how ridiculous their "waterproof" phone is. They clog up the connectors with rubber plugs. If the rubber plug gets loose, your phone is fried.
7. Re:Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  Hate to burst you bubble, but how many American companies flat out lie about there products? You seem to be against anything made in or from China/Chinese!!
  Mentioning Samsung and Hyundai, but leaving out American products hmmmm... There are regulations in place and they have done little to stop American and other (countries) companies from lying or cheating. And it will be a miracle if they passed any new ones without loopholes or without regulating bodies ignoring which ever company they fell like or which ever company they pick and choose to go after.
  And if you have any evidence of Samsung falsely promoting there phones with high speeds CPU's/GPU's please share it, unless Samsung did the benchmarks themselves and release there findings there is no false advertising.
8. Re:Government Regulation by the+computer+guy+nex · 2013-07-31 00:49 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Hate to burst you bubble, but how many American companies flat out lie about there products? .
  A small minority compared with these Asian knock-off companies.
9. Re:Government Regulation by Charliemopps · 2013-07-31 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  Your post is ironic given that this article is about the public policing itself. I wouldn't be surprised if civil litigation came out of this. We'll see.
10. Re: Government Regulation by serviscope_minor · 2013-07-31 00:50 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Sony = Pony
  What's wrong with ponies? :(
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
11. Re:Government Regulation by ElementOfDestruction · 2013-07-31 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  Samsung and Hyundai are Korean you fuck. Nice try anonytroll!
  
  I find it far more interesting that the US Government will not buy Lenovo's because of the Chinese government's practice of installing espionage software on factory machines.
12. Re: Government Regulation by interkin3tic · 2013-07-31 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  That is well and good, but if you refuse to buy any phone whose manufacturer has not done some shady stuff, what does that leave you with? I don't immediately recall hearing anything about HTC being evil, but that's undoubtedly due more to me not really being interested than them being a company of saints.
13. Re: Government Regulation by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 00:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Pony and trap, crap. AC is a cockney.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
14. Re:Government Regulation by ElementOfDestruction · 2013-07-31 00:59 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It's about getting lied to. It fucking sucks. If the operates 10% slower than it performs on tests, I would expect - at the least - an explanation or a discount off the outrageous selling price. Yes, I really don't care if it operates at peak performance, the way I use my phone I suspect I wouldn't see any performance differential.
  
  But I wouldn't want to buy a Delorean advertised to be capable of going 95 mph, only to find out that it can go 95 mph when it's being timed on a closed course; when normally used, it can only physically run at 86mph. I need 88 mph in a mall parking lot, otherwise the mother fucking Libyans will get me.
15. Re:Government Regulation by dywolf · 2013-07-31 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  because lying is not itself illegal.
  only certain kinds of lies are, and there's damned few of those.
  this is a small article from just yesterday: http://www.cracked.com/article_19485_5-outrageous-lies-companies-are-legally-allowed-to-tell-you.html
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
16. Re:Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  When every sixth topic on Slashdot is about the evils and perils of Government Regulation, why are we constantly seeing examples of companies misleading, blatantly lying, to their customers?
  
  Regulatory bodies are inevitably subverted by the groups they're supposed to be policing. At best they're merely dishonest, at worst they become a tool for the largest corporations to prevent competition. You end up with the same problems you started with, except when you discover the problems and try to fix them, you will be funding the opposition to your efforts.
  If a government bureaucrat releases an obviously flawed benchmark, what's my recourse? Stop paying taxes? Wait two years and vote for someone who says he'll appoint a new department head? This is in every way worse then the situation I have now.
17. Re: Government Regulation by rot26 · 2013-07-31 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  U mad bro?
  
  --
  
  To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
18. Re: Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  pony and trap = crap
19. Re: Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  My Little Sony
  I used to wonder what bad tech could be
  My Little Sony
  Until all about it Sony taught me
20. Re: Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  It's *one* pony. Way too few ponies.
21. Re: Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  An actual 30-second spot for the show riffed on Apple's "There's an app for that" ad campaign: "And if you want a sun-stealing, princessnapping, lover-of-darkness stick-in-the-mud, there's even a pony for that. Yep, there's a pony for just about anything..."
22. Re: Government Regulation by jittles · 2013-07-31 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  I think he means pwnies.
23. Re:Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  Samsung and Hyundai are Korean you fuck
  No no no, the Korean you fuck is at the massage parlor. I thought everybody knew that.
24. Re:Government Regulation by MachineShedFred · 2013-07-31 01:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And Samsung still wouldn't care, evidenced by past behavior (otherwise known as the best predictor of future behavior):
  Samsung could face 15B Euro fine
  Samsung, LG fined for LCD price fixing
  Tax evasion, bribery, and price fixing: how Samsung became the giant that ate Korea
  Samsung agrees to plead guilty to DRAM price fixing, pay $300M fine
  6 Samsung executives headed to jail for price fixing
  Samsung, LG fined for mobile price fixing scheme
  Everyone is holding these guys up to be some kind of saints in their battle against the evil Apple Empire, when they are thrice-convicted price fixers that screw their customers over at every opportunity, legal or otherwise; and try to screw the competition by suing over standards-essential patents that they don't license for FRAND terms (allegedly).
  Samsung is not a friendly company, but I'll likely be modded down for saying so. Whatever, I've got the karma to burn.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
25. Re:Government Regulation by Xest · 2013-07-31 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  "But I wouldn't want to buy a Delorean advertised to be capable of going 95 mph, only to find out that it can go 95 mph when it's being timed on a closed course; when normally used, it can only physically run at 86mph."
  You jest but to be fair that's how it usually works. Mine has something like 150mph on the clock but I'm pretty sure if I even approached 130mph in it it'd probably start breaking up.
26. Re:Government Regulation by ElementOfDestruction · 2013-07-31 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure it is how it works, but your example is not valid at all. A speedometer is not a claim of maximum speed, it never has been and it never will. I've driven in cars that have >50mph larger difference between the maximum number on the speed limit and the maximum top speed of the unmodified vehicle. It's a gauge, not a specification, and anybody who reads that number and thinks that is their car's top speed is a dolt.
  
  I've also driven in cars which have odometers that stop at 999,999 miles. Does that indicate that the simple gauge can have anything to say about the useful lifespan of the car? Shit I'm at 999,998 miles but I'm 3 miles from home. My car is going to die 1 mile from home!
27. Re:Government Regulation by emho24 · 2013-07-31 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  because lying is not itself illegal
  It depends on the context. Here in the US, you can be charged for lying to Congress in certain circumstances, but it is not true the other way around. Congressmen enjoy "freedom of speech" when lying to the public.
  
  --
  You must gather your party before venturing forth.
28. Re:Government Regulation by Anubis+IV · 2013-07-31 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Aside from some of the more extreme Libertarians in the crowd, most people here are fine with sensible regulations (though the definition of "sensible" would still be debated). For instance, it makes sense to designate different frequencies in the radio spectrum for different purposes and then enforce that through regulation, rather than allowing it to be a Wild West scenario with products stomping over each other's signals. The stuff where we rant about the "evils and perils" of regulation tend to be the regulations that aren't sensible, but are rather short-sighted, backwards, biased, bribed, or otherwise nonsensical.
  Mandating that advertisements and stated capabilities are truthful is a reasonable regulation to enforce. We expect to be able to do comparisons between products, so forcing companies offering loans to provide an accurate APY using a standard method of calculating it, or asking that the numbers presented as corresponding to a specific benchmark be a reflection of reality, are perfectly reasonable.
  But truth in advertising is something that Samsung has been getting dinged for quite a bit in the last few days, actually, and not just with benchmarks.
29. Re: Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  It saddens me this got insightful.
  Ponies are the worst of the worst when it comes to that family. Horse is best. Ponies are just accidents waiting to happen.
  Also MLP is for children and neckbeards. Not the fun kind of sysadmin neckbeard, the awful disgusting kind.
30. Re: Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  they wouldn't update desire Z to android 4, fuck them
31. Re:Government Regulation by operagost · 2013-07-31 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  We already have laws against fraudulent claims. The problem is in the judicial system, which rewards lawyers and enriches the careers of judges more than it doles out actual justice.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
32. Re: Government Regulation by operagost · 2013-07-31 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  I prefer Magnetbox, thank you!
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
33. Re:Government Regulation by operagost · 2013-07-31 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  OT, but the funny thing about odometers is that they are actually a crude indicator of expected lifespan. People are fond of saying, "they don't make them like they used to," but the fact is that at least IRT the drivetrain a modern car is way more durable. Odometers used to roll over at 100,000, and unless you bought a premium car you would be pretty likely to have needed major repairs to the engine, transmission, or rear axle by then.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
34. Re:Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  I kinda enjoy seeing the rotten kids flinging poo at each other.
35. Re:Government Regulation by MGDruss · 2013-07-31 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  It is a valid example. Comparing the speed my TomTom sat nav says with the speedo in a number of cars, they have all overestimated how fast I was going. That's the same as Samsung has done.
36. Re: Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  Fucking pony morons. Unbelievable.
37. Re:Government Regulation by tlhIngan · 2013-07-31 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  why are we constantly seeing examples of companies misleading, blatantly lying, to their customers
  If there's no standard, companies have to invent one. Or find a way to screw with the results such that it's favorable to them.
  It's why spec sheets on a lot of things are completely meaningless (contrast ratio, response time on LCDs particularly are meaningless because there's so many ways to measure it that you really cannot compare it).
  Hell, take battery life. Can you compare the battery life of the new MacBook Air to the latest ultrabook? Not really because Apple and everyone else have different ways of testing. Hell, you can't even do the "take half and that's what you expect" general rule, either (Surprisingly, you can get Apple's quoted battery life without sacrificing much to the point of unusability, and I think sites like Anand have been able to get beyond, as well).
  Basically manufacturers want to reduce everything to a number because they can sell numbers. Perhaps it's speed. Or screen size. Or camera megapixels. Or cores. (Want fun? see how much trouble people have advertising without showing specs a la Apple).
  Anyhow, it's only a matter of time before we see interesting things happen - like how you'll find "SGS4 Speed Booster.apk" that fakes those things to give you speed, and then have people complain of crap battery life. Or overheating phones.
38. Re:Government Regulation by phantomfive · 2013-07-31 03:41 · Score: 2
  
  When every sixth topic on Slashdot is about the evils and perils of Government Regulation,
  The argument over 'more regulation' vs 'less regulation' is about the stupidest argument out there. It's so unnuanced, and the arguments are based primarily on campaign soundbytes, that I just hang my head and cry everytime I hear someone get in that argument.
  
  The argument is so simple that both sides are right:
  1) YES, we need more regulation, good regulation that improves the world. Also,
  2) YES, we need less regulation, less bad regulation that hurts the economy for no real benefit.
  
  Every regulation has a cost and a benefit. You need to look at the specific regulation and decide whether the cost is worth the benefit, or whether there's a better way to achieve the same goal. You can't just say, "it's regulation so it's bad!" or "It's regulation so it's good!" but I guess that's too hard for most people.
  
  Then they feel outraged when bad things happen.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
39. Re:Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 03:42 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I'm modding you down for being one of those dicks that says "I'll likely be modded down for saying so. Whatever, I've got the karma to burn.".
  Say what you have to say and let it stand instead of meta commenting.
40. Re:Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  We don't need any of that, first we need public figures and newspeople to come out and say "We support people getting screwed, and scammed. It's their right as Americans to be scammed, and nobody's right to protect them". That's pretty much their opinions on the matter. If a charlatan gives a news interview about their scam of a business, nothing in the interview will contain doubt about how their business might not be above board, or that the person *could* be misleading people
41. Re:Government Regulation by immaterial · 2013-07-31 04:35 · Score: 2
  
  No, because the auto manufacturer is not using that as a way to boost the apparent top speed of the car. Also, you clearly have no idea how a speedometer works or what it's intended accuracy is: about 3% leeway is average, almost exclusively leaning toward the high side (imagine the legal/safety issues if your car duped you into speeding). The speedometer ultimately estimates your speed based on the rpm of your tires against the road - your tire size, the amount of wear on the tire, and the inflation pressure all have an effect on this rpm (they all affect the effective diameter of the tire). There is no practical way to get a 100% accurate speedometer with these constantly varying conditions, so manufacturers tend to err on the side of caution. This well-known information and not some kind of conspiracy to inflate top speeds (which are tested on a track using external equipment, not the car's speedometer!).
42. Re: Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  Microshaft
43. Re: Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  Microshaft?
44. Re:Government Regulation by mdielmann · 2013-07-31 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Would a difference of at most 10.8% difference in the benchmark results have changed your choice? Or would you still have bought the Galaxy S4 for its features?
  Let's turn that around and see how it works. Will a difference of at most 10.8% make the phone more desirable, such that it would not only cover the costs of coding this check, but make us an appreciable amount of money? Is seems that Samsung says, "Yes." That's why people are saying they're being fuckers. They are intentionally trying to give misleading impressions. Don't pretend it is about anything else.
  
  --
  Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
45. Re:Government Regulation by david-the-go · 2013-07-31 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  I've also driven in cars which have odometers that stop at 999,999 miles. Does that indicate that the simple gauge can have anything to say about the useful lifespan of the car? Shit I'm at 999,998 miles but I'm 3 miles from home. My car is going to die 1 mile from home!
  Not so. Your old car just gets automagically swapped for a new one 1 mile from home.
46. Re: Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  Was always really funny when West Ham were sponsored by Pony. To see Cockneys with that written on their shirts was quite amusing!
47. Re:Government Regulation by mattack2 · 2013-07-31 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Yet you're "meta-commenting" by posting anonymously. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
48. Re:Government Regulation by mjwx · 2013-07-31 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  Samsung is not a friendly company,
  True, but compared to Apple, Samsung are saints.
  
  When confronted with two evil choices, always choose the lesser of the two evils.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
49. Re:Government Regulation by mjwx · 2013-07-31 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  It's about getting lied to. It fucking sucks. If the operates 10% slower than it performs on tests, I would expect - at the least - an explanation or a discount off the outrageous selling price. Yes, I really don't care if it operates at peak performance, the way I use my phone I suspect I wouldn't see any performance differential.
  
  But I wouldn't want to buy a Delorean advertised to be capable of going 95 mph, only to find out that it can go 95 mph when it's being timed on a closed course; when normally used, it can only physically run at 86mph. I need 88 mph in a mall parking lot, otherwise the mother fucking Libyans will get me.
  Then dont ever test the limitations of your car.
  
  All of the benchmarks will be "under controlled conditions".
  
  Ford may say the Focus ST will do 230 KPH (figures pulled from by butt), but this is because they did it on a dyno whilst the car is stationary. No wind resistance. Honda says my car can do 280 KPH... on a dyno. The best you can hope for on the track is 245 KPH because of wind resistance, friction and so forth, hence they advertise the top speed as 245 KPH drag limited (drag limited means that the car reaches it's top speed before the engine does). A lot of manufacturers advertise dyno speeds because they can get away with it.
  
  The same with fuel economy. Under controlled conditions.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
50. Re:Government Regulation by Shirley+Marquez · 2013-08-01 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  The manufacturers are REQUIRED to err in the direction of caution. The US and EU government rules on speedometer accuracy allow the readings to be higher than actual speed but not lower. To get an accurate reading on speed, drive your car over a measured mile course (the mileposts on interstate highways are good enough for this purpose, though not quite as accurate as an officially posted measured mile) and time your travel and do the math, or drive a flat straight mile and use your GPS for a speed indication (curves and hills will introduce some error). Once you have the correction factors for your particular car, you can use your speedometer for everyday speed checks. (The factors will change slightly with tire wear, and possibly more substantially if you buy new tires.)
51. Re:Government Regulation by Shirley+Marquez · 2013-08-01 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  The EPA mileage figures in the US are measured under controlled conditions, but they are controlled conditions that attempt to have some resemblance to real world results. The conditions have been adjusted a few times over the years to bring them closer to reality. But as they say in the fine print, Your Mileage May Vary. Driving with a lead foot will lower your mileage; hypermiling techniques will raise it.
  I think the current EU set of controlled conditions are farther from real life results than the EPA ones. That was certainly not the case when the EPA first started publishing fuel economy ratings; their first iteration was wildly optimistic.
52. Re:Government Regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-09 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  The rationale in your post doesn't jive with your signature.
Liars by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 00:31 · Score: -1

They are liars and no self-respecting nerd should buy a phone from Samsung to boycott actions like this.
1. Re:Liars by Pikoro · 2013-07-31 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. Any self respecting nerd SHOULD buy one of these. Then publish an app to overclock it for every application.
  
  --
  "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
2. Re:Liars by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  I disagree. Any self respecting nerd SHOULD buy one of these. Then publish an app to overclock it for every application.
  Why would you do that? All you'd end up with is a device with a shorter battery life that is more prone to overheating.
3. Re:Liars by NatasRevol · 2013-07-31 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  Well, then you get a phone that fails much earlier, use the warranty and get another phone!
  Of course, that one will probably require overclocking too...
  Plus, you can use them when camping in the mountains as a sleeping bag warmer.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
4. Re:Liars by Pikoro · 2013-07-31 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh, but you would have control! :)
  
  --
  "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Sony, for example by ElementOfDestruction · 2013-07-31 00:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sony has betrayed consumers more than almost any Tech company can name. They're universally hated across all spectrum of Slashdot users.

Yet they're largely poised to win the next "Console War" and they're still one of the premier names in the home entertainment business.

Companies have NOTHING to fear from consumer retaliation. Consumers are by and large stupid, with an extremely short term memory.
1. Re:Sony, for example by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 00:38 · Score: 0
  
  You're assuming that peoples purchasing decisions are actually related to the bluster they put online. ... and that /. represents a significant proportion of the population...
2. Re:Sony, for example by Ignacio · 2013-07-31 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yet they're largely poised to win the next "Console War"
  Only because they're the only one left that has any "wiggle room" within their target parameters; XBox has no need to run CoD any prettier or faster, and Wii still makes money hand over fist per unit (with Wii U at a slight loss, but really, who cares about the Wii U).
3. Re:Sony, for example by Andy+Dodd · 2013-07-31 01:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Part of that is that unlike his predecessor (Stringer) - Hirai realizes that treating your customers like shit is bad for business.
  Sony under Hirai is very different from Sony under Stringer - this is most obvious if you look at Sony Mobile, who are one of the largest contributors to the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) and the only manufacturer that actively maintains AOSP builds for some of their devices. There are numerous signs that, rather than squash the anomalous behavior of the former Sony-Ericsson, the rest of Sony is starting to adopt Mobile's ways.
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
4. Re:Sony, for example by aliquis · 2013-07-31 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Nintendo?
  And I.
  I can't say I care much about the Wii though. I don't own one and I wouldn't be getting one running PAL when I know the Wii U do HD.
5. Re:Sony, for example by Xest · 2013-07-31 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  "They're universally hated across all spectrum of Slashdot users."
  I don't think this is true any more. All it took was the XBox One DRM fiasco for half the site to forget everything and declare their intention to buy a PS4 suggesting that maybe Sony aren't so bad now. Sadly nowadays most Slashdot users are those consumers you refer to in your last sentence.
6. Re:Sony, for example by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  Sony leaving their evil ways? I'll believe it when i see it happening 10 years in a row.
7. Re:Sony, for example by AmiMoJo · 2013-07-31 02:48 · Score: 2
  
  Consumers aren't stupid, they just don't care. How many do you think have even heard of the Sony rootkit, or realized what the feature-disabling PS3 update was? The most high profile case was when PSN was hacked, but consumers see them as victims because the only time they are ever taught about computer security is when they go to the movies and see some elite hacker easily breaking into a bank while getting a blowjob. There is nothing in the news or media to offset the terrible John Travolta movies.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:Sony, for example by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  Only because Microsoft alienated so many people by proposing the always on and other worse forms of DRM.
  Microsoft actually managed to make Sony look like the reasonable ones.
9. Re:Sony, for example by epine · 2013-07-31 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Companies have NOTHING to fear from consumer retaliation.
  You're nuts, man. Sony took it in the nads for their blunder with the PlayStation 3. You know, that small setback where they allowed a Monogolo empire with deep pockets and not much traction to sweep behind their Maginito line and plant the Xbox flag atop Mount Suribachi. (By the way, would you be interested in picking some Lehman Brother shares I have lying around? Can't lose investment. Too big to fail and all that.)
  Yes, the sumo wrestlers pick themselves up again all too quickly after their flagrant misdeeds. It's hard to knock them completely out of the ring. Whatever fear they experience momentarily is replaced by arrogance just as soon as their testicles re-inflate. (Hint: They're not pinching their nose and convulsing their chests because of some smell they've left behind.)
  The girls, they kiss frogs. That's how it works. The triumph of hope over experience is what our species is all about, so much the better if there's an IPO with some DRM.
10. Re:Sony, for example by Shirley+Marquez · 2013-08-01 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Parts of Sony never went evil in the first place or stepped away from it years ago. Their camera division continues to crank out solid products, and they started supporting standard SD cards (in addition to their proprietary Memory Sticks) a while ago. Their Creative Software division (the former Sonic Foundry) has continued its line of quality audio and video editing products under Sony ownership, and they add support for competitors' new pro video products just as quickly as for Sony's own. The PS3 is the only first generation Blu-Ray player that has kept up with all current Blu-Ray features and will play all current discs. (Lots of people bought the PS3 primarily or even totally for that purpose, not for gaming.) They also still make decent A/V receivers, speakers, and televisions, none of which have ever been entangled in any particularly evil behavior.
  This doesn't mean that the PS3 online problems and the CD rootkit weren't major errors. They were. And the company's former emphasis on proprietary formats (Beta, Memory Stick, UMD...) was a problem. But those are far from the whole story about Sony.
11. Re:Sony, for example by bingoUV · 2013-08-03 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  Read "Made in Japan", by Akio Morita, one of the founders of Sony. Sony's corporate DNA is evil. He proudly declares Sony refused to get into price wars under his leadership, and has been, ever since. Dealers were prohibited from selling Sony devices for cheap when nobody wanted to buy them, to give people an illusion of "premium" device.
  Price war is one of the prime ways for companies to create value in a capitalist society . A company refusing to do that is, by definition, evil.
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I've seen this before by earthforce_1 · 2013-07-31 00:32 · Score: 2

I remember old articles where ATI and Nvidia were both caught out gaming benchmarks, in one case by embedding particular benchmark game strings in their driver, and short cutting a few algorithms to boost their score.

--
My rights don't need management.
Official answer from Samsung by pieleric · 2013-07-31 00:37 · Score: 4, Informative

There seems to be an official answer from Samsung here: http://samsungtomorrow.com/4676
It's in Korean, but here is the translation, provided by sammobile.com:
"Under ordinary conditions, the Galaxy S4 has been designed to allow a maximum GPU frequency of 533MHz. However, the maximum GPU frequency is lowered to 480MHz for certain gaming apps that may cause an overload, when they are used for a prolonged period of time in full-screen mode. Meanwhile, a maximum GPU frequency of 533MHz is applicable for running apps that are usually used in full-screen mode, such as the S Browser, Gallery, Camera, Video Player, and certain benchmarking apps, which also demand substantial performance.
The maximum GPU frequencies for the Galaxy S4 have been varied to provide optimal user experience for our customers, and were not intended to improve certain benchmark results.
We remain committed to providing our customers with the best possible user experience."
1. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 00:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That doesn't tally with the information extracted from the S4 code: it lists several benchmark apps, which when detected activate a "boost" feature that changes the CPU clock.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
2. Re:Official answer from Samsung by ernest.cunningham · 2013-07-31 00:47 · Score: 2
  
  Except that all testing thus far shows this to not be true, including the discovery of the benchmark booster....
3. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  The section of code that activates the changes is actually called "BenchmarkBooster". Someone will be fired for that I'm sure.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
4. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  And in fact, Anandtech specifically points out the opposite:
  It's interesting that this is sort of the reverse of what we saw GPU vendors do in FurMark. [...] In order to avoid creating a situation where thermals were higher than they'd be while playing a normal game (and to avoid damaging graphics cards without thermal protection), we saw GPU vendors limit the clock frequency of their GPUs when they detected these power-virus style of apps.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
5. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Xest · 2013-07-31 00:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's because the app has to tell the phone to stop saving battery and start performing at it's most optimal speed and the danger is that if the benchmark apps aren't built to do this then the benchmark apps will only give a benchmark for the phones power saving mode rather than at it's optimal performance.
  There's no overclocking going on, the GPU is rated for 533mhz so running at 532mhz in that configuration isn't any kind of fudge but a genuine representation of how the phone can perform at peak.
6. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 00:53 · Score: 0
  
  The CPU isn't "rated" for anything, Samsung didn't release any GPU or CPU clock figures until the denial quoted above.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
7. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 00:54 · Score: 0
  
  What a joke. Too bad they can do no wrong in Korea, cause thats just nonsense. Government protects Hyundai and Samsung to the end.
8. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Xest · 2013-07-31 00:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Maybe you should learn to use Google. There's plenty of quotes of 533mhz for the GPU from long before this article and Samsung's response.
  One example in the comments section of this article from March which a very quick simple search dug up:
  http://www.sammobile.com/2013/03/03/galaxy-s-ivs-specifications-leak-confirm-exynos-octa-powervr-sgx-544mp/
  Or are you just being a fanboy and not actually interested in the facts? Because the comment you just posted is a complete lie which suggests that maybe that's the real problem you have.
9. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  But according to Samsung, the phone runs certain apps (such as the browser) at 533MHz and others at 480Mhz (certain games). So is it cheating for them to make sure benchmarks run at the higher clock speed, when there are real-world apps that run at this speed as well?
10. Re:Official answer from Samsung by jovius · 2013-07-31 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  I'm trying to understand what's wrong in making a device to run unrestrained when making the benchmarks. The very idea is to test what the device is capable of.
  This calls for more extensive and hands-on comparison and feature testing. It's funny how much people are tuned to numbers.
  The benchmark app producers could also be provided with a flag to turn the limiting features on and off. The more transparency the better anyway.
11. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  First line of the article:
  Somebody with a Galaxy S IV has just performed an Antutu benchmark and revealed all the specifications of the device!
  Antutu being one of the benchmarks that supposedly activates the overclock. You must be a real threat down at the debating club.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
12. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  That would depend on whether thirdparty apps get the higher performance too. I don't think the fact that a handful of built-in Samsung functions use the higher clock is a good guideline to how the device will perform in typical use.
  I'm curious as to how Samsung is maintaining this list of videogames that require an underclock, and how often it's updated. Wouldn't your phone's performance on the new Deus Ex game drop with the next software update?
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
13. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Xest · 2013-07-31 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  Did you read the comment or was it just too much for you to face the truth?
14. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  'Benchmark booster'
15. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  "What the device is capable of" is a function of the device's current state - clock speed, cooling, voltages, power supply, etc.. You want to test the device in the same state that it will actually be used. A 533MHz benchmark is a good indication of what this particular chipset would be capable of when it is running at 533MHz. It is not a good indicator of what this chipset would be capable of if you clocked it to 400MHz, or at 1600MHz, or 3GHz.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
16. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  "It is supposedly clocked at 533mHz, which is more than double the iPad 4."?
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
17. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  Because it doesn't run at those speeds for everything else.
  Thus the benchmarks are numbers that you won't ever see in reality.
  AKA worthless.
18. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Xest · 2013-07-31 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Right and you think that figure was just pulled out of thin ever even though it turn out to be completely correct?
  But here you go, have some more links to get upset over:
  http://www.extremetech.com/computing/150686-samsung-galaxy-s4-dimensions-weight-battery-size-and-hardware-specs-confirmed-ahead-of-launch
  http://mobileandphone.com/samsung-galaxy-s4-vs-galaxy-note-2/
  So what's your next excuse? That Samsung paid the whole internet to retrospectively doctor their old news articles and Google to update their indexes and caches?
  You could just admit you were wrong instead you know? You'd look a whole lot less stupid than scraping about desperately for excuses to try and prop up your already crumbled argument.
19. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Firstly, the comment in the article clearly got its clock speed claim from the article. Secondly, I think every one of those articles got the clock rate from a benchmarking application because Samsung didn't release a GPU clock speed and it's standard practice in the Android community.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
20. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  You come back to me with a GPU clock speed quote that comes from actual Samsung literature and not a benchmark app or a source-less web page, and then we'll talk some more.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
21. Re:Official answer from Samsung by AmiMoJo · 2013-07-31 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Both AMD and nVidia have "profiles" for specific games that try to get the best performance out of them with per-executable tweaks. It's not cheating, just optimization. The problem is people get upset when they do it for benchmarks, but really all it does it show how pointless benchmarks are. Either they don't tweak in which case the benchmark performs worse than it would if it were a game/app, or they do tweak and get accused of cheating.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
22. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 01:28 · Score: 2
  
  If "saving battery" is the phone's state whenever it is not running a benchmarking application, it is the phone's normal state.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
23. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Xest · 2013-07-31 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Bless, it must be hard being a fanboy. It seems to demand a lot of mental anguish to deny everything right in front of your eyes with all these rapid posts your making everywhere trying your damned hardest to remove any suggestion that maybe Samsung isn't actually doing much wrong here.
  At the end of the day the device was being quoted at 533mhz way back in March and it's capable of performing at that now. There's no getting away from that as much as you kick, scream, and throw your teddy out the pram.
  I'm sorry it upsets you that much but I guess that's the price you pay for being so desperate to refuse to accept reality.
24. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  I see you've conceded the issue.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
25. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Xest · 2013-07-31 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps one of the finest and most clear cut examples Slashdot has ever seen of the fact that fanboys actually read one thing and interpret it in their minds as something entirely different and directly the opposite.
  No wonder you're having a hard time understanding why you were wrong. If you can't even interpret basic English in the way it's written and instead interpret it in the direct opposite manner then you really are fucked.
  If ever there was direct evidence that fanboys are incapable of seeing anything other than what they want to see then your post is it.
26. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  You stopped addressing my points and started just calling me names. I quite reasonably assumed you'd given up on actually trying to address the problem.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
27. Re:Official answer from Samsung by whisper_jeff · 2013-07-31 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  How much does Samsung pay you to spread this misinformation?
  This thread is littered with multiple posts from you spreading the same misinformation that is clearly wrong to anyone who's read the article - the 533MHZ speed is ONLY available to benchmark apps (the code it triggers is even called BenchmarkBooster). Other apps and games cannot access that speed and are limited to 480MHz.
  http://www.anandtech.com/show/7187/looking-at-cpugpu-benchmark-optimizations-galaxy-s-4
  
  ...all other apps/games were limited to 480MHz.
  Given how many times you've posted misinformation to this discussion, I'm forced to assume you're either a complete moron or you're on Samsung's payroll. I'm guessing the later so I'm curious, how much does Samsung pay? What is the going rate for spreading misinformation in a Slashdot discussion?
28. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:46 · Score: 0
  
  Here's a car analogy for you: Samsung's CPU/GPU speed shenanigans are the same as a car manufacturer's MPG. They claim the device meets these specifications (in Samsung's case by specifically coding to boost the speed of, and only of, industry benchmarking applications that will be used by others to rate their products). We all know the claimed MPG is bullshit. And we now have proof - Samsung's very own code no less - that Samsung is trying to inflate their numbers too.
29. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  did you ever think he called you names because you're a flaming retard and that as sensible factual logical conversation is lost on you then that's the only remaining option?
30. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, because you certainly wouldn't want the most performance possible when using the most performance-demanding applications EXCEPT benchmarking apps.
  What a load of shit.
31. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Out of curiosity, what is it you think I'm a fanboy of? I mean I have a great fondness for nanoparticles but I don't think they're particularly relevant to this issue.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
32. Re:Official answer from Samsung by MachineShedFred · 2013-07-31 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  So the benchmarks would show scores indicative of real world performance, then?
  Isn't that the point?
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
33. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  > Out of curiosity, what is it you think I'm a fanboy of?
  >
  Being a forum spamming drivel spewing fucking idiot would be my guess
34. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Hello!
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
35. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, we can all aspire to high quality commentary like yours.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
36. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Xest · 2013-07-31 02:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "How much does Samsung pay you to spread this misinformation?"
  Most likely the same as Apple pays you, nothing, because I'm not a shill and presumably neither are you. Unless you are of course, in which case then they still pay me nothing.
  "This thread is littered with multiple posts from you spreading the same misinformation that is clearly wrong to anyone who's read the article - the 533MHZ speed is ONLY available to benchmark apps"
  What is it about Samsung's official response that confuses you so much? I think it's quite easy to understand from their simple response that they do this for more than just benchmark apps and also do it for a number of other every day apps:
  "Meanwhile, a maximum GPU frequency of 533MHz is applicable for running apps that are usually used in full-screen mode, such as the S Browser, Gallery, Camera, Video Player, and certain benchmarking apps, which also demand substantial performance."
  "What is the going rate for spreading misinformation in a Slashdot discussion?"
  Now I've explained that I'm not a shill and that I've explained why you're wrong I have a question for you instead - what is the going rate for attacking Samsung despite being wrong? Nothing? I thought so, so why exactly do you insist on doing it?
  If you really want to see someone spamming this thread go look at your fan Sockatume, who has posted many more posts backing up your incorrect position than I have correcting the both of you. I don't think he's a shill though, I just think he refuses to back down when he's clearly and demonstrably wrong and instead just likes to witter on even more as if if he posts enough he'll somehow become right, even though that wont happen because you can't change reality.
  If you can prove to me that it's all a lie, and that Samsung's other apps listed above don't run at 533mhz, and that no other apps can utilise this feature other than benchmarking apps, and that all the quotes of the GPU in the S4 running at 533mhz are lies and that this was never the case and it's simply being overclocked for benchmarking then I'll gladly concede defeat and agree that Samsung are in the wrong.
  Good luck with that though, but kudos if you can in fact somehow uncover such a massive deception campaign dating back to articles all the way from March.
  Protip: Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make that other person a shill.
37. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 02:12 · Score: 0
  
  i think you need to make a few more posts
38. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  This coming from the guy whose post history shows he turns up only for threads about Apple defending Apple and Google/Android attacking Google/Android.
  If you came here for anything else you may be in a good position to accuse someone of being a shill but as you only turn up to defend Apple and discredit their competitors I think the shill accusation's on you.
  So fuck off shill.
39. Re:Official answer from Samsung by bws111 · 2013-07-31 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is the whole concept of "what the device is capable of". There are many, many things that affect the performance of the device, and one of the most important, above most of the things you listed, is 'what it is doing'. While what you say about the benchmark being valid only at that particular speed is true, it is equally true that the results obtained from a benchmark are an indicator of how well a device runs that benchmark, and nothing else.
  If you are using anything other than your actual usage to benchmark a machine then you are doing nothing but deluding yourself into thinking you know something that you don't.
40. Re:Official answer from Samsung by gnasher719 · 2013-07-31 03:29 · Score: 2
  
  I'm trying to understand what's wrong in making a device to run unrestrained when making the benchmarks. The very idea is to test what the device is capable of.
  The idea is not to test how fast a device can run benchmarks, but to use benchmarks to be able to draw conclusions about how fast other apps would run. And this kind of manipulation means the conclusion will be wrong.
  
  Example: I want to know how fast my far can go - but I want to know how fast it can go while still lasting a reasonable time. The manufacturer has a switch that creates 50 more horse powers but makes the engine break down after 20,000 miles. The top speed with the special switch turned on is of no relevance to me, and publishing it without a big caveat is misleading the customer.
41. Re:Official answer from Samsung by cheesybagel · 2013-07-31 03:44 · Score: 2
  
  You come back to me with a GPU clock speed quote that comes from actual Samsung literature and not a benchmark app or a source-less web page, and then we'll talk some more.
  Sure. Here is the Samsung Exynos 5 Octa flyer.
  It's there on page 2. PowerVR SGX544 MP3 533 MHz GPU.
42. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  "...and certain benchmarking apps..."
  Are you retarded or impatient?
43. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  Regarding your sig: It would be convenient and of little consequence if NZ were a state of Australia. I've never seen anybody actually confuse the two.
44. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the chip can go up to 533MHz, but that's no indication of what it's actually rated to be in the S4. (Much as the iPhone 4S and iPad 2 share a GPU but one of them has a higher clock than the other.) Samsung never released a GPU spec for the S4, presumably because it used this farcical whitelisted under/overclock system depending on what app you ran.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
45. Re:Official answer from Samsung by jovius · 2013-07-31 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't the correct analogy be about limiting the power of the engine? The car manufactures would send their racing tuned cars for benchmarking, while they would provide consumer versions otherwise. I don't think there are many cars with speedometers that actually go to the maximum, unless the system is unleashed.
46. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  Your posting history says otherwise when cross-referenced with "Samsung". Maybe not a shill, but definitely an unswerving supporter. The correlation of "fuck" and "Apple" is also notable.
47. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  Optimizing for benchmarks=cheating. BENCHMARKS DO NOT DEMAND SUBSTANTIAL PERFORMANCE; THEY MEASURE IT, DAMN THE MARKETER WHO WROTE THIS IDIOCY.
  Optimizing for a few well known apps is ok, IF you explicitly say that in the tech documentation.
48. Re:Official answer from Samsung by cheesybagel · 2013-07-31 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Last time you bought your PC was the clockspeed of the GPU listed in the specs sheet? Does this MacBook Air page say the GPU clockspeed? Nope. Does this Apple iPhone page say anything about the GPU clockspeed? Zilch. Nada. If the Samsung Galaxy S4 specs say Samsung Exynos 5 Octa SOC then you go to Samsung Electronics, the manufacturer of the SOC, and see the spec sheet or brochure. Which is what I did.
49. Re:Official answer from Samsung by rr_at_slashdot · 2013-07-31 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  I really don't care about Samsung or Apple (I am the proud owner of a ~$150 smartphone which can do all the "smart" stuff - do calls, display stuff like browser or calendar on the screen, etc... and it's going to stay that way until someone sells a phone that smart enough that it can make me a nice meal and give me a blowjob afterwards)
  But I don't understand the logic in Samsung's statement:
  - benchmarks usually warn you that they stress and potentially harm your hardware.
  - Samsung white-lists benchmarks (and "other apps") for "best user experience" - so the "user experience" running a benchmark would be "whoa, my new phone is burning, but fuck, yeah, Samsung, thank you very much for letting me see the great Mhz. number of my display before I had to buy a new $500 exploding toy"
  tldr; In my opinion, *limiting* the clock for targeted benchmarks would be the better choice.
50. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 14:55 · Score: 0
  
  Other apps err programs can't run at 533mhz. That's the whole point. It only engages when benchmarks are running and for no other programs.
  http://anandtech.com/show/7192/update-on-gpu-optimizations-galaxy-s-4
51. Re:Official answer from Samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  "saving battery" is the mode when the phone is not in a state that requires intense use of graphics.
  If users ran gaming apps for hours on end and the phone broke down in a year, people would be bitching about the poor quality of the phone. If the GPU is clocked down for most applications that do not require the full power of the system, people flip their shit.
  Here's the kicker: personal computers do nearly the same thing. If you run tests on newer GPUs, you'll notice the gradual increase in temperature of the GPU as well as its fans getting louder. That's because the GPUs aren't using 100% of their potential all the time. Certainly not when simply displaying a desktop.
52. Re:Official answer from Samsung by whisper_jeff · 2013-08-01 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/01/fllu-offers-cash-to-organically-promote-samsungs-push-for-proprietary-android-apps
  Now I know. $500 a month.
  Well, you certainly earned it.
  Hey, I could use some extra disposable income - feel like putting me in touch with your contact? I'd be willing to be a shill for their toys for $500 a month.
Wake up, fandroids! by TimHunter · 2013-07-31 00:39 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Waiting for the Samsung fandroids to wake up and start explaining why this isn't cheating, it's optimizing, and even if it is cheating it's Apple's fault.
1. Re:Wake up, fandroids! by jareth-0205 · 2013-07-31 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody mentioned Apple. You mentioned Apple.
2. Re:Wake up, fandroids! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 00:45 · Score: -1
  
  Tuppe666 should be here shortly to provide this.
3. Re:Wake up, fandroids! by robmv · 2013-07-31 00:51 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Samsung copy everything Apple do, so it is Apple's fault :P
4. Re:Wake up, fandroids! by Cid+Highwind · 2013-07-31 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  Newsflash. Apple do exactly the same thing, as does every other manufacturer.
  by Anonymous Coward on 7:15 31 July 2013
  So yeah, they're already here and they were mentioning Apple 20 minutes before TimHunter..
  
  --
  0 1 - just my two bits
5. Re:Wake up, fandroids! by jareth-0205 · 2013-07-31 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  Huh... First post said it...
Still way behind even after stacking the deck by the+computer+guy+nex · 2013-07-31 00:42 · Score: 3, Informative

Shows how far behind Samsung is in terms of hardware engineering. They stack the deck and still can't touch a 9 month old phone. Both browser performance and gaming performance, the 2 most stressful use cases on a smartphone, are way behind Apple.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6914/54294.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6914/54296.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6914/54300.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6914/54298.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6914/54305.png
1. Re:Still way behind even after stacking the deck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:34 · Score: 0
  
  Samsung Galaxy S IV/S4 GT-I9500 Factory Unlocked Phone - International Version - Price: $629.00
  Apple iPhone 5 16GB (Black) - Unlocked - Price: $709.00
  Hi Apple, here's an Orange now lets do a comparison of the two.... Wouldn't one expect a phone costing more to be "faster"?
  I'd say for $70 less and a MicroSD expansion slot the Samsung isnt a bad product...
  Capta: iniquity...
2. Re:Still way behind even after stacking the deck by Colonel+Korn · 2013-07-31 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Shows how far behind Samsung is in terms of hardware engineering. They stack the deck and still can't touch a 9 month old phone. Both browser performance and gaming performance, the 2 most stressful use cases on a smartphone, are way behind Apple.
  http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6914/54305.png
  
  Look at your link. It shows the S4 beating the iP5. Also Sunspider is kind of weird. I think that current Windows Phones with underpowered SoCs post the best scores in more recent comparisons, and that doesn't make a lot of sense.
  Regarding your other links, yes, the iP5 has oddly good GPU performance.
  
  --
  "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
3. Re:Still way behind even after stacking the deck by rwise2112 · 2013-07-31 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Shows how far behind Samsung is in terms of hardware engineering.
  If by engineering, you meen choosing an off the shelf triple core PowerVR graphics processor over the single core Adreno 320 that Samsung uses.
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
4. Re:Still way behind even after stacking the deck by the+computer+guy+nex · 2013-07-31 04:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Shows how far behind Samsung is in terms of hardware engineering. They stack the deck and still can't touch a 9 month old phone. Both browser performance and gaming performance, the 2 most stressful use cases on a smartphone, are way behind Apple. http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6914/54305.png
  Look at your link. It shows the S4 beating the iP5. Also Sunspider is kind of weird. I think that current Windows Phones with underpowered SoCs post the best scores in more recent comparisons, and that doesn't make a lot of sense.
  Regarding your other links, yes, the iP5 has oddly good GPU performance.
  The S4 beats the iPhone 5 while in a freezer. It has heat dissipation issues due to poor built quality.
5. Re:Still way behind even after stacking the deck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  And the Iphone had the "you are holding it wrong" antenna issues. Probably due to is superior build quality?
6. Re:Still way behind even after stacking the deck by Smurf · 2013-07-31 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  Shows how far behind Samsung is in terms of hardware engineering. They stack the deck and still can't touch a 9 month old phone. Both browser performance and gaming performance, the 2 most stressful use cases on a smartphone, are way behind Apple.
  http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6914/54305.png
  Look at your link. It shows the S4 beating the iP5.
  No. The S4 only beat the iPhone 5 when they tested it inside a freezer to prevent thermal throttling. It says so in the article from which the chart was taken.
I think we should end this by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2013-07-31 00:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think we need to celebrate benchmarking phones, period. This was one of those flamebait trolling things that happened in the PC era where people boasted how superficially fast their beloved shoebox was by putting $10k worth of equipment into and liquid cooling it just to get some high number result in 3D Mark or some other meaningless program.
We don't need this for phones.
Yes phones play games, yes phones are getting faster, but realize that phones and tablets are a HUGE step back from the PC era in terms of performance so benchmarking them means you may as well drag out your dusty Pentium era PC and start boasting about good its benchmark numbers are.
Also when 80% of the apps on the Android platform are unstable POS then I don't care about how fast they crash. Even Chrome quits unexpectedly repeatedly and this is by the company that makes the Android platform on their own Nexus brand devices.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
1. Re:I think we should end this by the+computer+guy+nex · 2013-07-31 00:53 · Score: 0
  
  Also when 80% of the apps on the Android platform are unstable POS then I don't care about how fast they crash. Even Chrome quits unexpectedly repeatedly and this is by the company that makes the Android platform on their own Nexus brand devices.
  Your fault for not doing research ahead of time. I have literally hundreds of games on both my iPad and iPhone and never experience crashes. Android is a terrible gaming platform.
2. Re:I think we should end this by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  You start off so reasonable, but then end by 'slamming' android which wasn't really necessary.
  I've never noticed apps quitting unexpectedly on my Samsung galaxy tab 2 despite daily usage (i often browse the web while watching tv using Chrome).
3. Re:I think we should end this by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-07-31 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  New to bleeding edge technophile stuff, eh? And therefore new to Slashdot.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
4. Re:I think we should end this by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  Obvious Apple troll is obvious.
5. Re:I think we should end this by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  Blah Blah Blah, I have an anecdote, yadda yadda yadda...
6. Re:I think we should end this by rwise2112 · 2013-07-31 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Also when 80% of the apps on the Android platform are unstable POS then I don't care about how fast they crash. Even Chrome quits unexpectedly repeatedly and this is by the company that makes the Android platform on their own Nexus brand devices.
  That's odd. I never expierence that with either my phone or tablet. I also never turn either of them off, except when rebooting for OS updates. My phone has a current up time of over 668 hours.
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
7. Re:I think we should end this by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  Show me a PC that gets spectacular 3Dmark scores and doesn't get get high frame rates in games... You're either as spectacularly ignorant as overclockers are dedicated, or you're a fucking troll. Pity I've run out of mod points.
8. Re:I think we should end this by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, you know, if you didn't run some 'l33t custom ROM (Like TegraOwners, which softbricked my A500 recently...) you'd probably have waaay less crashes.
  I know I don't on my Nexus 10. No appreciable force-closes. None on the reasonably stable CM10 build that's not even official on my Nook Color. None on my Galaxy Nexus.
  Or, perhaps you might choose to run with a Nexus 10 instead of running the cobble-jobs the vendors did "differentiating" themselves- or, at the least run with a known reasonably good ROM from the CyanogenMod team?
  As it stands, your gripes are largely due to crap on the fringes of the market or craptastic hacks done by "ROM Builders" or the vendors themselves- not Android itself.
9. Re:I think we should end this by readingaccount · 2013-07-31 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  We should be benchmarking phones. Why? Because there's this push to make phones capable of being docked and turned into traditional desktop machines with an external monitor, mouse and keyboard, and hence being used like traditional desktop machines. For this reason it's still important to see what they're capable of, and whether they'd be fast enough to handle the greater level of functionality you'd expect from a full-blown machine.
10. Re:I think we should end this by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  I would say benchmarking is important for a part of the PC market. It's for the niche of people who build computers as a hobby.
  Benchmarking phones is pointless. If they don't go as fast as you want, what're you going to do....wait for the next one to come out?
  Also, I have yet to see any performance issues with my S4. If a page loads in .120 seconds vs .98 seconds it really makes no difference to me. If I want speed and performance, I have a PC for that.
11. Re:I think we should end this by bingoUV · 2013-08-03 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  Then benchmark the docked usage.
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
12. Re:I think we should end this by readingaccount · 2013-08-04 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah OK, that's a good point.
Boosting? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 01:01 · Score: 0

I not sure that is boosting, normal processing may be 480mhz, because that is what they need, does you computer clock always runs at top of its resources?
Oh FFS by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2013-07-31 01:07 · Score: 1

This was probably done by the Engineers who designed the phone so they could get an accurate benchmark of the final product without it kicking into power save mode. Then again was it left in for negligence or marketing reasons? Whatever the reasons it doesn't actually appear to be over clocking the GPU so what's the issue? And why does everyone have to look so surprised when corporations lie to us they do it all the time anyway!
/Rant

--
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
1. Re:Oh FFS by gedeco · 2013-07-31 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  Make sense
  Over clocking = Running a CPU/GPU at a higher speed then it was designed for. (This doesn't seems the case here)
  Under Clocking: Running a CPU/GPU at a lower speed then it was designed for. (Reduce Power Consumption)
  To me, it makes sence not all time running at max speed, since most of time, you will notice the device is running idle.
  If it's intenionally done to provide better statistics? Probably,in the other case, at least they lack proper communication.
  I wonder how hard it can be to make an app to boost the frequency for any other app?
  This will give users the possibility to fry their phone or drain their battery at wish.
2. Re:Oh FFS by Sockatume · 2013-07-31 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  Given that a single component might be sold to be used at a variety of clock rates up to its hypothetical maximum depending upon need, it's more normal these days to say you're over/under clocking relative to the device's maximum under normal operation. For example, the original PSP's graphics chipset could run up to 333MHz, but all retail units were capped at 222MHz to reduce power consumption. Modders figured out how to unlock this an "overclock" to the PSP to much more than its designed graphics performance. However it was still within the upper limit of the component specifications.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
3. Re:Oh FFS by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  It's good to point out that CPUs work like this. When Intel or AMD make a new line of processors, they test each one as it comes out of manufacturing.
  The CPUs that remain stable at the highest clock rates are usually their 'extreme' version($1,000+). Next is usually the line they want to market to power users($300-400), and so on.
  At the end of the day, the $80, $120, $200, $400, and $1000 processors from the same line are essentially the same. The difference is that the low-cost processors were tested and failed at higher frequencies, due to imperfections on the processor. Buying the $80 processor and overclocking it will surely lead to doom and despair. Getting the $400 and overclocking it somewhere under the $1000 version is usually a safe bet, but YMMV.
  I bought the Q9550 when it came out, around $320 and overclocked it from 2.83 GHz to 3.4 GHz. I'm still using the stock fan and it still runs just as smoothly as it did years ago. It's extremely stable. IIrc, the extreme version of the yorkfield chips could go closer to 4.0 GHz on stock fans.
YMMV by flyingfsck · 2013-07-31 01:12 · Score: 1

I suppose the old car analogy now applies to phones too.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
The Point of a Benchmark by nssy · 2013-07-31 01:22 · Score: 1

I always thought the point of a benchmark is to show what a device is capable. So if the "phone does indeed let its GPU run at a higher frequency when particular benchmark software is running", Its just showing what its capable of. Though I would definitely want to run benchmarks the whole day and see what happens.

--
Some of us learn from other people's mistakes and the rest of us have to be other people. -- Zig Ziglar
1. Re:The Point of a Benchmark by the+computer+guy+nex · 2013-07-31 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  I always thought the point of a benchmark is to show what a device is capable. So if the "phone does indeed let its GPU run at a higher frequency when particular benchmark software is running", Its just showing what its capable of. Though I would definitely want to run benchmarks the whole day and see what happens.
  For mobile, benchmarks need to balance with heat dissipation and battery life. If you can't run at that clock speed for an extended period of time due to heat or battery life, this is very misleading.
Boosting benchmarks... by Steve_Ussler · 2013-07-31 01:50 · Score: 0

Is a time old tradition. Started by Oracle.
Trust no1 or android by WaffleMonster · 2013-07-31 02:09 · Score: 1

(This is an HTC device rather than Samsung) When I origionally stumbled on this thread I assumed yea yea cyanogen must be doing something wrong using a shit driver or not doing something quite right using a conspiracy theory as an excuse to blurt out a lazy response.
http://forum.cyanogenmod.com/topic/75172-why-is-cyanogenmod-htc-one-so-slow-6250-on-quadrant-standard-instead-12500/
I suspect that A benchmark manipulation is not limited to Samsung. B there is still something screwy going on in cyanogen and C we're going to find out pretty quickly what the truth is.
You can't handle full power! by mveloso · 2013-07-31 02:16 · Score: 4, Funny

It's not overclocking, it's just that Samsung underclocks their phones to save battery and to stay within the specified thermal envelope.
Only the benchmarking apps run at full speed, because they're the only apps that need the full power of the phone at all times.
Other apps can't handle the full power of the Samsung ecosystem, thus Samsung protects them from the overwhelmingly high power coolness that is the Samsung platform.
So really, everything we do is in the best interest of our customer. We protect our customers from experiencing the full power of our phones to preserve their mental cohesiveness. Anything less would open a wormhole in the fabric of reality, and we wouldn't want that.
1. Re:You can't handle full power! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  >avoids boosted power/heat consumption
  Those sound like overclocking traits.
  >It's underclocked, not un-overclocked
  That sounds like relative perspective.
  I don't really care which way the semantics swing, though. I might care, somewhat, that customers can't access the overclock/notunderclock state. But not much, since I don't own one.
So? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 03:00 · Score: 0

If the chips can benchmark at a speed but then de-clocked to be released to the public what is wrong with it? Every car maker been doing this for years when it come to Torque and Horse Power. The TQ and HP number are higher then if a person would take his/her to a dyno. But no one screams.
The other way to look at it... I can savelly overclock this phone to x speed.
1. Re:So? by MiG82au · 2013-07-31 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Do you know the difference between wheel and engine values? Don't bother with the estimated engine values that dynos provide; they're bullshit.
What kinda obsessed OCD moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 04:26 · Score: 0

... buys a mobile phone based on benchmark scores anyway? It's a god damn phone, not a gaming rig, server, graphics workstation, etc.
Big businesses lie by Skapare · 2013-07-31 05:33 · Score: 1

Nothing new here. Move along.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
regulation gulag by epine · 2013-07-31 06:07 · Score: 1

The argument over 'more regulation' vs 'less regulation' is about the stupidest argument out there.
It's not an argument. "Regulation" is a code word for power. Either the government holds this power, or private interests hold this power. There's no middle ground, due to the convexity of the slippery slope. It's either a firewall configured with a default "block all" or a default "pass all". Those are your two choices, 100% mutually exclusive.
Besides, inhabiting the middle ground involves the tedious art of knowing the difference, which is not what people with power enjoy doing.
1. Re:regulation gulag by phantomfive · 2013-07-31 06:10 · Score: 2
  
  Oh look, another person who sees the world in black and white.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It is not cheating by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 07:18 · Score: 0

It is not cheating - benchmark shows you how fast it runs on a particular device.
This is new in what way? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-31 08:12 · Score: 0

They've caught out NVidia AND AMD (At that time ATI) doing some of the same sorts of hyjinx with PC benchmarks in years prior.
Having said this, they paid DEARLY for having done the deeds in question. Can we say the same thing from Samsung?