The Samsung Galaxy S6 Is The World’s Fastest Smartphone

Sidebar Sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Haha 52.5 ms for opening the camera and taking a picture 🙂 That's just a twentieth part of a second!!!
All times are wrong by one decimal power!!
 
For Starters please fix the mistake in the overall table, the places for the zenfone 2 are wrong for the last 2 tests. Secondly, to get a performance in the middle of the pack in most tests for half the price for the asuAsus is something worth Mentioning in the closing article I think. Makes you rethink about your next smartphone....
 
You are comparing Samsung's 2015 phone, introduce recently, to Apple's 2014 iPhone 6... And not even the iPhone 6S (which is also last year's phone) that is faster than the 6.

In a couple of months, Apple will be introducing its 2015 iPhones with the upcoming A9 processor, which will be substantially faster than the 2014 iPhones.

When that happens, comparing both Apple's and Samsung's 2015 phones, it will be a fair bet that the 2015 iPhones will be MUCH faster than Samsung's 2015 phone.
 
Haha 52.5 ms for opening the camera and taking a picture 🙂 That's just a twentieth part of a second!!!
All times are wrong by one decimal power!!
Click to expand...

The time actually is 52.5 milliseconds. we slowed it down for the gif, so it's easier to see the differences.
 
Did you people seriously not heard of iMovie for iOS? Or one of the many 3rd party apps? Also: How is this real world performance, most of the tests were traditional artificial number-crunching or unrealistic 1GB+ PDF open performance. Do this: video the phones jumping between apps, scrolling, etc, the stuff you do daily, then measure dropped frames or input lag (the real deal breakers for perceived performance which is what matters as it's not dependent of having the phones side-by-side), then we'll talk. Also: we're talking about phones, not gaming rigs, maybe throw in some analysis on privacy, security and hardware degradation after a year of use.
 


The purpose of the article wasn't to determine the best security or the most reliable phone. You also realize that not a single phone has even been out for a year?

If you're an Apple fan, you should be pleased that despite what looks like a shortcoming in specs, still turned in a respectable performance, including solid PDF load times.

We did the piece because since there won't be any more phone announcements from now until the fall, it's a good time to do a mid-year review. I'm sure we'll revisit this again in the fall when more phones are released.
 
Kind of dis-appointed in Toms over this article. After reading your in-depth analysis over the years on processors and video cards I expected better.

For example, why list only multi-core for Geekbench when the vast majority of software doesn't even utilize multiple cores? Or utilize them enough to keep all of them busy equally such that having those extra cores actually improves performance. At least include the single-core result as well.
 
You are comparing Samsung's 2015 phone, introduce recently, to Apple's 2014 iPhone 6... And not even the iPhone 6S (which is also last year's phone) that is faster than the 6.

In a couple of months, Apple will be introducing its 2015 iPhones with the upcoming A9 processor, which will be substantially faster than the 2014 iPhones.

When that happens, comparing both Apple's and Samsung's 2015 phones, it will be a fair bet that the 2015 iPhones will be MUCH faster than Samsung's 2015 phone.
Click to expand...


Can you post the results of your benchmarks on the unreleased iPhone you mention vs. the Galaxy S6? Thanks.
 
Why not benchmark the iPhone 6 Plus if you are doing benchmarks of the various companies' flagship phones?
 
Kind of dis-appointed in Toms over this article. After reading your in-depth analysis over the years on processors and video cards I expected better.

For example, why list only multi-core for Geekbench when the vast majority of software doesn't even utilize multiple cores? Or utilize them enough to keep all of them busy equally such that having those extra cores actually improves performance. At least include the single-core result as well.
Click to expand...
Kind of dis-appointed in Toms over this article. After reading your in-depth analysis over the years on processors and video cards I expected better.

For example, why list only multi-core for Geekbench when the vast majority of software doesn't even utilize multiple cores? Or utilize them enough to keep all of them busy equally such that having those extra cores actually improves performance. At least include the single-core result as well.
Click to expand...

Actually, most apps use multi cores at the same time. At least on Android. Not really surprised by the winner. The One M9 though is a disgrace.
 
Why no javascript/web performance tests like Kraken, Google Octane or WebXPRT? Would be interesting since the browser is one of my most used applications in a smartphone.
 


I can't believe that even Samsung says that it takes about 0,7 seconds = 700ms to open the camera!
 
Real life tests, like opening and reopening several apps, show that the S6 is slower than the HTC M9 and also slower than the iPhone. Those are tests that actually simulate they best the usage that people have of their phone. See the tests done by phonebuff on Youtube.

Also see Gamebench results, which show that the iPhone 6 runs games faster, even at constant resolution.
 
Great so called "testing". I have a smartphone for something like 5 years now and I have NEVER opened a 1.6 GB PDF file on it or transcoded a Video. The app opening slow-mo cam gimmick is expectedly uninteresting.

What you failed to mention though is for example that Android runs game at lower than native resolution or that 3DMark Ice Storm Unlimited uses libraries that are heavily optimised to run on Android.

Here is a good article on this shambles: http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/06/30/samsung-galaxy-s6-fastest-smartphone-if-using-phony-benchmarks-and-ignoring-iphone-6-real-world-performance

I dont care who "wins" or which smartphone is the best, but at least you should be benchmarking and testing fairly.
 
Also nice and sneaky to choose the poster frame for the 2 slow-mo videos in such a way that at first glance it looks like the Nexus 6 is not much slower than the rest, even though in the actual video and the chart below it is by far the slowest.
 
Lastly, on the camera opening thing, the iPhone is actually faster (if you count the time till the image is visible (as you do on the s6), but you measure till pressing the shutter button, which you dont do on the other phones..
 
Why no javascript/web performance tests like Kraken, Google Octane or WebXPRT? Would be interesting since the browser is one of my most used applications in a smartphone.
Click to expand...

two problems with that argument. According to recent surveys, games are the most frequently used app on smartphones -- web browser use is far, far behind stuff like social media, messaging in time spent on mobile phones. Second, the performance of web browsing/javascript depends on web browsers and javascript engine, in addition to the underlying hardware. It is likewise wrong to judge the overall performance of your phone by measuring javascript/browser performance.
 


This is hilarious. It's one thing to scrutinize benchmark testings/methologies in general, but it's quite entertaining to see Apple fanbois citing a highly biased, inaccurate article from AppleInsider as if they have some legitimate case.

Take for instance, DED's attack on Tom's Guide's supposedly "cherry picked" GeekBench 3 score:

"Toms Guide not only selectively picked one number to proclaim Samsung had "crushed the competition" in benchmarks (after failing to even better last year's iPhone in a series of "real world" tests), but also obtained a score for the Galaxy S6 that is wildly higher than those recorded by Geekbench from its other users.

The site reported a multicore score of 5,283, but Geekbench browser says that phone (Samsung Exynos 7420 Galaxy S6, 1500 MHz, 8 cores) actually scores 3925. That's a tremendous difference in scores from the same benchmark being run on the same phone. It's also completely out of line with the score discrepancy it reported from other vendors."

The Exynos 7240 runs at 2.1 Ghz (A57) and 1.5 Ghz (A53) and DED, blissfully ignorant -- perhaps willfully -- of the two quad architecture, criticizes TG for jacking up the S6 benchmark figures. TG's figures are measured correctly and are based on A57 quad core, whereas DED somehow managed to fanagle a GeekBench figure based on slower A53 quad core and use it as a basis for his usual misleading lies. DED is quite well known for making stuff up and misrepresenting anything that is not pro-Apple, so I won't even dispute the rest of the article point by point. It's just so laughable that there are folks out there who take DED seriously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom