Moto X Review
by Brian Klug on August 26, 2013 1:30 PM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Qualcomm
- MSM8960
- Motorola
- Android
- Mobile
- Android 4.2
- Moto X
GPU Performance
By Anand Shimpi
Although there’s a CPU core count difference between the MSM8960Pro and the APQ8064 Snapdragon 600 platforms we’ve tested, on the GPU front both use the same IP block: Adreno 320.
The max GPU frequency on the Moto X is 400MHz, compared to 450MHz for the APQ8064 Snapdragon 600 based Galaxy S 4. The difference in GPU frequency is small, and Android games typically have a large CPU bound component so it isn’t totally unfeasible for the Moto X to be among the fastest Adreno 320 phones on the market.
Looking at 3DMark we see just that. The Moto X is the fastest Android phone we’ve tested here. The advantage has nothing to do with GPU frequency however, if we look at CPU frequency over time it’s clear what’s going on.
3DMark
The graphs below show a full 3DMark Ice Storm run, including demo, graphics and physics tests (in that order):
The Moto X’s CPU cores are running at 1.7GHz for all of the 3D tests, and only drop down to lower frequencies during the physics test. The SGS4 by comparison has more cores, running at ~1GHz for most of the benchmark. Given the more CPU bound nature of 3DMark, the Moto X manages to pull ahead.
GFXBench 2.7
BaseMark X and GFXBench 2.7 on the other hand shift the workload to a more GPU bound workload, and we see the Moto X take a couple of steps back.
Basemark X
Epic Citadel
Epic Citadel and other native resolution benchmarks benefit from the 720p panel, in addition to the CPU frequency advantages.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
105 Comments
View All Comments
Tralio - Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - link
Havn't needed to clean my X yet. The touchless control works in standby mode and responds so far to every application i've thrown at it including the downloaded ones (and of course the web search). As for the car being the only place needed, not at all. I'm a chef and use my phone for radio at work, so obviously having to touch the screen after i plug it into the radio is a major hassle. Not everyone is going to use this feature for the same reasons, and some of us are going to use it alot more than others. For me this was part of the selling point, and so far i'm not disappointed.Honest Accounting - Monday, September 16, 2013 - link
With the Android 4.3 update (and Bluetooth LE) expect an API ("MotoActv API") that will allow it to act as a pseudo-fitness tracker like the iPhone 5S with Nike+ ... They'll probably integrate with MyTracks out of the boxHonest Accounting - Monday, September 16, 2013 - link
No other phone has a distinct voice control MCU. Apple have just add a contextual core (M7) to create what you could call a "X7 Computing System" (assuming dual swift A7 CPU, quad 543MP4 GPU, and M7 processor - there's no M8 "core" for voice processing). The Moto X is unique in this regard - AFAIKKrysto - Monday, August 26, 2013 - link
Exciting to see F2FS already on an Android phone. Now I'm sure it will come to KLP, since it's rumored to support kernel 3.10, and many improvements to the F2FS file system. With KLP, F2FS might replace ext4 as the default file system for Android, which would be quite excellent.Impulses - Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - link
I wonder if any of Motorola's work in implementing F2FS makes it back to stock Android at some point or if the teams are segregated enough that they'll just do their own thing regardless...Honest Accounting - Monday, September 16, 2013 - link
OEMs contribute back to the central Android effort all the timeKrysto - Monday, August 26, 2013 - link
I wish Motorola would've at least used Aptina's Clarity+ camera, which seems significantly better in both low-light (2 clear pixels instead of 1) and in clarity. It's also a crime that they didn't use OIS on it - come on!Btw is it me or is the color on BOTH Lumias completely off?
rcpinheiro - Monday, August 26, 2013 - link
Great review. Just a small nitpick :4K and UHD are not synonymous, they are two different standards.jeffkibuule - Monday, August 26, 2013 - link
UHD is a standard, 4K is a marketing term, much like Full HD and 1080p before it.Mondozai - Monday, August 26, 2013 - link
UHD and 4K is not the same thing and neither is a marketing term. You need to read up on the facts.UHD = 3840x2160
4K = 4096x2160
In addition, 4K should have an aspect ratio of 1.9:1 while UHD is usually at 1.78:1.
Jeff, if you don't know what you're blabbering about, then don't babble.