CPU Performance

The original Note I played with was based on Qualcomm’s APQ8060 platform with MDM9200 baseband (the so-called Fusion 2 platform) and was for its time a pretty awesome piece of kit, combining LTE and a dual core SoC. The Note 2 I played with next was based on Samsung’s own Exynos 4412 SoC with quad core Cortex A9 at 1.6 GHz and Mali–400MP4 GPU. For the Note 3, I’m looking at a T-Mobile variant (SM-N900T if you want to be exact about it) which means it includes a Snapdragon 800 SoC, and Samsung has gone for the 2.3 GHz bin (really 2.265 GHz rounded up). Inside are 4 Krait 400 CPUs running at up to 2.3 GHz, and Adreno 330 graphics at up to 450 MHz, all built on TSMC’s 28nm HPM HK-MG process.

I should note that this is MSM8974 and not MSM8974AB which oddly enough one of Qualcomm’s customers already announced (Xiaomi for the Mi3) which boosts GPU clocks up to 550 MHz and the LPDDR3 memory interface up to 933 MHz, among a few other changes. I’ve confirmed that GPU clocks on the Note 3 are indeed maxing out at 450 MHz, and quite honestly it’s a bit early for 8974AB in the first place, though it wouldn’t surprise me to see Samsung eventually get that faster bin at some point and put it in something.

 

I should mention that the Note 3 (like many other Android devices - SGS4, HTC One) detects certain benchmarks and ensures CPU frequencies are running at max while running them, rather than relying on the benchmark workload to organically drive DVFS to those frequencies. Max supported CPU frequency is never exceeded in this process, the platform simply primes itself for running those tests as soon as they're detected. The impact is likely small since most of these tests should drive CPU frequencies to their max state regardless (at least on the CPU side), but I'm going to make it a point to call out this behavior whenever I see it from now on. Make no mistake, this is cheating plain and simple. It's a stupid cheat that most Android OEMs seem to be ok with and honestly isn't worth the effort. Update: Of our CPU tests only AndEBench is affected exclusively by Samsung's optimizations, the performance gain appears to be around 4%. Vellamo is gamed by all of the Snapdragon 800 platforms we have here (ASUS, LG and Samsung). None of this is ok and we want it to stop, but I'm assuming it's not going to. In light of that we're working with all of the benchmark vendors we use to detect and disable any cheats as we find them. We have renamed versions of nearly all of our benchmarks and will have uniquely named versions of all future benchmarks we use. We'll be repopulating our Bench data where appropriate.

CPU performance is honestly excellent. The Galaxy Note 3 is more or less the fastest Android smartphone we've tested up to this point. In the situations where we can do cross platform (OS/browser) comparisons, it isn't quite as fast as the iPhone 5s but in some cases it comes close.

AndEBench - Java

AndEBench - Native

SunSpider Javascript Benchmark 1.0 - Stock Browser

Google Octane Benchmark v1

Mozilla Kraken Benchmark - 1.1

Browsermark 2.0

Vellamo Benchmark - 2.0

Vellamo Benchmark - 2.0

GPU Performance

Samsung definitely likes to win, and the Galaxy Note 3 walks away with the GPU performance crown in literally every single offscreen test we've got here. The onscreen tests are obviously governed by display resolution, but all things being equal the Note 3 manages to get the edge over the PowerVR G6430 in Apple's iPhone 5s. It's also interesting to note that the Galaxy Note 3 appears to outperform all other Snapdragon 800 smartphones we've tested thus far. There's a couple of potential explanations here. First, the Galaxy Note 3 is using newer drivers than any of the other S800 platforms we've tested:

Note 3: 04.03.00.125.077
Padfone: 04.02.02.050.116
G2: 4.02.02.050.141

Secondly, it's unclear how much the manual CPU DVFS setting upon benchmark launch is influencing things - although I suspect it's significant in the case of something like 3DMark. 

Finally each manufacturer has the ability to define their own thermal limits/governor behavior, it could simply be that Samsung is a bit more aggressive on this front. We honestly haven't had enough time to dig into finding out exactly what's going on here (Samsung gave us less than a week to review 3 devices), but the end result are some incredibly quick scores for the Note 3. If I had to guess I'd assume it's actually a combination of all three vectors: drivers, high CPU frequencies and being more lenient with thermals.

Update: GFXBench 2.7 isn't affected by any optimizations here, but Basemark X and 3DMark are. We expect the Note 3's performance is inflated by somewhere in the 3 - 10% range. We're working on neutralizing this optimization across our entire suite.

GLBenchmark 2.7 - T-Rex HD

GLBenchmark 2.7 - T-Rex HD (Offscreen 1080p)

GLBenchmark 2.7 - Egypt HD

GLBenchmark 2.7 - Egypt HD (Offscreen 1080p)

3DMark Unlimited - Ice Storm

Basemark X - On Screen

Basemark X - Off Screen

Epic Citadel - Ultra High Quality, 100% Resolution

NAND & USB 3.0 Performance

Our Galaxy Note 3 review sample posted some incredible storage performance results, at least compared to all other Android smartphones we've tested. Sequential read and write performance are both class leading - the latter is nearly 2x better than the next fastest phone we've tested. Random read performance is decent, but it's random write performance that's surprising. Unlike the Moto X, the Galaxy Note 3 doesn't rely on a flash-friendly file system to get great random write performance - this is raw eMMC horsepower (if you can call ~600 IOPS that). The result isn't quite as good as what you get out of the Moto X, but it comes very close. Android 4.3 should bring FSTRIM support to the Galaxy Note 3, so as long as you remember to leave around 20% of your storage as free space you should enjoy relatively speedy IO regardless of what you do to the phone.

Sequential Read (256KB) Performance

Sequential Write (256KB) Performance

 

Random Read (4KB) Performance

Random Write (4KB) Performance

The Galaxy Note 3 ships with USB 3.0, unfortunately at least in its current state it doesn't seem to get any benefit from the interface. Although the internal eMMC is capable of being read from at ~100MB/s, sustained transfers from the device over adb averaged around 30MB/s regardless of whether or not I connected the Note 3 to a USB 2.0 or 3.0 host.

Update: USB 3.0 does work on the Note 3, but only when connected to a Windows PC with USB 3.0. Doing so brings up a new option in the "USB Computer Connection" picker with USB 3.0 as an option. Ticking this alerts you that using USB 3.0 might interfere with calls and data, but then switches over. Connection transfer speed is indeed faster in this mode as well, like you'd expect.

 

It only appears on Windows as well, my earlier attempts were on OS X where this popup option never appears. 

Battery Life & Charge Time Display
Comments Locked

302 Comments

View All Comments

  • Scipio Africanus - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    Got to hand it to Apple's newest SoC for its phenomenal single core performance. It looks to be ahead of everyone. Non-ARM designed CPUs will be the way forward for phones here. While A15 is nice, it's power envelope is just not that great for phones. So we have Qualcomm and Apple and Samsung only using ARM designed cores. So for Android's sake, hopefully Project Denver will actually pan out so we have some more competition in this space.

    And I have to get this off my chest but I love my Note 2, its nearly perfect. EXCEPT for the GPU. It was at best low to midrange when it came out and now its just low end. They put in what was a really fast CPU at the time and not so great GPU.
  • ddriver - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    It is no more than ~20% (at best, limited case scenarios) better with native code, the BS JS benchmarks should be disregarded because they use completely different engine implementations, plus everybody cheats at those like there is no tomorrow. And if for some reason you really need CPU performance on a mobile, the note 3 will actually trounce the 5s considering it has twice the cores and number-crunching tasks scale pretty much perfectly. Considering the snapdragon 800 has the same NEON width as A7, I expect the note 3 to be a good 50% better at number crunching - software rendering, audio/video editing, multiphysics and whatnot.

    While some might look at the snapdragon 800 for being "inferior" since it is based on arm v7, it is not like the note 4 will come with a quad core v8 chip at 2.3 Ghz, even with a v8 chip it will only be incrementally faster. No consumer device manufacturer will shoot himself in the foot by releasing something better than the bareincremental minimum needed.

    That is the reason I'll be getting the note 3, here it is 25% cheaper, has a pressure sensitive stylus, huge screen, 4k video, usb 3, better GPU and all the bells and whistles of latest contemporary tech... The 5s better single thread performance is nowhere nearly enough to make up for all the advantages of the note 3.
  • Scipio Africanus - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    I never said the 5S was superior in any way except for its single threaded performance. The Note 2 that I own today is a phenomenal device and the only thing I'd replace it with is another phablet type such as a Note 3 (or 4) or maybe an Optimus G Pro or Xperia Z. I still love having an SD card and removable battery so it looks like the Note series is it for me.

    The 64-bit move is just getting ready for the future IMHO in terms of memory addressing. Using that particular stat as a "feature" is just marketing. The larger number of registers in ARM V8 is nice and does help the Iphone in 64-bit application benchmarks. But most people don't have a clue what 64-bit means except that its bigger than 32.
  • KPOM - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link

    The point is that Apple optimized the hardware and software for its intended purpose. No one is running a Monte Carlo analysis on a smartphone. Mobile software isn't really optimized for quad-core processors, and heat concerns limit their usefulness right now. For the purpose of running mobile software, a well-optimized dual-core processor running at a lower clock speed appears to be better than a less optimized quad-core running at a higher clock speed. It's like the Pentium 4 vs. the Pentium M and Core2 architectures. The latter two were superior even though they ran at lower clock speeds.
  • steven75 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link

    Why do you trumpet things like "USB 3" when this very review shows it offers no benefits? Does reading out spec lists impress your friends or something?
  • PxNZone - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link

    Maybe you should check that section again about USB 3. There is an updated part. It states that the connection transfer speed is faster with Windows PC that has USB 3.0.
  • Wolfpup - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    5.7" Grrr, if Apple isn't going to release a larger phone, I wish they'd turn say the iPad mini INTO a phone. The mini seems to be pocketable, and it's obviously already very close to being a phone as it is...

    I'm sick of having to drool over awesome sized screens on the Android devices.
  • ddriver - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    Seriously, all the apple fanboys b1tch about how the note series is "ridiculously, embarrassingly big" and you want to use the ipad mini as a phone :D

    Well, it makes sense, just like with plastic, plastic was lame and cheap-ass until the iphone 5c, and suddenly plastic became great. The ridiculous review at engadget b1tching about the note 3 plastic while praising the 5c plastic...
  • darkcrayon - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    You realize not all plastic is the same right? And you can't even see the hole in your own example - Apple released a plastic phone as the lower end model to their metal device (something they've been doing on and off for well over a decade now).
  • ddriver - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    Lower end? It is more expensive than 99% of the phones on the market. And in this particular case, the plastic is exactly the same - POLYCARBONATE. Naturally, in the mind of an apple fanboy, the plastic on the 5c is special and magic and full of awesome...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now