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

  • Impulses - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    Android fanboy here... Personally I think the plastic and finish/design used for both the 5c and the Note 3 both suck. Glossy finish on the 5c = yuck and if it wasn't Apple they'd be getting called out for it more. Faux stitching on the Note 3 = beyond yuck. Seriously, why does Samsung keep trying to masquerade their plastics (faux leather, faux metal band on the SGS4, etc). Just use something like what the Nokias, Moto X, One X, etc use. Feels just fine, I guess it can be harder to implement soft touch when you don't have a unibody design but still...
  • ddriver - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    Well, the big problem of samsung was the glossy finish, the faux leather fixes that. And faux leather with faux stitches is not all that bad, certainly better than real leather and real stitches (considering they are purely cosmetic and serve no actual purpose). Faux leather without the faux stitches would actually look a tad worse.

    The note 2 was mighty ugly, I agree, but the note 3 looks significantly better.

    Aluminum is not really all that better, it is not expensive, it is not hard, it is not durable or scratch resistant, engineering-wise it offers no advantage to polycarbonate, except it is a good heatsink, which apple might be interested in considering how tiny their phones are.

    I don't think Moto X looks any better than the note 3, and I've been a professional designer for 9 years. But hey, let's not forget samsung is a Korean company, people there are quite wacky in lots of ways. That may be the reason samsung is doing all that stuff with plastic, which other cultures perceive in a very different way than the native market.
  • ddriver - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    Last but certainly not least, since the back cover is actually replaceable you can just wait a few weeks and get whatever finish you want. If faux leather with faux stitches is really such a downer for you, you are not out of choice (unlike with the direct competition).

    I don't mind the faux leather when it comes to its looks, however, I feel the white one will get quite dirty quite fast, and overall it will capture dirt in the "pores" and "folds" of the "leather" and it will be harder to clean.
  • darkcrayon - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    You realize repeating stuff like "fanboy" makes you sound even less intelligent than your conclusions suggest? This is a tech discussion site, you might want to start acting like it instead of out of childish anger.
  • ddriver - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    So you fanboy are out of any actual arguments, clutching to the straw that is your ridiculous claim that the use of the word fanboy dictates poor intellect. Fanboy is a very descriptive term, that is the reason I prefer it because it is indicative of stupidity, but not of the one who uses the term but the one, targeted by it.

    Or maybe it was officially accepted that only dumb people use "fanboy" and I missed it?

    As you can plainly see, I am not absent of argumentation, you said "not all plastic is the same" but the plastic of the 5c and all the samsung devices IS the same, you said the 5c is low-end but its price certainly isn't. You on the other hand seem to have nothing on me, so ... make the conclusion if you can ;)
  • bji - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link

    It's officially accepted that only dumb people use "fanboy". You missed it.
  • steven75 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link

    The feel of the plastic on a 5C or Lumia is not at all the same and Anand and Brian agree on this. You are BY FAR the outlier here!

    Both of those devices have essentially plastic unibodies while the Samsung devices always have a rinky dink shell that feels like something from a happy meal toy.
  • imaletufinish - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link

    Now you sound like Billy Mays. "BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE...THIS PHONE IS MADE FROM SPACE-AGE PLASTIC POLYMERS!!!"
  • Gunbuster - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    Giant screen Windows Phones are just around the corner.
  • darwinosx - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    Another hunk of derivative plastic junk from Samsung.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now