Performance Benchmarks

In the world of laptops where I come from, we’re fast reaching the point – if not well beyond it – where talking about raw performance only matters to a small subset of users. Everything with Core i3 and above is generally “fast enough” that users don’t really notice or care. For tablets, the difference in speed between a budget and a premium device is far more dramatic. I’ve included numbers from the Dell Venue 8, which I’ll be providing a short review of in the near future. While the price isn’t bad, the two Samsung tablets feel substantially snappier – as they should. We’ll start with the CPU/system benchmarks and then move to the GPU/Graphics tests.

SunSpider 1.0 Benchmark

Mozilla Kraken Benchmark (Stock Browser)

Google Octane v2

WebXPRT - Overall Score

In terms of CPU speed, the Apple A7 chips still take the lead in all of our tests, though not always by a large margin. We’re also using different browsers (Chrome vs. Safari), and JavaScript benchmarks aren’t always the greatest way of comparing CPU performance. I ran additional benchmarks on the two Samsung tablets just to see if I could get some additional information; you can find a table of results for AndeBench, Basemark OS II, and Geekbench 3.

CPU/System Benchmarks of Samsung Galaxy Tab Pro
Benchmark Subtest Tab Pro 10.1 Tab Pro 8.4
Andebench Native 13804 17533
Java 708 790
Basemark OS II Overall 865 1062
System 1542 1529
Memory 419 503
Graphics 1032 2555
Web 838 724
Geekbench 3 Single 942 910
Multi 2692 2847
Integer Single 1028 967
Integer Multi 3135 3343
FP Single 897 848
FP Multi 3106 3080
Memory Single 860 922
Memory Multi 982 1391

Interestingly, the Samsung Exynos 5 Octa 5420 just seems to come up short versus the Snapdragon 800 in most of these tests. However, there’s a bit more going on than you might expect. We checked for cheating in the benchmarks, and found no evidence that either of these tablets was doing anything unusual in terms of boosting clock speeds. What we did find is that the Pro 10.1 is frequently not running at maximum frequency – or anywhere near it – in quite a few of our CPU tests.

Specifically, Sunspider, Kraken, and Andebench had the cores hitting a maximum 1.1-1.3GHz. The Pro 8.4 meanwhile would typically hit the maximum 2.3GHz clock speed. The result, as you might imagine, is that the 8.4 ends up being faster, sometimes by a sizeable margin. Basemark OS II, Geekbench 3, and AnTuTu on the other hand didn’t have any such odd behavior, with the Pro 10.1 often hitting 1.8-1.9GHz (on one or more cores) during the testing, and when that happens it often ends up slightly faster than the Pro 8.4.

Which benchmark results are more "valid"? Well, that's a different subject, but as we're comparing Samsung tablets running more or less the same build of Android, we can reasonably compare the two and say that the 8.4 has better overall performance. Updated drivers or tweaking of the power governor on the 10.1 might change things down the road, but we can only test what exists right now.

Overall, both systems are sufficiently fast for a modern premium tablet, so I wouldn’t worry too much about whether or not you’re getting maximum clock speeds in a few benchmarks – in normal use you likely won’t notice one way or the other. But we’re only talking about the CPU performance when we say you won’t see the difference; let’s move over to the graphics benchmarks to see how the Galaxy Pro tablets fare.

Graphics Performance

3DMark Unlimited - Ice Storm

3DMark Unlimited - Physics Score

3DMark Unlimited - Graphics Score

3DMark Unlimited - Graphics Test 1

3DMark Unlimited - Graphics Test 2

Basemark X (Offscreen 1080p)

Basemark X (Onscreen)

GLBenchmark 2.7 - T-Rex HD (Offscreen)

GLBenchmark 2.7 - T-Rex HD (Onscreen)

Outside of the 3DMark Unlimited Graphics Test 1 result, the Pro 8.4 sweeps the tables against its big brother. Playing games like Angry Birds Go! or any other reasonably demanding 3D titles in my experience confirms the above results – Adreno 330 beats the Mali-T628; end of discussion. I also had a few quirks crop up with the Pro 10.1 graphics, like Plants vs. Zombies 2 at one point stopped rendering all the fonts properly; a reboot fixed the problem, but I may have seen one or two other rendering glitches during testing. I have some additional results for GPU testing as well via GFXBench 3.0 if you’re interested:

Graphics Benchmarks of Samsung Galaxy Tab Pro
Benchmark Subtest Tab Pro 10.1 Tab Pro 8.4
GFXBench 3.0 Onscreen Manhattan (FPS) 2.9 5.8
T-Rex (FPS) 14 17.1
ALU (FPS) 13 59.8
Alpha Blending (MB/s) 3295 6847
Fill (MTex/s) 1956 3926
GFXBench 3.0 Offscreen Manhattan (FPS) 5.5 10.8
T-Rex (FPS) 22.9 25.9
ALU (FPS) 25.6 138
Alpha Blending (MB/s) 3093 7263
Fill (MTex/s) 1956 3780

The new Manhattan benchmark was one of the other tests where the Pro 10.1 didn’t seem to render things properly, and even then the Pro 8.4 ends up with nearly twice the frame rates. The ALU, Alpha Blending, and Fill rate scores might explain some of what’s going on, where in some cases the Pro 8.4 is more than four times as fast. Regardless, if you want maximum frame rates, I’d suggest getting the Pro 8.4 over the 10.1.

LCD Testing: A Feast for Your Eyes Battery Life and Storage Performance
Comments Locked

125 Comments

View All Comments

  • skrewler2 - Friday, March 28, 2014 - link

    You mentioned the Note 2014 having the same specs on the first page, but didn't include these in any of the benchmarks to confirm they are indeed the same tablet with just the inclusion of the S-Pen?

    Also, you didn't include a comparison between the Note / Note pro / Galaxy / Galaxy pro in your closing thoughts.

    I got my Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 edition on special for $400 back in Jan (also w/ a bunch of goodies.. Google store credit, Samsung store credit, Dropbox, evernote pro, a bunch of other stuff). I was kinda bummed that shortly after I purchased it that the Note Pros came out, but other than 10" vs 12" it's hard to tell what exactly is different between them. I remember coming to the conclusion that the Pro model adds some features for businesses / BYOD, notably for compliance and security.

    Does it just come down to Note 10.1 2014 being 10" and Note Pro 12 being 12"? Doesn't seem worth the $300 price premium. I also just ran the Sunspider benchmark on my Note 2014 and consistently get scores around 500ms.
  • flamingspartan3 - Saturday, March 29, 2014 - link

    "That’s sort of the way of Android though – it can be buttery smooth and then suddenly it’s not." What an idiot. My Nexus 5 and Nexus 7 are ALWAYS buttery smooth. The Nexus 7 sometimes lags when I use a WebKit browser but I use Chrome Beta so I'm fine. They are definitely smoother than my iPad 4 and Surface RT.
  • R. Hunt - Sunday, March 30, 2014 - link

    I like Android but it's almost impossible to get a device running real, pure Android. Google doesn't care and the Nexus 10 is outdated now in terms of size and weight so the laggy Touchwiz-ridden Samsung tablets are what we're left with when it comes to large upper-range Android tablets.
  • etre - Tuesday, April 8, 2014 - link

    Please just STOP with the complains for software buttons.

    Understand that there are people quite happy with the layout Samsung is using and are buying Samsung specifically for this reason and for sd-card slot.

    This is my only alternative. Others have choices, Asus, Sony, etc. I don't.
    In fact, I own an Asus tablet and the only major drawback for me are the software buttons. Between notification and navigation bar, in landscape, there isn't much screen left. I won't ever understand why every tech site is so demanding in this regard. Maybe because Google can be quite persuasive, but please again, don't ruin my only option.
  • james.jwb - Monday, April 28, 2014 - link

    LG G 8.3 review anytime soon?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now