System Performance Revisited

Now that we’ve covered battery life we can revisit another topic where our testing has changed dramatically for 2016, which is our system performance benchmarks. As previously mentioned this year a major goal of ours was to focus on benchmarks with metrics that better indicate user experience rather than being subject to additional layers of indirection in addition to updating our previously used benchmarks. Probably one of the hardest problems to tackle from a testing perspective is capturing what it means to have a smooth and fast phone, and with the right benchmarks you can actually start to test for these things in a meaningful way instead of just relying on a reviewer’s word. In addition to new benchmarks, we’ve attempted to update existing types of benchmarks with tests that are more realistic and more useful rather than simple microbenchmarks that can be easily optimized against without any meaningful user experience improvements. As the Galaxy S7 edge is identical in performance to the Galaxy S7, scores for the Galaxy S7 edge are excluded for clarity.

JetStream 1.1

Kraken 1.1 (Chrome/Safari/IE)

WebXPRT 2015 (Chrome/Safari/IE)

In browser/JavaScript performance the Galaxy S7 in its Snapdragon 820 variants performs pretty much as you'd expect with fairly respectable performance about on par with the iPhone 6 at least part of the time, which frankly still isn't enough but a lot of this is more due to Google's lack of optimization in Chrome than anything else. The Exynos 8890 version comes a lot closer but it still isn't great. Subjectively browsing performance on the Galaxy S7 with the Snapdragon 820 is still painful with Chrome, and I have to install either a variant of Snapdragon Browser or Samsung's stock browser in order to get remotely acceptable performance. Even then, performance isn't great when compared to Apple's A9-equipped devices. The lack of single thread performance relative to other devices on the market in conjunction with poor software optimization on the part of Google is really what continues to hold OEMs back here rather than anything that Samsung Mobile is capable of resolving.

PCMark - Work Performance Overall

PCMark - Web Browsing

PCMark - Video Playback

PCMark - Writing

PCMark - Photo Editing

PCMark shows that the Galaxy S7 is generally well-optimized, with good performance in native Android APIs, although devices like the OnePlus 3 pull ahead in general, likely due to differences in DVFS, lower display resolution, more RAM, and similar changes as the hardware is otherwise quite similar. In general though unless you get something with a Kirin 95x in it you aren't going to get performance much better than what you find in the Galaxy S7, although the software optimization in cases like the writing test could be better for the Snapdragon 820 version of the phone.

DiscoMark - Android startActivity() Cold Runtimes

DiscoMark - Android startActivity() Hot Runtimes

As hinted by the PCMark results, the Galaxy S7 with the Snapdragon 820 is really nothing to write home about when it comes to actual software optimizations, while the Exynos 8890 version is significantly faster in comparison. The fastest devices by far here are still the Kirin 950-equipped phones, but even from cold start launches the HTC 10 is comparable, and pulls ahead slightly when the applications are pre-loaded into memory. The OnePlus 3 and Xiaomi Mi5 are closer to what the S820 GS7 should be achieving, which is really more a testament to just how strangely slow the Galaxy S7 with Snapdragon 820 is.

Overall though, the Galaxy S7 in both iterations are acceptably fast for general purpose tasks. However, with that said the Snapdragon 820 variant is noticeably slower, and the software stack seems to be less optimized for whatever reason even after multiple post-launch OTAs and all the latest app updates. Given that these devices have locked bootloaders it's difficult to really go deep and try to figure out exactly what's causing these issues, but it's likely that Samsung Mobile has the engineering staff to do this and resolve these issues as a 600 USD phone really shouldn't be performing worse than a 400 USD phone. On the bright side, the Exynos 8890 variants perform quite well here, with performance comparable to top devices and often beating out Snapdragon 820 devices, although usually not by a huge margin.

Introduction and Battery Life Revisited System Performance Cont'd
Comments Locked

266 Comments

View All Comments

  • ikjadoon - Tuesday, July 5, 2016 - link

    Have you compared it to a Snapdragon browser? I used Chrome and thought it was the fastest...then I downloaded Tugabrowser. It was night & day on my SD801 device (OPO).
  • Razzy76 - Wednesday, July 6, 2016 - link

    No never used it. I compared it to my old Lumia Icon I had before this phone.
  • Michael Bay - Tuesday, July 5, 2016 - link

    Does it mean 960 review is coming shortly? ^_^
  • retrospooty - Tuesday, July 5, 2016 - link

    HA, forget that, I am waiting for the 1060 review to come in 2018.
  • TheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, July 5, 2016 - link

    Nah, already been delayed to 2019, the 1080 review has to come out in 2018 to make way for the 1160 review in 2020.
  • retrospooty - Tuesday, July 5, 2016 - link

    Dammit, I fell asleep and missed all of the changes that will eventually have had taken place. LOL
  • asfletch - Tuesday, July 5, 2016 - link

    Re: UI failings, I recommend Samsung Good Lock. Have been using it for a couple of weeks on my Note 4 and it's a marked improvement. Of course I have to sideload it because Samsung doesn't want Australians to have it for some reason....

    Oh and the screen protector issue is really a big one for me...after the Note 4 halo saga I'll be seeking out a phone with a flat screen next time (if they still exist).
  • CoolDeepBlue - Tuesday, July 5, 2016 - link

    Ever since Anand Lal Shimpi left and joined Apple, it is questionable if Anandtech could still review anything related to Apple or their competition.
    Officially there are no ties, but this article does raise eyebrows...it's a pity!
  • Ryan Smith - Tuesday, July 5, 2016 - link

    Officially, there are no ties.
    Unofficially, there are no ties.

    I cannot control what Anand does (obviously), but we made very sure that there would be no ties to AT once he was gone. Editorial integrity is paramount; without it, we have nothing.

    The opinions you see here are our own opinions, backed by the data we've collected and our experiences in testing a device.
  • Alexey291 - Tuesday, July 5, 2016 - link

    Yes yes your integrity is indeed paramount. Or rather it was around 2008. Since then? You guys have been running a clickbait site that's notoriously slow on delivering reviews.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now