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
cheinonen - Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - link
4K is a marketing term thanks to Sony and everyone else. In the actual definition, 4K doesn't have a set aspect ratio. A film mastered at 4K is 4096 pixels wide, and the height is totally dependent on the aspect ratio. If it is flat, then it's 4096/1.85 pixels high. If it is scope, it's 4096/2.39 pixels high.Sony, LG, Samsung and everyone else are using 4K to mean 3840x2160 pixels for the home. UltraHD is the technical name now (with Rec. 2020) but that was finalized after the 4K horse had already left the barn.
Impulses - Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - link
Kind of ironic, I bet UltraHD sounds catchier or at least more descriptive to the layman... 4K's definitely spreading fast tho.rcpinheiro - Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - link
You're right, marketing teams are using "4K" incorrectly but at least here in AnandTech I expected writers to use standard names correctly.4K is a standard created by Digital Cinema Initiative, it uses JPEG2000 compression and bitrates upto 250Mbps.
(I agree with use Impulses, for the layperson "Ultra HD" sounds better than the techy term "4K")
Krysto - Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - link
It is a marketing term - an unfortunate one. Because I don't want them to ruin the ratios when they get to that resolution. They should keep the UHD resolution to scale perfectly from 1080p (4x the pixels). If some OEM's decide that to have "real 4k" they need to make the resolution 4kx2k, that would really SUCK!.mike55 - Monday, August 26, 2013 - link
Brian, what are your reasons for preferring some LCDs over Samsung's OLED panels?Doh! - Monday, August 26, 2013 - link
I could tell you couple reasons as a long time user of Sammy's OLED panel in my phone but I'm not Brian. Having said that, burn-in is one of the issues for many OLED panels.Impulses - Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - link
For me, the over saturated colors IMO, not the best for viewing photos, and I've started to view a lot of non-smartphone photos on my phone now that my camera has Wifi/NFC (most current gen Panasonic/Sony do, even Canon's newest DSLR, the 70D).mike55 - Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - link
It's unfortunate that a lot of manufactures seem to disregard the sRGB color space when it comes to implementing OLED panels in their devices. I'm not sure I would've bought my GS4 if it weren't for the "movie" display mode that gets it somewhat close to the sRGB gamut.comomolo - Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - link
I'm not Brian either, but I don't care too much about color accuracy on a phone. I do care about something the N9 invented and amazingly nobody else still copied it yet: permanent display of the time and notification icons. That can't be done efficiently with an LCD and its so useful I simply can't understand it took that long to come to Android. Even this MotoX isn't implementing it fully. You still can't just take a look at the phone on the table and know the time or if some new message is in, if there's a missed call or text, etc.I haven't seen a single burned pixel on an AMOLED screen (been using Samsung phones for a while, and lots of friends too). Regarding color accuracy, I don't believe the technology itself is responsible for that, but factory calibration. Android might/should allow for user calibration (the same we do with monitors) and make this a moot point.
Heartdisease - Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - link
Well that's strange. My Galaxy Nexus has had burn in for quite awhile and it is getting more pronounced. Turn any amoled 180* from your normal orientation and look where the on screen buttons were. If you don't see it on the rest of the screen your blind.