HTC One max Review - It's Huge
by Brian Klug on October 28, 2013 10:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- HTC
- Mobile
- One
- Snapdragon 600
- Android 4.3
- One max
The performance section is probably a good place to talk about one of the elephants in the room, and that’s the SoC inside the One max. The One max includes a Snapdragon 600 APQ8064T SoC, which consists of 4 Krait 300 cores running at up to 1.7 GHz, and Adreno 320 GPU, all built on TSMC’s 28nm LP process. This is the same SoC that shipped in the original HTC One, and the same 1.7 GHz bin as well. There have been three major variants or families of APQ8064(T) to date. There first was the option for the earliest 1.5 GHz Snapdragon S4 Pro version (AA suffix), the 1.7 GHz “8064T/Pro” variant in the HTC One and One max (AB suffix) which began the Snapdragon 600 branding, and finally the 1.9 GHz CPU and 450 MHz GPU variant we first saw in the SGS4 (AC suffix). Qualcomm usually has a number of revisions of its silicon, and with APQ8064 we saw quite a few. As an aside, expect similar with 8974 or Snapdragon 800.
There’s nothing wrong with the 1.7 GHz Snapdragon 600 variant, it was and still is a great performer, but the reality is that HTC falls behind on its hardware platform with the One max by not going to Snapdragon 800 (MSM8974) like the rest of the competition (Note 3, ASUS Padfone Infinity 2014, LG G2, Nexus 5, and so on). So much of the SoC performance and power story right now is gated by process, and 8974 moves to TSMC’s high-k metal gate 28nm HPM process which affords some clock headroom (up to 2.3 GHz) and lower power consumption at lower performance states for Krait 400 (which is essentially 300 implemented on that new process). 8974 also brings a beefier Adreno 330 GPU with more ALUs and higher clocks, in addition to the new modem IP block, but I won’t go over all of that.
It’s pretty obvious to me that the One max stays with the same SoC used in the original One for a few reasons which ultimately boil down to cost and margin. It obviously means HTC can share the same SoC between the One and One max, and since it’s later in APQ8064’s lifespan I would suspect HTC was able to secure good pricing for it. Having closer shared hardware platform means about the same software stack on top of it, and the same source tree from Qualcomm (BSP) for building and testing ROMs. This makes the software maintenance and update costs lower for the One max. I won’t speculate too much beyond that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the One max started out an 8974 device but later became an 8064 device, given its timing.
| I Can't Believe I Have to Regularly Update This Table | |||||||||||
| Device | SoC | Cheats In | |||||||||
| 3DM | AnTuTu | AndEBench | Basemark X | Geekbench 3 | GFXB 2.7 | Vellamo | |||||
| ASUS Padfone Infinity | Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 | N | Y | N | N | N | N | Y | |||
| HTC One | Qualcomm Snapdragon 600 | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | |||
| HTC One mini | Qualcomm Snapdragon 400 | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | |||
| HTC One max | Qualcomm Snapdragon 600 | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | |||
| LG G2 | Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 | N | Y | N | N | N | N | Y | |||
| Moto RAZR i | Intel Atom Z2460 | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | |||
| Moto X | Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | |||
| Nexus 4 | Qualcomm APQ8064 | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | |||
| Nexus 7 | Qualcomm Snapdragon 600 | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | |||
| Samsung Galaxy S 4 | Qualcomm Snapdragon 600 | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | |||
| Samsung Galaxy Note 3 | Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | |||
| Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 10.1 | Intel Atom Z2560 | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | |||
| Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014 Edition) | Samsung Exynos 5420 | Y(1.4) | Y(1.4) | Y(1.4) | Y(1.4) | Y(1.4) | N | Y(1.9) | |||
| NVIDIA Shield | Tegra 4 | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | |||
The HTC One max, like a ton of other devices, continues to employ a CPU optimization “boost” feature which plugs in all the CPU cores and increases clocks to their maximum upon detection of certain benchmarks. It’s sad that this needs to be a regular disclosure for each handset release, since the narrative will likely be the same for the near future, but yes the One max does this.
Given product development cycles and how long it takes software in the Android landscape to make it through the chain from internal OEM testing to operator test approval and finally hitting devices, I expect we’ll see a pipeline of devices with this “feature” enabled for a while before it changes, even if we could change every OEM’s mind about it right now. I’m starting to understand more about the origin of these optimizations, the list of APKs they detect and boost for, and what party is ultimately responsible, but that’s a story for another day.
CPU
GPU
Storage
I’m not going to go through all the benchmark results on the One max since again it’s the 1.7 GHz Snapdragon 600 SoC we’re very familiar with at this point. The only oddity is storage performance, where the One max trails in random writes and reads, I'd attribute this to a different eMMC being used. The rest of the results are essentially within the margin of error. I initially suspected that the One max might have a bit more thermal headroom than the One, but this doesn't really seem to play itself out in the results, possibly due to the removable back door.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
197 Comments
View All Comments
Ruevenator - Monday, October 28, 2013 - link
I store a lot of music on my phone. I have 16 GB internal and 64 GB external. Needless to say if I purchased a phone with 80 GB, I'd have to take out a car loan to pay for it. It's stupid to pay for internal OEM storage when you can buy if cheaper. As for "ruining the user's experience with external storage", I believe Apple is just greedy, refusing to give buyers a choice in fear that they might go somewhere else for memory. That is just one of the reasons not to buy an iPhone.ELPCU - Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - link
Dude, ur argument is SO WRONG. first, slow speed of microSD card does not matter that much, because OS has to be installed on Internal flash. Except OS, there is not much real advantage of using fast speed memory. Why? Note there is thing called RAM, and ur data transfer RAM first, and data will be used after that. Unless bottleneck is happening during tranfer from storage to RAM(which does not happen most case except loading OS and large size app loading), u will not suffer from lack of speed. So what is happening? most of time, you do not benefit from those read/write speed. Oh, also, you know what? Apple's lightning cable is USB 2.0. NOT 3.0. There is huge data tranfer speed cap difference btwn 2.0 and 3.0. 160MB/s is not even useful for data tranfer from PC to iPad, because it will have a bottleneck at 35MB/s(max of USB 2.0)And also, most popular microSD card in market today is probably that of Sandisk, and they give 18MB/s for reading, and 12MB/s for writing. which is OK enough.
BACK TO MAIN ARGUMENT, the advantage of having microSD comes from the fact that phone manufacturer does not give enough storage with REASONABLE PRICE. Most people, who are interested in microSD slot, wants microSD slot because their phone does not have enough storage or manufacturer charge ur money SOO MUCH, and guess what? Apple charge u 100 bucks for every storage upgrade. Because Apple do not have microSD card slot, customers are FORCED to buy those expensive extra storage. It is clear Apple will NEVER add microSD card slot no matter what kind of performance microSD card give. Do you know how much money Apple make out from that?
There is homepage called iSuppli. Go and look their data. They show u number called Bill of Material(BOM), and BOM difference btwn iphone 5s 16GB->32GB is 9.4 dollars. and 32GB -> 64GB difference is 10.2 dollars(not even close to twice of 9,4 dollar). Although BOM does not include AS cost, marketing cost, cost from transfering, licensing, etc, iSuppli generally call zero margin if BOM is about 66% of market price. In other words, if Apple cost u 15 bucks for increasing each level of storage, they will not lose any money. Considering they have HUGE margin rate, thanks to deceptive number of 2-year contract phone, upgrading phone storage without losing money is NOT a super-generous thing. BUT INSTEAD, they charge u 100 bucks. wow. they are making 85 bucks margin with 15bucks cost if u just see storage. this is TERRIBLY RIDICULUS. If u do not know this BOM number, 100buck looks ridiculus, but if u see BOM number, it looks TERRIBLY RIDICULUS. more than 550% margin rate? wow. With this level of ridiculus price, there is no way reasonable customer even try to UNDERSTAND storage policy of apple.
u said u can understand apple? I can not understand u dude.
TheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - link
Ok, first of all, it's "you" not "u".Second, most of your argument is wrong.
"Why? Note there is thing called RAM, and ur data transfer RAM first, and data will be used after that. Unless bottleneck is happening during tranfer from storage to RAM(which does not happen most case except loading OS and large size app loading), u will not suffer from lack of speed"
What do you think the SD card is going to be used for? movies and music eat up more space than most apps, making your point completely rubbish. The whole argument was that cheap SD cards are slow to load data, then you say that it is not a problem, by stating that unless you are loading lots of data, there is not going to be an issue. The whole point is that SD cards are slow.
Third, the BOM argument makes no sense. If it only costs $15 to go from 16-32 GB, then why do they charge $100 for the upgrade? why not $25 or $30 or something like that? They would still make money. Or are you suggesting that most consumers are too stupid to figure out that apple is ripping them off?
Fourth, and finally: work on your English. You cannot make a long, legitimate argument if you type the same way that Peggy speaks in those credit card commercials.
flyingpants1 - Thursday, October 31, 2013 - link
Wow, what an asinine comment. What he said is completely accurate. All you could manage was this gem:" Third, the BOM argument makes no sense. If it only costs $15 to go from 16-32 GB, then why do they charge $100 for the upgrade? why not $25 or $30 or something like that? They would still make money. Or are you suggesting that most consumers are too stupid to figure out that apple is ripping them off?"
Seriously.
Homeles - Monday, October 28, 2013 - link
"It will be nice once they go out of business to be able to stop hearing from that tiresome segment of pretend geeks who treat their cellphones like how divas treat their purses - as fashion accessories."Textbook "No True Scottsman" fallacy right there.
Dentons - Monday, October 28, 2013 - link
You're absolutely right about Anand and Brian sometimes being "pretend geeks". If you think they're bad in these written reviews, you should listen to them on their podcast, or not.In far too many Anandtech podcasts, Brian and Anand banter for ages, (and in dreary detail) about their preferred metal skinned devices.
They could just as easily be hosting a podcast on the virtues of exquisite jewelery. It's terribly odd for writers who are so well versed in the underlying technology to morph into a fashionistas the moment smart phones are mentioned.
The shame of it is that Anand and Brian really, REALLY know their technology. Yet for whatever reason, they don't realize their metal skin fetishism is not a priority for most technology centered folks. One suspects that most of the readers on a site like Anandtech are far more interested in the underlying capabilities of a device than the exquisite luster of the diffused, metallic outer casement.
Diminish the fashion guys, get back to the tech.
cbrownx88 - Monday, October 28, 2013 - link
Can yall get off the fashion rant? Perhaps the metal preference is for a more ridged chassis/device or to achieve a desired weight/feel?Personally that's one of the reasons I love Macbooks - I hail from windows camp but after you see a MBP tumble down a flight of concrete stairs and not be absolutely shredded afterwards... you start to desire more designs that share those aluminum/steels/magnesium attributes.
superflex - Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - link
I'll venture a guess you own a plastic phone manufactured by a SK giant?Validation is a bitch, especially when your cheap ass phone is the kickball.
I'll venture another guess when Samsung intros a metal phone, you'll shut the fuck up and quit whining like a bitch.
Richard Paguirigan - Monday, October 28, 2013 - link
Lol,Samsung's flimsy, cheap-looking plastic phones are some of the ugliest phones around, they have that bluish tinted amoled screen and still manage to stutter although they have the latest chips. Their build quality is mediocre and their speakers suck, suck SUCK! I could care less about sd cards or removable batteries which ARE going by way of the dodo. get with the times...cryptech - Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - link
I spend most of my day in a cli and have 7.8GB available out of 16 on my mobile device. Go ahead and call me a pretend geek but I find it hysterical that just because you carry your video collection around on your phone you think you know a damn thing about the IT industry.