CPU and General Performance

By now, the choice of SoC has become a major focus in every smartphone. While it may not be clear how to use more compute with every generation, it’s generally accepted that stronger CPU and GPU performance is better, especially if it means that there is a power advantage in race to sleep tasks. In the case of the new Moto X we see a Snapdragon 801 SoC with CPU clocked at 2.5 GHz and a GPU clocked at 578 MHz. At this point, there's really not too much to talk about in this SoC as we've reviewed multiple devices with the same exact part.

Currently, our test suite relies upon a combination of browser and gaming benchmarks to get a good idea of total performance. However, it’s important to note that the Android results are only comparable to other Android phones as the stock browser will have specific optimizations that aren’t found in Chrome. We’ll start with the browser benchmarks first.

SunSpider 1.0.2 Benchmark  (Chrome/Safari/IE)

Kraken 1.1 (Chrome/Safari/IE)

Google Octane v2  (Chrome/Safari/IE)

WebXPRT (Chrome/Safari/IE)

In the browser benchmarks, we see that the new Moto X falls right where we expect it to for the Snapdragon 801. It's plenty fast, and I don't expect any differences in CPU performance between Snapdragon 801 and 805 devices. This is unlikely to be a point of differentiation until Snapdragon 810 and beyond come into play. We'll take a look at Basemark OS II next, which is a general system performance benchmark.

BaseMark OS II - Overall

BaseMark OS II - System

BaseMark OS II - Memory

BaseMark OS II - Graphics

BaseMark OS II - Web

Here, we once again see that there's not much different in terms of performance. We'll turn to the gaming benchmarks next to get a good idea of what to expect from the GPU.

Camera: Stills and Video GPU and NAND Performance
Comments Locked

179 Comments

View All Comments

  • bigboxes - Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - link

    For the most part I would agree that measurements should be given in inches. However, almost all manufacturing is done in metric and if I needed otherwise I would just use a conversion app on my smartphone. And for all the hater comments I'll await your cries the very next article that posts specs in inches. I know there are some foreign readers, but this is an American website so don't get too distraught when that happens. You can use that very same conversion app to convert inches to metric.
  • Peroxyde - Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - link

    I always respect AT audience as knowledgeable people. But this is the exception. Trust me on this one sir, the metric system is far superior. If you don't get it, this means there are some implications you are not aware of. This could be you are not strong in maths or science? Here is a simple test, do you know by heart each increment of the wrenches or drill bits sizes when measure in inches? With metric it goes by 1, 2, 3, ... even a 3 years old kid can know it without learning.
  • nivedita - Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - link

    Um, the US makes drill bits in fractions of an inch. You sound like a 3 yr old who just learned how to count yourself, you know.
  • soccerballtux - Thursday, September 18, 2014 - link

    inches will always be superior for size estimation. it's impossible to visualize how many centimeters a phone is by looking at it, because the count always exceeds 5. Inches, eh about 5, maybe 6. What, 13 centimeters? how am I supposed to visually divide the phone into 15 rows like I do with 5 inches? Just doesn't work, and won't ever. I, for one, think our socialist commie europeans can suck a fat 5" one.
  • Peroxyde - Thursday, September 18, 2014 - link

    Oh please, you don't know what you are talking about. You are blissfully happy to know that 1GB = 1000 MB, and you would scream in despair if you were told that a smartphone capacity has a 3/8 Giga inch bytes. When you start doing engineering calculation using feet, inch and pound you will understand what I meant.
  • soccerballtux - Saturday, September 20, 2014 - link

    I prefer mils myself
  • techxx - Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - link

    I still think Motorola made the mistake of not realizing that the market wanted a BETTER Moto X, not a BIGGER one. If they had kept it at 4.7" and used a high quality display at 720p, we would have a very unique and incredible ergonomic phone that is high-spec'd with awesome battery life. My fingers are still crossed for a Moto X Compact that can deliver this because as of right now the Sony Xperia Z3 Compact is the true successor to the Moto X IMO.
  • semo - Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - link

    Or at the very least, they should have kept the Moto G the same size or bumped it to no further than 4.7". I think this is the only high end phone that doesn't have a SD slot. A removable battery is also a must as batteries are considered consumables. Like selling printers with sealed ink/toner cartridges. Madness!
  • chrone - Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - link

    +1. We want high performance 4.7" device.
  • flyingpants1 - Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - link

    It's called the Samsung Galaxy Alpha.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now