CPU Performance

The 2015 Moto E with LTE is the first device with Snapdragon 410 that we've run through our tests. However, buyers of the 3G versions will only get a quad core Snapdragon 200 with 4 Cortex A7 cores. While this is still an improvement over the original, it's quite a disappointment when compared to the LTE edition. To be clear, the results below are from the Snapdragon 410 version, not the Snapdragon 200 version.

Qualcomm's MSM8916 is a quad core Cortex A53 part. Motorola's implementation has it running with a peak CPU core frequency of 1.2GHz, and it's paired with a 400MHz Adreno 306 GPU. Like the Cortex A7 cores used in Snapdragon 410, Cortex A53 is still a dual-issue in-order design, and pipeline depth remains the same as well. ARM has greatly improved branch prediction accuracy and expanded how instructions can be co-issued with Cortex A53, and so much of the performance increase over Cortex A7 will come from those improvements.

Kraken 1.1 (Chrome/Safari/IE)

Google Octane v2  (Chrome/Safari/IE)

WebXPRT (Chrome/Safari/IE)

The Moto E shows a decent improvement over Snapdragon 400 based devices like the Moto G, and the improvement over the original Moto E would be even larger. That being said the Moto E doesn't do quite as well as one might expect in our browser tests. Browser optimizations play no small part in this, with Chrome having lagged behind the stock browser from other manufacturers for some time now. Motorola's devices use Chrome as their default browser, and I have a feeling that to an extent the Moto E is limited by software here rather than hardware.

PCMark - Web Browsing

PCMark - Video Playback

PCMark - Writing

PCMark - Photo Editing

PCMark - Work Performance Overall

PCMark is a benchmark that focuses more on real-world scenarios where race to sleep speed is paramount. In it we see another modest overall lead compared the Moto G. The writing test in particular shows a great deal of improvement, while the video playback test is slightly worse which I suspect is the result of the Moto E's flash storage speeds causing video seek times to be longer than the Moto G.

Basemark OS II 2.0 - System

Basemark OS II 2.0 - Memory

Basemark OS II 2.0 - Graphics

Basemark OS II 2.0 - Web

Basemark OS II 2.0 - Overall

In BaseMark OS II we actually see the Moto E performing worse than the Snapdragon 400 powered Moto G. The Moto G's higher score in the memory subtest helps to give it an advantage overall, and I'm at a loss to explain why the Moto E scores 50 points lower than the Moto G in the Web subtest. I can only imagine that the cause is related to software tuning but I can't definitively say why the gap is as large as it is.

Overall the Moto E does perform well for a budget device, but I do wish Snapdragon 410 showed a greater performance uplift over Snapdragon 400. With only 1GB of RAM and a maximum memory bandwidth of only 5.3GB/s Snapdragon 410 is also under some heavy memory constraints that could be acting as a bottleneck to potentially greater performance improvements with Cortex A53 over Cortex A7.

Introduction and Design GPU and NAND Performance
POST A COMMENT

91 Comments

View All Comments

  • Brandon Chester - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link

    That's a really bad mistake I commonly make. Thank you for pointing it out. Also the Moto E should be on the basemark chart, it might have glitched out and not regenerated or something. Let me take a look at it. Reply
  • mayankleoboy1 - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link

    I have the MotoE 1st gen. I have only 2 complaints:

    1. The internal storage is too low at 4gb. I cant install many apps.
    2. The gallery app takes a long time to sharpen zoomed images.
    Reply
  • PsychoPif - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link

    I'm happy to see you got some Windows Phone in there. While there is newer alternatives at this price, it's nice to see the diversity Reply
  • Peichen - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link

    Overpriced when comparing with Chinese phones that have way better parts for the same price. The only reason Moto charge as much as it does with the the X, G, E and speciality phones is because it is the only American Android phone and if you want to buy American you have to pay the premium. Reply
  • Daniel Egger - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link

    > Overpriced when comparing with Chinese phones that have way better parts for the same price.

    And which phones would that be? At least there're no brand phones at that price tag with this (hardware) feature set and then we haven't even talked about software yet; it's close to impossible to find a phone which is available with (mostly unadultered) Lollipop and given that many or even most vendors in this price segment do not even care to offer *any* updates that's a major factor for any sane person. Also Motorola is one of the few companies which allow for easy rooting and even bootloader unlocking -- that's no small feat.

    I totally agree with Brandon that the only reasonable price/performance competition can be found in the Windows Phone camp.
    Reply
  • Peichen - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link

    Xiaomi Redmi 2 is $112 with Snapdragon 410, 1 or 2GB of RAM, 8 or 16GB of storage, 720p 4.7" screen, 8mp and 2mp camera and Android 5.0 Reply
  • Daniel Egger - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link

    Aha, I can't find it for less than $132 (the 1GB/8GB version). Here in Europe the cheapest price is 40€ more expensive then the Moto E 2nd Gen LTE. Also MIUI v6 is based on KitKat and 32bit so not really interesting. Reply
  • Impulses - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link

    Not sure why the slightly xenophobic tinge is necessary... It might be designed in the US but I'm pretty sure no Moto phone is made there anymore (they closed the Texas assembly plant no?) and Moto's parent company is Chinese anyway (unless Lenovo decided to move).

    Moto has better distribution than Xiaomi etc, particularly within regions that Anandtech's readership is at, get over it. That isn't even saying much considering how woeful Moto's distribution and site are, but it's still a fact. I'd actually love to see some Xiaomi reviews but if I can't easily buy one it's pointless.

    Nothing against them, I've got a pair of Xiaomi Pistons that are some of the best IEM I've tried under $70, if not the best (and they were $25).
    Reply
  • blzd - Thursday, April 23, 2015 - link

    If you actually try and buy an imported Chinese phone you end up paying a lot more then their MSRP, often more then double.

    Also who wants to use an Android interface that was never designed to be used with the English language?
    Reply
  • RealTheXev - Wednesday, April 29, 2015 - link

    I just picked up the LTE version of this phone for my mother on Verizon Wireless (and yes, I am 100% sure it is the 2015 model). It comes setup for pre-pay plans and has a bargain basement price of $69 (at Walmart no less). I even read on XDA of a few people being able to add it to their post paid Verizon plans simply by calling Verizon.

    For THAT price, its a freakn' sweet phone and its a huge upgrade over my mom's something LG with Android 2.6 3G (it was soo old.. and it was only a year old.. not even worth looking up the model # lol).
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now