System Performance

In order to test the Exynos 7420 and the phone in general, we turn to our suite of benchmarks which are able to show how the device performs in common general computing workloads. Something as simple as web browsing is still surprisingly intensive on mobile phones, and in general Android can often be quite stressful to run in the constraints of a ~3W total TDP especially on any phone still running Dalvik due to its strong reliance on bytecode and a virtual machine that translates bytecode to machine code just before and during application runtime. ART improves this significantly, but is limited in the nature of optimization as AOT compilation optimizations are limited by the CPU power of the SoC and the need to compile the application in a reasonable amount of time.

As always, we'll start things off with our browser benchmarks. After getting to use the phone, it became clear to me that Chrome is poorly optimized against the Galaxy S6 as Samsung’s browser is clearly superior in performance. For that reason I've gone ahead and run our benchmarks on both Chrome and on the stock browser, as seen below.

Kraken 1.1 (Chrome/Safari/IE)

Google Octane v2  (Chrome/Safari/IE)

WebXPRT (Chrome/Safari/IE)

Needless to say, in order to see the full potential of the Exynos 7420 and its cluster of A57s, it’s necessary to use Samsung’s stock browser. This performance is really quite amazing when compared to Apple’s A8X, which has basically been the gold standard for performance in the mobile space in the context of ARM SoCs.

Moving on, as a part of our updates to the benchmark suite for 2015, we'll take a look at Basemark OS II 2.0, which should give a better picture of CPU performance in addition to overall device performance.

Basemark OS II 2.0 - Overall

The browser benchmarks seem to hide some pretty enormous variability as the Galaxy S 6 edge (which is comparable to the Galaxy S 6) sets a new record among Android devices. The only challenger is the iPad Air 2, which uses the A8X SoC with three Enhanced Cyclone cores and the semi-custom GXA6850 GPU.

Basemark OS II 2.0 - System

This system test contains a floating point and integer test, in addition XML parsing, which means that this test mostly stresses CPU and RAM. Interestingly enough, the Exynos 7420 pulls far ahead of both the Exynos 5433 and Snapdragon 810 in this test, and approaches the A8X. The difference between the 5433 and 7420 is likely a combination of the higher clocks on both the A57 and A53 clusters for the 7420 (1.9/1.3 on the 5433, 2.1/1.5 on the 7420), in addition to the ability to stay at a high 'overdrive' clock due to reduced leakage from the 14LPE process. The One M9 likely falls a bit short here due to HTC's governor settings restricting the use of all 8 cores simultaneously.

Basemark OS II 2.0 - Memory

While one might guess that the memory test of 'Basemark OS II 2.0 - Memory' is of RAM, this is actually a test of the internal storage. Once again we see the S6 edge come close to leading the pack due to the use of the new UFS (Universal Flash Storage) standard. Casual examination reveals that the S6 edge has a queue depth of 16, and that it identifies itself with the rather cryptic model name of KLUBG4G1BD-E0B1.

Basemark OS II 2.0 - Graphics

Basemark OS II 2.0 - Web

For the web test, it uses the built-in WebView rendering engine rather than Chrome and paints a distinctly different picture, especially because these tests are focused on HTML5 and CSS rather than JavaScript. Here we can see that the iPhone 6 and iPad Air 2 continue to hold their lead, but the Galaxy S6 is pretty much the king of the hill when it comes to Android devices.

Our next system benchmark is PCMark, which does a number of basic benchmarks designed to stress various aspects of the device in everyday workloads like video playback, web browsing, text editing, and photo editing. This tends to test every aspect of a mobile device, unlike microbenchmarks that can often miss aspects of the system that can affect performance.

PCMark - Work Performance Overall

PCMark - Web Browsing

PCMark - Video Playback

PCMark - Writing

PCMark - Photo Editing

In these tests, the Galaxy S6 continues to perform strongly here due to the fast NAND storage solution and the Exynos 7420 SoC. As we have already covered the Basemark OS II 2.0 results in previous articles, I would refer back to it as those scores are final and have already been contextualized.

Overall, in these general purpose computing tasks that stress CPU, memory, and NAND performance we can see that the Exynos 7420 is off to a flying start. Samsung Mobile should focus more strongly on optimizing the software stack against Chrome as mobile Chrome has around twice the user share of stock Android browsers. I often say that the SoC is the foundation to a good smartphone, and in the case of the Galaxy S6 it feels like this is especially true.

Display System Performance Cont'd: GPU Performance
Comments Locked

306 Comments

View All Comments

  • h3ck - Friday, May 8, 2015 - link

    Because even though media, books, music and other content is cloud based and easy to access, applications are getting increasingly larger and you still want to have space for local content in general. I went with the 64GB myself, but I also use a Dash Micro. If you don't know what that is, it's amazing > http://www.amazon.com/Dash-Micro-MicroSD-Android-U...
  • elchepe - Saturday, May 23, 2015 - link

    I don't know what world you're living in, but most people take cheap loads of pictures and videos these days. Considering the megapixel count on the S6 and other flagship, expandable memory certainly becomes a necessity. There are plenty of people who know the woes of being unable to update their iPhones because there's not enough space available.
  • deputc26 - Friday, April 17, 2015 - link

    I would like to see an APL vs. Brightness graph for maximum manual brightness. Using 100% APL unjustifiably biases the test against AMOLED screens. 60-80% APL would correspond much better to real world scenarios.
  • Brett Howse - Saturday, April 18, 2015 - link

    Check the display page again.
  • deputc26 - Saturday, April 18, 2015 - link

    "Manual" brightness, not automatic. I checked the display page again and was disappointed.
  • melgross - Saturday, April 18, 2015 - link

    The problem amoled has, is if brightness remains too high for too long, the display will burn out after a time. The real max brightness is around 350nits, the same as before. In fact, Samsung is taking a big chance with the max brightness here. I predict that we'll be seeing display life significantly shortened for a number of people who spend a lot of time outdoors with their phones.

    The life of all LEDs is directly dependent on their temperature. Amoled needs low temps to work, unlike metal based LEDs, used for LCD screen back lights. Their innefficiency means that a lot of power is required for maximum brightness, which leads to overheating. That's why manual brightness on these is the same its been for the last three generations.
  • Brett Howse - Saturday, April 18, 2015 - link

    @deptuc26: So you are concerned about 100% APL being biased against AMOLED but want to see the manual brightness where the scores are lower? I'm confused. You seem to contradict yourself there.
  • melgross - Saturday, April 18, 2015 - link

    No, not at all. I'm pointing out that while Samsung has a new brightness setting for outside, you can't use it for regular use. That because using it more than occasionally will damage the display. This is like redlining a car engine. You can do it, but don't do it too often.
  • deputc26 - Saturday, April 18, 2015 - link

    Values for both Manual brightness and automatic brightness are given at 100% APL in charts in the review. This is unrealistic, no one walks around with a pure white screen. The review partially makes up for this error by including a "APL vs brightness" graph for automatic brightness. It does not include such a graph for manual brightness leaving the attentive reader wondering what the brightness would be at a realistic APL and leaving the inattentive reader with a false impression.
  • Uplink10 - Saturday, April 18, 2015 - link

    Because then people would not buy 64GB or 128GB phones which are very overpriced. They would just buy 32GB/16GB phone and additional MicroSD card. Why? Because of greed.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now