The Samsung Galaxy Note5 and Galaxy S6 edge+ Review
by Joshua Ho on October 2, 2015 8:00 AM ESTSystem Performance Cont'd
Now that we’ve covered some of the traditionally CPU-bound tests, we can start to look at tests that more strongly emphasize GPU performance. It’s worth noting here that while 3DMark is supposed to determine gaming and graphics performance, the overall score includes a CPU performance component in the form of a physics test that means it isn't much of a pure GPU test.
Overall, there's nothing really surprising about these results. The Exynos 7420 should continue to deliver great GPU performance for anyone interested in a high-end phablet or smartphone. There are some improvements in 3DMark in regards to graphics performance, but it's likely that we're just looking at newer drivers as the GPU doesn't heat up fast enough for throttling to be affecting these results.
NAND Performance
At this point, it’s probably not a surprise to know that NAND performance can have very real effects on user experience. If an OEM decides to skimp heavily on storage in order to drive the price down, it’s at least somewhat likely that the device will start to exhibit major IO pauses at some point in the device lifecycle. In order to test this, we rely on our standard storage tests which include Androbench with some custom settings to get more realistic test results along with StorageBench for iOS which is comparable to Androbench.
In the case of the Galaxy Note5 we’re still looking at a UFS storage solution similar to what was found in the Galaxy S6, but it looks like this is slightly newer as the storage is identified as a Toshiba THGLF2G8J4LBATDA chip rather than the Samsung variant that was found in the Galaxy S6. It’s unclear whether Samsung is now multi-sourcing UFS storage for their mobile devices or what distribution exists here.
Interestingly, the Note5 regresses a little bit in storage performance relative to the Galaxy S6, which is likely due to the shift to Toshiba's NAND. However, this difference is small enough that in everyday use it's unlikely that it will be noticed. Performance over time should be acceptable as well.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
225 Comments
View All Comments
lopri - Friday, October 2, 2015 - link
Also odd that the author thinks the color shift on the Edge+ is due to RGBG subpixel layout. I thought the color shift would be there due to curves regardless of subpixel layout.In any case I give the author props for this effort. A rather thorough review, even if a little heavy on editorials.
lilmoe - Friday, October 2, 2015 - link
After being called out so many times, your "comparison charts" are still an absolute (intentional?) mess. Why do you have 25 different phones on one chart, and 10 completely different ones on others? Why is the crappiest browser on Android still being used for battery tests? Why is the iPhone 6 in GPU tests and the 6plus absent?While they do have really nice articles, Anandtech scores the lowest in the consistency department out of all sites. Please try being more consistent.
Can you just put 4-5 most popular phones of each platform on the SAME darn charts and keep them that way, without conveniently leaving some out and putting them back here and there? Like PLEASE?
Also, it would be nice if you'd explain why you're posting NAND performance benchmarks with your particular set of settings. I seriously find it VERY hard to believe that UFS 2.0 is equal or often slower than the very best of eMMC in sequentials and randoms.
lopri - Friday, October 2, 2015 - link
The real mess is the camera samples. (which by the way is not limited to Android devices for a change) It is maddening to sift through camera samples without knowing ahead what I am going to see only to click dozen more times to find out what I am looking for.Kuzi - Saturday, October 3, 2015 - link
Agreed their charts are a mess.Bob Todd - Friday, October 2, 2015 - link
The gigantor phone market is more competitive than ever, so it's interesting to see them dropping features and generally not taking full advantage of being the most vertically integrated Android OEM. They dropped microSD but capacity maxes out at 64GB. They had the opportunity to be ballsy and go higher capacity PCIe NVMe and absolutely crush every other Android OEM in storage performance. You have to *really* want the pen, because this looks like a tough sell at $780 for 64GB when $650 gets you a 128GB Nexus 6P and $500 gets you a 64GB Moto X Pure with expandable storage. Sure Samsung's SOC is better, but this is a pretty underwhelming release for me.TheinsanegamerN - Friday, October 2, 2015 - link
Not to mention the sealed, non removable battery. And samsung's terrible track record with updates.thedons1983 - Sunday, October 18, 2015 - link
Sealed, non removable battery = better looking device. Simple as. Never mind the fact, that most users do not want to swap the battery, as they simply don't need to. How obsessed with your phone are you anyway? You should probably try getting a life instead!!lilmoe - Friday, October 2, 2015 - link
Samsung knows a thing or two about fast storage, and their UFS 2.0 is pretty darn GOOD. It's just not showing well on you-know-who's charts.Bob Todd - Friday, October 2, 2015 - link
You are missing the point. They are charging more than "good enough" money for this thing. They need to offer compelling reasons to spend way more on this than the other solid new entries in this segment. Something like a PCIe NVMe solution would have been a good way to justify that price gap. I predict steep discounts (~$100+) shortly after launch.lilmoe - Friday, October 2, 2015 - link
"I predict steep discounts (~$100+) shortly after launch"They already priced the Note 5 cheaper than the Note 4 at launch. Sorry if American carriers are over charging.
"You are missing the point"
Read my *short* comment again. Their storage solution isn't particularly inferior. Random reads and writes are comparable, if not better. If you honestly believe that sequential performance is more important than random for everyday workloads, then I have nothing else to tell you. It's not like we have an extensive comparison of performance and power consumption/efficiency between Samsung's UFS 2.0 vs Apple's sourced NVMe solution (might not even be possible at this stage), nor is it the case that Samsung has already developed a miniature PCIe V-NAND 950 PRO NVMe SSD and is holding back to "cut corners".
Everything in this segment is overpriced, for better or worse. We just learn to "deal with it". That said, your point boils down to overall manufacturer costs, ie: BoM. You shouldn't make assumptions on your own over bits and pieces of the package. Samsung, despite manufacturing most of their parts, have a costlier BoM than most other OEMs, including Apple. Their external enclosure, AMOLED screens, Wacom Digitizers, DACs, etc. are always best in class and cost more than comparable parts from the competition. Other than the omission of SD-card controller, they went all out in every other detail (removable batteries don't contribute to cost, it's a design choice rather).
That said, I'd rather have them start with 64GB of standard storage (128GB option) and an SD-Card slot for a much more value proposition at that price range. A larger ~4000mah battery would have also been possible since the Note 5 is relatively large but is one of the lightest "phablet" out there. This goes for all manufacturers, not only Samsung.