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
ciderrules - Tuesday, October 6, 2015 - link
Funny you picked the iPhone 6S and not the 6S Plus, which is a better comparison due to it having a larger screen and more "pixels to push".It scored 85 hours on their endurance rating, easily beating the GS6's 73 hours. Further, the 6S Plus beat last years 6 Plus even with a smaller battery. GS6 actually had less battery life than the GS5.
So Apple gives you the most powerful processor on the planet, decreases the battery size by 8%, and manages to increase battery life.
Kuzi - Tuesday, October 6, 2015 - link
iPhone 6s Plus is a phablet the same size of the Note 5, so should be compared with the Note 5 which gets the same rating of 85 too, but is pushing 1.7 times more pixels while offering faster multithreaded performance.ciderrules - Tuesday, October 6, 2015 - link
No, it's not faster. I already explained this to you before and you're still coming back and posting incorrect information again?Primate Labs (makers of Geekbench) rates the Note5 at 4351, the iPhone 6S/6S Plus at 4330/4331. So yes, the Note5 is a fraction of a percent faster in multi core performance.
Kuzi - Wednesday, October 7, 2015 - link
How many times do I have to explain that I own a Galaxy S6 and I get +5200 on Geekbench multicore test. I also own an Xperia Z4 tablet (SD 810 based) that gets +4800. So both are faster than A9 in multicore.Also GSMArena & Phonearena get similar results for exynos 7420 based devices as per below:
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_note5-revie...
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Our-Samsung-Galaxy-...
There is some variance with each test run, and if the phone is warmer it gets slightly lower results. In my case the lowest I got was 5000 for GS6.
thedons1983 - Sunday, October 18, 2015 - link
What a fucki#g moron. You are pathetic!!coburn_c - Sunday, October 4, 2015 - link
Both curves of the plus have a disgusting green hue to them, and when you tilt it until one disappears, the entire front gets the baby poo greens. It is easily the worst viewing angle on any modern phone, and on an AMOLED of all places, a technology known for its viewing angles. I can't imagine how they could have screwed up worse.thedons1983 - Sunday, October 18, 2015 - link
Then you lack imagination... Apple has already made a worse phone for starters, or are you so ignorant, that you can't tell the difference between apples and oranges????theduckofdeath - Monday, October 5, 2015 - link
I wonder why Anandtech still had one standard for Samsung and one standard for everybody else when it comes to displays? I don't see you people scrutinise and down rank ocular quality issues with LCD displays like to do with AMOLED. AMOLED haven't just caught up to LCD this year, it's been superior for years, Anandtech. Fix your flawed and biased tests.Peichen - Monday, October 5, 2015 - link
If AMOLED is anywhere close to IPS why aren't EIZO, NEC, Dell switching their professional lineup to AMOLED? Why are 31" calibrated IPS monitors going for $3000 while the same money can get you 55" 4K OLED TV? For that matter, how come no one is selling a calibrated OLED anything? With all the green/purple tint and grayish white you'd think OLED could use some calibration.Leave the review to the professionals. Your eyeballing review aren't worth the hot air carrying the sound bits.
Kamus - Tuesday, October 6, 2015 - link
"The professionals" agree with him, go read displaymate's reviews.