More than “true” octa-core power, 3D effects, fingerprint recognition and even Quad HD screen resolution, 64-bit processors are the next must-have feature of high-end smartphones. Make that low-end too, as it appears one of Samsung’s first devices to support the evolved architecture, maybe the absolute first, will be a fairly lackluster SM-G510F.
The model number is a genuine enigma and makes the handheld’s identity a very tough nut to crack, however the specifications are nearly set in stone, thanks to the all-knowing GFX Bench database. Assuming the benchmark results and data are legit (which they are), the SM-G510F shall sport a large but low-res 4.8-inch 960 x 540 pix res display and 1.2 GHz quad-core Qualcomm chip.
The CPU’s identification isn’t immediately apparent, but since it’s doubled by an Adreno 306 GPU, it can only be a Snapdragon 410. Remember the 410? Qualcomm introduced it back in December 2013 as its very first 64-bit solution, promising sampling will be available in the first half of 2014.
That put gadgets powered by the S410 on track for an H2 launch, and if this SM-G510F test is any indication, we won’t need to wait until the holiday season. July, maybe August is when the 4.8 incher is most likely to see daylight, possibly for a price as low as $150.
At least that’s what Qualcomm said it was eyeing with Snapdragon 400’s evolved but frugal brother, a 28 nm SoC with an ARM v8 instruction set, top clock speeds of 1.4 GHz, built-in 4G LTE, Wi-Fi, NFC, Bluetooth and GPS support.
Oh, and fret not about GFX Bench listing SM-G510F’s processor as an ARM v7-based unit. That’s likely a typo. Meanwhile, we sure hope the camera sensors aren’t typos, as 8 and 5 megapixels would be pretty outstanding features for the expected price range.
The on-board 1 gig of RAM ain’t bad either, and Android 4.4.2 is for all intents and purposes identical with 4.4.3, the newest, hottest, tastiest KitKat build. Also confirmed by Zauba to carry a 4.8-inch screen and sensible price point (INR 9,000, or $150), the SM-G510F entered India for R&D a couple of weeks back and testing and evaluation earlier this week, signaling fairly advanced development work and an imminent commercial release in emerging markets. Stateside as well? I wouldn’t hold my breath.
For the record, the closest we’ve been able to dig to the SM-G510F alias has been through Galaxy Trends and Cores (model numbered SM-G3xxx) and Galaxy Grand 2, aka SM-G710. So again, no idea how Samsung plans to brand the 64-bit beast low-ender. Any guesses?
The sweet, sweet Xperia G rumors floating around a while ago never materialized and so technically Sony is yet to deliver a legitimate Moto G rival. But the Japanese may target Motorola’s other low-cost enchilada before long with a handheld known merely by a mysterious combination of letters and numbers.
Meet the D2403, benchmarked over at GFX Bench and exposed as a fairly humble 4.4 incher… with 4G LTE connectivity. Sooo, will it compete against the 4G Moto G after all? Probably not, since the 884 x 540 (read 960 x 540) pix res display is no match for G’s 720p glass.
Then again, the Xperia looks to be the superior photographic piece of equipment, thanks to an 8 MP rear-facing camera capable of shooting Full HD videos and escorted by nifty add-ons such as flash, HDR, autofocus and face detection. Hence, I presume Sony intends to kill two birds with one stone.
Of course, they’ll need mighty competitive pricing to challenge any one of Moto’s two budget-conscious champions. Say, in the $180 – $210 ballpark.
Aside from the modest panel, the D2403 makes a major sacrifice in the front snapper department, likely alienating selfie junkies with a sub-par VGA cam. Meanwhile, the quad-core 1.2 GHz Snapdragon 400 CPU and Adreno 305 GPU make for a zippy enough hardware config to tie the G raw speed-wise and trump the E.
The 1 gig of RAM is again on-par with what the G offers, and so is built-in storage: 16 GB. Technically, the D2403 and Moto G are on even ground on the software side of things as well, though obviously Sony’s Android 4.4 KitKat fork will be plagued by customizations and tweaks.
Before wrapping up, I’m ashamed to admit I truly have no idea how the D2403 will be branded once it goes official. The model number is somewhat similar to Xperia M2’s D2303, but the specs and size bring to mind last year’s Xperia L, aka C2105. Right, so my best bet, based on nothing but a hunch, is Xperia L2.
Today seems to be an exceptionally prolific day for the sneaky, leaky, all-revealing folks behind mobile benchmark authority GFX Bench, as they’ve first exposed a positively dreamy forthcoming Nvidia-made high-end tablet and now an oddball new Samsung Galaxy family member.
Why oddball? Mostly because it’s smaller than last year’s Galaxy Mega 6.3 “phone”, yet almost certainly destined to be promoted as a tablet. There’s loads of evidence supporting that wacky theory, starting with the gizmo’s model number.
The SM-T255 string is in no way associated with existent Samsung handhelds, instead having very close ties with Galaxy Tab aliases. The Tab 3 7.0 is also known as SM-T215, the Tab 4 7.0 has the alternate SM-T230 and T235 monikers and the Tab 4 8.0 is the SM-T330 and SM-T335.
Wait, but if that’s any indication of SM-T255’s identity, shouldn’t the new kid on the block find a spot closer to the peak of the totem pole than the Tab 4 7.0? It sure makes sense, though if we’re not missing anything, the unannounced “slate” is clearly humbler.
For one thing, it’s smaller, at 6.2 inches. Then, it runs an older copy of Android, namely 4.3 Jelly Bean. The on-board Snapdragon 400 CPU is essentially just as zippy (or laggy), packing four Cortex A7 cores clocked at 1.2 GHz, the accompanying Adreno 305 GPU is identical, and the RAM is tied, at 1.5 GB.
Also, you get the same amount of internal storage space – 16 gigs. Then again, this supposed Galaxy Tab 4 6.2 comes with 8 MP/2 MP cameras in tow, which are considerably superior to the Tab 4 7.0’s 3.15/1.3 megapixel snappers. Still, all in all, the upcoming 6.2 incher doesn’t look like much.
Of course, a low (make that ultra-low) price tag could save it from immediate oblivion. As long as you’re comfortable with the idea of owning a pocket-friendly device unable to support voice calls.
Oh, and in case you’re not convinced this is indeed a Wi-Fi-only slate and reckon maybe it’s a Galaxy Mega spin-off, two additional sources put the information in black and white. There’s import tracker Zauba, which caught the SM-T255S visiting India back in March and lists it as a “sample tablet PC for R&D purpose”, and the Wi-Fi Alliance.
The latter approved the T255S “tablet” at the beginning of April, so a formal announcement and subsequent commercial launch are probably imminent. Interestingly, Zauba valued the 6.2 incher at INR 28,065 ($465), so way north of both the estimated worth of the Galaxy Mega 6.3 and that of the GTab 4 7.0.
Are we missing something that makes the presumed Tab 4 6.2 so valuable? Any guesses? Anyone?
Nvidia’s mobile chip manufacturing division might be gasping for air and the company’s rookie gaming handheld and tablet efforts clearly failed to make an impact, but you can’t blame the Santa Clara-based tech giant for trying.
Especially when their next stab at Android slates looks as mind-blowing as the “Mocha”. Revealed by the omnipresent, omniscient GFX Bench database and likely to get a name change once if it goes official, the Mocha is allegedly a 7.9 incher with a 2,048 x 1,536 pixels resolution display.
Wait a second, wait for it, an instant more, boom, there you go. The number really sank in, eh? Known as QXGA, aka Quad Extended Graphics Array, it’s the so-called Retina-grade res used on Apple’s latest iPad Air.
Only Cupertino’s pad is a 9.7 incher that delivers 264 ppi pixel density. Meanwhile, assuming the info disclosed today is legit, Nvidia’s Tegra Note follow-up should boast a, wait for it, 324 ppi. Forget Retina, this is Super-Retina.
And we’re just getting started in listing all the awesome features that may well make the Mocha the first legitimate iPad mini “killer” contender. On the software side of things, the gizmo comes with Android 4.4.2 KitKat out the box, whereas the quad-core 2.1 GHz Tegra K1 CPU, along with the Kepler GPU, seem to remarkably outperform each and every phone and tablet out and about.
Take Samsung’s spanking new, sizzling hot Galaxy Tab Pro 8.4. Its Adreno 330 GPU scores results three times as modest as the Kepler in several on and offscreen 3D graphics tests, including Manhattan and T-Rex. Impressive? That must be the understatement of the century.
And sure, the K1 inside Mocha’s hood, comprised of four Cortex-A15 cores, is still built on 32-bit architecture instead of the coveted 64-bit. But for the time being, this should do nicely in keeping Qualcomm at bay and possibly, create the perfect opportunity for a Phoenix-like comeback.
By the by, Nvidia’s future powerhouse looks like a photographic champion too, thanks to an 8 MP rear-facing camera and, get this, 5 MP selfie-friendly front snapper. It almost sounds too good to be true.
And the on-board 2 GB RAM and 16 GB storage space (13 user available), while not mind-boggling, are decent enough to keep the overall force of nature picture intact. Of course, with no confirmation the gadget is real and coming soon, we need to treat the “information” package with maximum discretion and caution.
For starters, we can’t be certain it’s a Tegra Note sequel or Shield spin-off, though the latter is obviously a stretch for more than one reason. More importantly, just because someone tested the “Mocha” and bothered to benchmark it, it doesn’t mean it’s headed to store shelves.
It could be an experiment. A hoax. A prank. But it’s not. Say it isn’t so, Nvidia, please, pretty please with sugar on top. And cream. A mocha without cream is something else entirely.
Untroubled by Nvidia and Ouya’s struggles with making their latest Android game console efforts relevant, Asus forges ahead with its own Shield rival/trend-setter wannabe, a controller supposedly dubbed Game Box.
There isn’t a whole lot of new information unearthed by the fresh source, just further confirmation the gaming box/accessory runs Android 4.3 Jelly Bean, packing quad-core 1.9 GHz Nvidia Tegra 4 power.
The latter, which mind you is almost a year old, basically trumps the former, yet to be released, in every single test save for driver overhead and render quality evaluations. And sure, the Game Box was benchmarked while connected to a 6.9-inch screen boasting 1,920 x 1,080 pixels resolution, unlike the Shield, which sports a 1,280 x 720 pix res display of its own. But still, mediocre performance is the best you can look for in Asus’ upcoming experiment.
The gizmo’s only saving grace is thus affordability, although since it’s just a basic wireless controller doubled by a not-so-punchy console, I don’t see how Asus could lower the bar enough to warrant a purchase. Remember, the Ouya started at a measly $99 back in the day and is this close to extinction already.
Oh, Asus, if only you’d have put one of Nvidia’s next-generation Tegra K1 processors inside the Game Box. A storage boost beyond the current 8 gigs (5.6 user available) might have helped also, while the on-board 2 GB RAM is… decent… enough… I guess.
But hey, there’s still time to scrap the project as is, get back to the drawing board, maybe port Android 4.4 KitKat to the Game Box 2.0 and stand a chance. How about it, Asus? And you, dear (light) gamers? Would you be more pleased with something like that, or are these initiatives all destined to fail until Google enters the picture? We’re all ears.
There’s no question Android’s versatility has greatly evolved over time, as the OS now sustains not only conventional smartphones and tablets, but also TVs, cars, transforming tab-laptop crossbreeds and even a couple of skimpy, budget-conscious full-fledged notebooks.
Yet nothing seemed to prepare us for what Dell is working on. The creators of mostly lackluster Android devices so far, including the Venue 7 and 8 slates, apparently have an XPS 12 version in the pipeline conceived around Google’s mobile platform.
For those of you living under a (remote) rock, the XPS 12 line currently consists of sleek, sturdy, adaptable so-called convertible ultrabooks with state-of-the-art hardware and Windows 8 running the software show.
Sure, they’re expensive, really expensive in fact, starting at roughly $800 and going all the way up to $1,500, but boy, are they good-looking and punchy. And as it turns out, the franchise might be ready to branch out, welcoming a new, Android-supporting member into the family.
Model numbered XPS12-9Q33, which is oddly the same moniker used by a Windows 8 variant in circulation, this unforeseen and mind-blowing hybrid is listed over at GFX Bench as packing a quad-core fourth-generation 1.7 GHz Intel Core i3 Haswell processor, Intel HD Graphics 4400 and 4 GB RAM.
All supported by Android 4.4.2 KitKat. Wait, is that even possible? Well, it may take a bit of fine tuning here and there, but all in all, why not? If Core i3-powered Chromebooks are happening, I’d think the sky is the limit for Android’s growth.
Of course, a hoax or innocent typo are always on the table. At least until Dell comes forward to confirm or deny the story. The model number is clearly fishy and, to illustrate the benchmark scores, GFX Bench uses the pic of a Windows XPS 12.
Then again, never have we seen the source commit an error of such epic proportions. It’s not like you can just hit the wrong key on your keyboard and enter “Android 4.4.2” in lieu of “Windows 8”. Besides, here’s a crazy theory to explain the photo.
What if this upcoming XPS12-9Q33 runs both Android and Windows? You know, in a dual-boot configuration. Personally, I’ve never understood the feasibility and appeal of those machines, but if Dell is ready to invest time and money into the concept, maybe there’s something to it.
Either way, the laptop-cum-tablet sports a 12.6-inch 1,920 x 1,080 pixels resolution (Full HD) display, 67 GB of built-in user available storage and a shockingly scanty 0.9 MP front-facing camera. Also, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity.
The leathery X+1, LTE-enabled G and dirt-cheap E are among these forthcoming potential box-office hits, with Droid Ultra, Maxx and Mini follow-ups also implied. And let’s not forget the 360, Motorola’s first foray into the booming wearable market sector and one of the first smartwatches built on Android Wear.
Also, the XT912A handheld. Wait, what XT912A? Well, the XT912A revealed in a GFX Bench test moments ago. Now, it’s virtually impossible to guess the phone’s future market name based solely on that confusing model number, but looking at the specs disclosed I think I’ve narrowed down the list of suspects to a couple.
My hunch and nothing but my hunch tells me the XT912A is… drum roll, please… either the X+1 (which I secretly hope will end up being called something else), or some kind of Droid Ultra sequel. Or who knows, a flagship device part of a different family and set to roll out internationally.
Nah, my money’s on the X+1. I mean, the hardware is high-end, but not too high-end, just like with the first-gen X. The 5.2-inch display sports1,920 x 1,080 pixels resolution, which is an obvious progress from 1,280 x 720, but nowhere near Oppo Find 7 and LG G3’s 2,560 x 1,440.
The chip taking care of the speed business is a quad-core 2.3 GHz Snapdragon 800, not a 2.5 GHz S801. Then you have 2 GB RAM, not 3, a 12 MP rear-facing camera, not 16 or 21, and finally 32 GB built-in storage (24 user available), signaling the absence of a microSD card slot.
On the software side of things, this X+1 prime candidate runs Android 4.4.3 KitKat, which is yet to roll out in an organized fashion to a single gadget out and about. One more reason to doubt we’re dealing with a Verizon-exclusive Droid Ultra Plus, Droid Ultra 2 or whatever.
Back to the cryptic XT912A designation, let’s mention it smells a bit fishy, as last year it was allocated to a Moto X test build that, as far as we know, never became reality. Digging even further, we can track an XT912 model number associated with Verizon’s 2011 Droid Razr, meaning this XT912A might be part of the Droid family after all. Or a very complex hoax. Or another prototype doomed to never see daylight.
Damn it, there are just too many variables to the equation! But the bottom line is Motorola is alive and kicking.
The statements reeked of desperation to keep some sort of mystery going vis-à-vis a device everyone knew existed six months before they should have, and now there’s confirmation an ultra-high-end GS5 with Quad HD display, 3 GB RAM and quad-core Snapdragon 805 processor is indeed in the works.
Well, confirmation might be a bit of a stretch, but when’s the last time GFX Bench supplied false information? Exactly, the benchmark database is rock-solid, and so we have no reason to doubt the legitimacy of SM-G906S’ revealed specs.
Running Android 4.4.2 KitKat, the handheld that’s clearly still in testing and thus may not roll out until, say, June crams the uber-hyped so-called 2K resolution, otherwise known as Quad HD or QHD, into a 5.2-inch piece of Super AMOLED glass.
The resulting pixel density, 564 ppi, is jaw-dropping, and can’t even be rivaled by the 2K Oppo Find 7, as the recently unveiled Chinese phone accommodates a larger 5.5-inch screen. Hence, its ppi stands at 534. Still mind-blowing, but if it’s a spec war you want, then let’s have it all the way.
As far as processing power goes, the SM-G906S, which may or may not be branded as the Galaxy S5 Prime, crushes the Find 7 and any other top-shelf gizmo around, packing a chip that’s not even in circulation yet: a quad-core Snapdragon 805.
Paired with a state-of-the-art Adreno 420 GPU, the CPU is oddly clocked at merely 2.5 GHz, not the 2.7 GHz we know it’s capable of under certain circumstances. Moving on, though it seemed the stage was all set for mobile devices to make the move to 4 GB RAM, the S5 Prime only ties the Note 3 in that particular department, carrying 3 gigs of memory.
That’s on par with Sony’s Xperia Z2 and a 50 percent boost from the original Galaxy S5. What else? Well, 32 GB built-in storage is apparently the standard now, which could signal a microSD card slot omission. Why would Samsung ditch storage expansion options? To get rid of plastic and finally deliver that all-metal Galaxy we’ve been fantasizing about, silly.
Of course, it’s way too early to jump to conclusions build material-wise, especially as all we have is circumstantial evidence. What’s certain (and a tad disappointing) is the SM-G906S won’t upgrade S5’s 16 MP rear-facing camera. Or the 2 MP front snapper. Wait, why is there no mention of 4K video recording?
Hmm, let’s hope it’s a typo, oversight, something to do with the Samsung Galaxy S5 Prime being in the experimental stages of testing. By the by, the 3D graphics performance doesn’t look great… yet, probably due to unrefined software and hardware, as well as the system having to deal with a colossal pixel count.
But sooner or later (probably sooner), the humbler relatives of the top-shelf Galaxy Tab Pro line have to go official. In the meantime, let us put you at ease. Samsung is seeking customary regulatory clearance for at least one GTab 4 model as we speak, meaning an announcement is likely due by the end of March.
Also, assuming an always reliable benchmark database is trustworthy this time around too, we seem to have the full hardware picture of the 10-inch Galaxy Tab 4, which ultimately isn’t the pushover that many deemed it back in February.
First things first, FCC has just given the green light to the Samsung SM-T535, widely believed to be a 10.1-inch Galaxy Tab 4 with 4G LTE support. Unsurprisingly, the Commission’s approval docs confirm an LTE radio is indeed on board, along with Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n, GSM, W-CDMA and Bluetooth connectivity.
Since the SM-T530, aka the Wi-Fi-only flavor, cleared the FCC a few weeks ago, all’s officially and formally set for a presumably low-profile unveil. After all, this is no flagship device.
But again, it’s no ultra-low-ender either. Not exactly. Not ultra. As per GFX Bench info, the SM-T530/T531/T535 shall run Android 4.4.2 KitKat and pack a quad-core 1.2 GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon 400 chip.
You can surely think of laggier processors, right? Interestingly, the display section lists 1,280 x 800 under resolution and, get this, 10.6-inch under size. That’s… unexpected. Oh, well, it could be a typo. Hopefully, we’re dealing with a misspelling in the camera department too, as the rear snapper, previously rumored to sport an 8 MP sensor, is now said to come with 3 measly megapixels in tow.
The 16 GB on-board storage is no surprise, the 1.2 MP front cam likewise, whereas the RAM is bizarrely filed as 0.8/1.3 GB. I’m guessing it should actually be 1 and 1.5 GB, for the Wi-Fi and LTE versions respectively.
After doing some extra digging on GFX Bench’s website, we’ve managed to locate precious info on the 8-inch Galaxy Tab 4, aka SM-T335, which pretty much lines up with existing reports. Specifically, the more compact slate is KitKat-powered, quad-core Snapdragon 400-backed, touts 1.5 GB RAM, 1,280 x 800 pix res, 16 GB storage (12 usable), a 3 MP primary shooter and 1.2 MP secondary.
Don’t forget a 7 incher is also coming, likely with Android 4.4, the same quad-core CPU, 1 GB RAM, and 1,280 x 800 pixels resolution screen. The biggest question mark remains pricing, so stay tuned for updates.
Technically, this should greatly increase the credibility of “synthetic tests” on Samsung-made Android gadgets, as well as for the entire ecosystem, albeit truth be told, benchmark scores are never to be taken excessively seriously, regardless of their theoretical accuracy.
Remember, everyone, it’s all very abstract, in theory, on paper. As such, especially when dealing with minuscule gaps, you’re unlikely to notice them in real life. Oftentimes, rankings are overturned, due to certain optimizations that performance-measuring software can’t possibly evaluate.
Bottom line, yes, benchmark scores can still be misleading, deceiving, confusing. But right now, they’re a tad more credible than a week ago. So here we are, ready to pit the spanking new Samsung Galaxy S5 against the equally as fresh Sony Xperia Z2 and mighty but aging Apple iPhone 5s. It’s all in good fun, yet it may also answer a few key controversies.
Since we’re looking at a graphics reviewer and both the GS5 and Z2 pack the same exact GPU – Adreno 330 – we expected very close, maybe even identical scores. And that’s exactly what we got. Yet there is a small gap here, and it’s quite puzzling, as if anything, we anticipated the S5 would come out on top, thanks to its higher-clocked 2.5 GHz Snapdragon 801 chip.
The iPhone 5s? It’s not far behind, but it’s starting to struggle. And mind you, GFX Bench is a lot more reliable than, say, AnTuTu, as well as nearly impossible to game.
GFX Bench 3.0 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
Galaxy S5 – 11.6 fps
iPhone 5s – 10.9
Sony Xperia Z2 – 10.1
Okay, this is confusing. Though the two GFX tests gauge performance from the same standpoint, graphics, their findings are anything but conclusive or stable. What’s up with that? To be perfectly honest, I have no idea.
What’s obvious is the three beasts are neck and neck, so I’ll avoid naming an overall winner. Oh, alright, if you insist, the S5 seems to (barely) edge out its opponents.
SunSpider (lower is better)
Galaxy S5 – 408 ms
iPhone 5s – 415
Sony Xperia Z2 – 952
Oh, wow, Sony, you really screwed the pooch in browser performance, which is much more important than graphics for many mobile users. Well, it looks like it, but I wouldn’t jump to conclusions just yet. Unlike the GFX Bench results, which came from the horse’s mouth, S5 and Z2’s Sunspider marks were reported in preliminary hands-on previews at Barcelona’s MWC.
Not only were there too few to grade them trustworthy, they likely counted on pre-release prototypes. Probably, a highly advanced S5 prototype and a much clunkier Z2 variant. So no, I don’t think Sony’s big guy will be quite as laggy once it officially rolls out. Meanwhile, the S5 is ready to overtake the iPhone 5s in essentially the latter’s best benchmark, so kudos Samsung.
iPhone 5s – 1,015 points average; 20,220 in Basemark X 1.1 Medium
Galaxy S5 – 986 average, 23,501 in Basemark X 1.1
Sony Xperia Z2 – 25,172 in Basemark X 1.1
Rightware’s otherwise conclusive and reliable database lacks the Z2 at the moment, so its mind-blowing Basemark X 1.1 score is preliminary and undependable. Which is not what we can say about the iPhone and S5. Only their results are fairly muddy and confusing.
Overall, as you can see on Rightware’s homepage, the iPhone 5s is the fourth best phone in the world, behind the Asus PadFone Infinity 2 (?), Pantech Vega Secret Note (?!), and Nexus 5 (?!?), but ahead of the S5.
Break it up by chapters though, and Apple isn’t leading Samsung by a very comfortable margin. In fact, the two each put a couple in the win column, in system and web speed and memory and graphics respectively, so in a way, they’re tied.
3DMark Ice Storm
Samsung Galaxy S5 – 18,438
iPhone 5s – 14,000
Let’s not beat it around the bush anymore. Galaxy S5’s Adreno 330 GPU, aided by the quad-core Snapdragon 801 chip and possibly software optimizations, trumps iPhone’s PowerVR G6430. Ice Storm proves it, as does GFX Bench and even Basemark. So if you want rich, outstanding graphics, the “next big thing” is your guy.
Or maybe it’s Sony’s Xperia Z2, not yet rated in Ice Storm, not fully evaluated in Basemark but looking pretty close to the S5 in GFX Bench.
Galaxy S5 – 35,500 points
Xperia Z2 – 35,000
Ah, the infamous, notorious AnTuTu! Always dodged by Cupertino, but embraced by all Android OEMs as it’s one of very few tools around focusing on more than a couple of aspects. Sure, it’s extremely easy to trick, but assuming the shenanigans are over, let’s remember it rounds up CPU, RAM, GPU and I/O (input/output) performance for one big score.
Predictably enough, there’s little to choose between our two flagships, as the S5 rocks the ever so slightly zippier processor, whereas the Z2 packs an extra gig of RAM. The GPUs are identical, so there you have it: two overall cutting-edge slabs of silicon.
Galaxy S5 – 23,400 points
Xperia Z2 – 17,600
Another benchmark ignored by Apple and its fans, Quadrant is a little more dependable than AnTuTu, but not as comprehensive. It focuses on CPU, I/O and 3D graphics, leaving RAM aside, and like Sunspider, it shows that there might be something very wrong with Z2’s on-board software.
Either that, or there was something wrong at one point during the manufacturing process, because once again, the tests may have been executed on unfinished, glitchy devices. Regardless of how the Xperia Z2 will end up performing, the S5 is undoubtedly hard to beat. Almost impossible, which puts a few things into perspective.
Available for a while with Verizon and Boost Mobile and recently released on US Cellular and Aio Wireless, Motorola’s crazy cheap, crazy solid Moto G smartphone may soon add another name to an already pretty impressive roster of US network partners.
As its GoPhone prepaid lineup continues to suffer in terms of media visibility and all-around mainstream popularity, AT&T probably sees the Moto G as the ideal solution for a sudden acclaim boost. So there you have it, a win-win situation, for both the carrier and handheld.
Maybe also for prospective Moto G buyers so far holding off on a purchase due to the 4.5-incher being, well, connectivity challenged. You know, since it’s got 3G support only. Which is fine for its price range, don’t get us wrong, but a little diversity never hurt anyone. Ergo, a slightly pricier G with 4G LTE might go a long way for MotorolaLenovorola.
Long story short, an LTE-enabled G would be positively dreamy, and, though the evidence is slim, we believe such a model may have been tested in GFX Bench. The benchmark authority’s database shows an enigmatic Motorola XT1045 packing a quad-core 1.2 GHz Snapdragon 400 chip, which just happens to be the same CPU found inside the G.
This XT1045, codenamed “Peregrine”, also sports a 1,280 x 720 pixels resolution display (another coincidence?), plus runs Android 4.4.2 KitKat. So it’s definitely a Moto G. But why do we think it’s an AT&T-destined G?
Simple, the Android OS Build Product string reads “peregrine_att”. Now, the LTE part I’ll admit it’s a bit of a stretch, as GFX Bench never lists these details, yet remember the scoop from last Friday. Coincidence again? I think not.
Still, a grain of salt nearby is always recommended with rumors, let alone speculations and assumptions. Besides, Aio Wireless is a subsidiary of AT&T, so maybe we’re getting worked up over nothing, and actually dealing with a non-LTE Moto G version already out and about. Everything’s possible, right? Including Moto working on a high-speed G set to cost, say, sub-$200 with AT&T’s GoPhone prepaid plans.
Little-known China-based electronics manufacturer Oppo made its first waves in the Android landscape by partnering with CyanogenMod for the swiveling camera-toting N1 handheld, but it became clearer and clearer over the past few months that the 5.9-incher was just the beginning.
Oppo’s next step in its quest to world domination? A littlebig thing called Find 7, rumored to go official later this month, at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, and heavily teased by the company’s very apt social media team of late.
And when I say teased, I don’t mean the usual vague bs-ing Western mobile players can afford to employ, but a much more precise hype-building campaign, which reached its peak when Oppo confirmed Find 7’s size and display resolution: 5.5-inch, with 2K, aka QHD, aka Quad HD.
Only the beast popped up in GFX Bench’s database less than 24 hours ago, and, surprise, surprise, its tested screen res was 1,920 x 1,080 pixels. Aka “run-of-the-mill” Full HD. Now, this particular benchmark is not just fairly renowned and prominent, it’s also extremely reliable.
So I highly doubt the info revealed is phony. It’s not very likely the GPU performance test has trouble detecting the new, improved, futuristic resolution either, since Vivo’s Xplay 3S, the world’s first 2K handheld, is listed with 2,560 x 1,440.
But I wouldn’t throw myself in the arms of desperation just yet. It’s entirely possible Oppo examined several different Find 7 hardware configurations before settling on the one they’re to offer for sale. Or maybe they intend to beat Apple and Samsung at their own games by rolling out a “Standard” Find 7 version (think iPhone 5c) and “Premium” model (a la iPhone 5s).
Either way, don’t take GFX Bench’s “word” for granted. Just to cover all bases, let’s mention a couple of other specs have emerged via the benchmark, namely pre-loaded Android 4.3 Jelly Bean and a quad-core 2.2 GHz Snapdragon 800 chip.
No 4.4 KitKat? No S805? Sorry, but that’s actually believable, and in line with multiple recent reports.
Back to timelines, it appears the MWC debut gossip was, well, baloney, as Oppo took to Chinese microblogging platform Sina Weibo a little earlier to post the latest in their long string of teasers. Of course, they’re not spelling anything out for us, but one of the images seems to (not very subtly) suggest the release date: March 19.
The “where” of the equation remains unclear, though a Western-located event after MWC doesn’t make much sense. So China it is.
One extra tidbit before wrapping up, as surging rumble has Find 7’s rear-facing camera pegged as a top-notch 13.1 MP snapper with, get this, F/1.8 aperture. To my knowledge, that would be the lowest ever number for an Android, nay smartphone period, which would translate into the largest aperture and thus the highest exposure.
In layman’s terms, despite the somewhat average megapixel count (compared with, say, Sony’s Xperia Z1), the Oppo Find 7 could very well deliver the crispest photos around. Not too shabby for an OEM that no one knew existed until maybe six months ago.
Right off the bat, I’d like to make something very clear. The Samsung SM-G900S, which someone on the inside took for a quick benchmarking spin through GFX Bench, may not be the Galaxy S5. There’s no apparent connection between its model number and strings designated to hide the real, market names of the S3 and S4.
Instead, SM-G900S is oddly similar to SM-G910, the codename of Samsung’s first curved display handheld, the Galaxy Round. So why couldn’t this be a sequel of the Round? Simple, because it’s far too soon for Samsung to have that kind of follow-up so close to a commercial launch.
It’s not too soon however to put the finishing touches on the GS5, especially if rumors of a January formal intro are to be trusted. And they sure make sense, since it’s no grand secret the Galaxy S4 is no longer winning the big points at the box-office.
But let’s assume the SM-G900S is indeed one and the same with the S5. What sort of specs does GFX Bench’s database suggests the phone will rock? First off, there’s pre-loaded Android 4.4 KitKat, a detail that definitely supports the theory we’re dealing with a genuinely top-shelf device.
Then you got a quad-core Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 CPU, coupled with Adreno 330 graphics, which sounds like the high-end standard these days and thus not mind-blowingly exciting for a beast of the future. Or does it?
Well, the S800 inside the SM-G900S is no regular S800, being clocked at 2.4 GHz and therefore either an 8974AB unit or 8974AC. Sure, Snapdragon 805 would have been even better, but testing of that particular SoC is only slated for a February or March 2014 start.
And now, the kicker. The Samsung SM-G900S boasts a display resolution of, drum rolls please, 2,560 x 1,440. Mind-blowing? You can say that again, albeit technically the S5 has minuscule odds of being the world’s first phone with 2K, 2K HD, QHD, Quad HD resolution, or however you prefer calling it. Chinese no-name OEM Vivo is close to snatching the honor, but hey, in the grand scheme of things, the Xplay 3S is to be a mere blip on Sammy’s radar.
The mythical 64-bit Exynos 6 CPU is in contention as well, probably as an “international” alternative for the upgraded Snapdragon 800, to be used exclusively in North America. So what say you, dear readers, full-on, major upgrade over the GS4 or minor, incremental little boost?
It’s no secret Barnes & Noble is in a similar financial pickle to BlackBerry when it comes to its hardware manufacturing division, as the Nook line of e-readers and tablets seems but a paltry rival for Amazon’s Kindles at the box-office.
B&N has struggled greatly to clear Nook HD and Nook HD+ inventory in recent months, appealing to numerous promotions, discounts and so-called special offers in a desperate attempt to become relevant in an ever-competitive tablet landscape.
No idea how this thing is to be called, but its ties with previous Nook generations are made crystal clear by the BNTV800 model number. Mind you, last year’s Nook HD is internally known as BNTV400, whereas the Nook HD+ is numbered BNTV600. Hence, monikers such as Nook HDX (a la Amazon’s Kindle Fire HDX), Nook HD Ultra or Nook HD Plus Plus (I’m going a little overboard, I know) are likely in the cards.
The question of “when” (as in when will it start selling) should be on everyone’s lips, not “if”, as the BNTV800 is surely real and coming soon, since someone bothered to take it for a quick benchmarking spin through GFX Bench.
As usual, the test’s database is generous with inside information, revealing the no doubt skinned version of Android running on the fourth-gen Nook tab will be based on 4.2.2 Jelly Bean. Even more importantly, there seems to be a quad-core 1.8 GHz Nvidia Tegra 4 CPU beneath the hood, increasing the thing’s raw speed over 2012 Nooks by leaps and bounds.
Remember, the 7-inch Nook HD came packing a modest and now no longer in production dual-core 1.3 GHz TI OMAP 4470 SoC, and the 9-inch HD+ touted the same mediocre chip, only running at a slightly higher 1.5 GHz clock speed.
As for the still somewhat nichey Tegra 4 platform, try to keep in mind that, while it’s a little hard on battery life, it’s pretty much as chipper as Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 800 CPU, found inside the latest Kindle Fire, not to mention light years ahead of the S4 Pro powering the Nexus 7 2013.
Then again, it’s not fair to pit the BNTV800 against the N7 2013 yet, as Barnes & Noble’s size preferences remain a mystery. There’s a good shot the 7-inch Nook will get a direct heir, but I wouldn’t rule out the new tab being a 9-incher either. Or maybe there are two versions in the works again.
In any case, GFX Bench’s screen resolution listing can’t really clear the air, being an odd 1,620 x 1,008 pixels. Could that be UXGA (1,600 x 1,200) with on-screen buttons? Possibly, but be sure to take it with a pinch of salt.