french toast
Veteran
Snapdragon 800 in some places and Exynos 5420 in others.
Sorry I meant what model/bin of the s800 version. ..is it containing the A/B version anandtech wrote about.
Snapdragon 800 in some places and Exynos 5420 in others.
Like the LTE Advanced Galaxy S4s, some sites have seen scores as high as 26 and 68 fps in GfxBench's T-Rex and Egypt HD, respectively, so that would seem to peg it as the MSM8974AB.
I have seen a site report a lot lower score with it, though, when they tested it at the launch event. That might've been thermal throttling, however.
Unlike many reviewers, Brian Klug runs the entire GLBenchmark test suite in one go, rather than cherry-picking one or two tests, because of this the Anandtech GLB FPS are often slightly lower, than on other reviews, as obviously running all the tests serially is more likely to trigger thermal throttling, also living in Arizona can't help either! I was therefore surprised that the Anandtech results were as high, as the other Samsung results posted on GLB's website. It is almost like Samsung have dramatically raised the GPU's thermal limits, just for this benchmark.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013...rking-adjustments-inflate-scores-by-up-to-20/
They call it out pretty plainly.
Gets scores up to 20% better, and linpack was 50% better, by uprating clocks and easing thermals. They even found the file that detects the various benchmarks, and bypassed it to measure the differences.
The article uncovers some behind the scenes information that most people aren't aware about -> it's rubbish?That Ars article is rubbish.
Manufacturers do this commonly.
They compare it to the G2; however they totally failed to discover that the G2 does exactly the same thing, only by luck that it doesn't in GeekBench 3. This invalidates the whole point they are trying to make in the comparison. The rest of article is just a copy of what I revealed in June and AnandTech expanded on in July.The article uncovers some behind the scenes information that most people aren't aware about -> it's rubbish?
I find this article informative, and I hope that Ars keeps on publishing this kind of rubbish.
They compare it to the G2; however they totally failed to discover that the G2 does exactly the same thing, only by luck that it doesn't in GeekBench 3. This invalidates the whole point they are trying to make in the comparison. The rest of article is just a copy of what I revealed in June and AnandTech expanded on in July.
So yes, it's rubbish.
If the article was only a comparison between a G2 that'd be one thing. But it's not: to me it's more a detailed comparison between Samsung with and without the hack. It's about the Note 3 in this case instead of an S4. About the claim of Samsung that they don't only do this for benchmarks, which they claimed after the Anand article. About the behavior of CPU core enablement behavior in different circumstances.They compare it to the G2; however they totally failed to discover that the G2 does exactly the same thing, only by luck that it doesn't in GeekBench 3. This invalidates the whole point they are trying to make in the comparison. The rest of article is just a copy of what I revealed in June and AnandTech expanded on in July. So yes, it's rubbish.
AnandTech already covered this back in July, the Qualcomm based S4's also did this since release. Ars just basically copied that whole article piece-by-piece and just re-applied it to the Note 3. And as I said, them failing to discover that the G2 does the same, which they extensively highlight in the very same piece, is the most startling thing.Rather it confirms that they are doing it with 3rd party Socs,