Samsung allegedly boosting benchmark performance

Anandtech digs deep on a forum allegation and finds depressing results.

Read the whole story

 

[thebonafortuna]

charleski[/url]":1a6n4nud]

ShlomoAbraham[/url]":1a6n4nud]Any theories as to why? If the chip is there, why not let other apps use it? Save battery life?

I'd suspect they're ramping up the voltage as well - the chip might be able to handle short bursts of increased voltage and heat, but would have a shortened lifespan if used extensively.

If this is the case - and I'm guessing you're correct and it is - than I'm not sure what the problem is.

I'm the first to jump on the bash-Android bandwagon, and these days Samsung is pretty analogous to Android, but I don't see the problem here. It makes sense for manufacturers to design chips with theoretical peak performance, but limit the hardware from operating (at least regularly) at that peak. Why would a benchmark not test the theoretical limit of a processor?

Everyday usability is measured in other ways. Which is why I moved away from Android after owning two devices. They were the "most powerful" when I bought them, but the experience was garbage. Are there any objective benchmarks out there which measure UX?

EDIT: cleaned up words, added explanation/answer to my confusion:

From fuzzyfuzzyfungus (below):

This Samsung configuration, though, was slightly different: If (and only if) specific benchmark .apks were running, the CPU governor would lock the CPU into an otherwise unavailable maximum frequency mode. If anything other than those benchmarks, no matter how demanding it might be, was running, normal frequency behavior applied. That's essentially false advertising on their part.

 

[thebonafortuna]

fuzzyfuzzyfungus[/url]":383feedy]

thebonafortuna[/url]":383feedy]
I'm the first to jump on the bash-Android bandwagon, and these days Samsung is pretty analogous to Android, but I don't see the problem here. It makes sense for manufacturers to design chips with theoretical peak performance, but limit the hardware from operating (at least regularly) at that peak. Why would a benchmark not test the theoretical limit of a processor?

The issue is that the 'theoretical limits' of the processor change specifically when the phone recognizes that certain benchmarks are running, in a way that is entirely unavailable at other times.

A CPU frequency governor, as standard on virtually everything for years now, is the 'honest' implementation of this behavior: if you do something that eats CPU time, CPU frequency increases. If usage drops, the CPU decreases frequency, and sometimes also cuts voltage or even puts part of itself to sleep. Nothing wrong with that, totally sensible to use headroom when you need it and go to sleep when not needed.

This Samsung configuration, though, was slightly different: If (and only if) specific benchmark .apks were running, the CPU governor would lock the CPU into an otherwise unavailable maximum frequency mode. If anything other than those benchmarks, no matter how demanding it might be, was running, normal frequency behavior applied. That's essentially false advertising on their part.

Ahh, that makes sense. Thank you for the detailed response. I learn something new every day on this site.