Tag Archives: Performance Comparison

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 Performance Examined!

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 Performance Examined!

Take a look at the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 foldable smartphone’s performance, and find out why this beauty is hiding a gaming beast inside!

 

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 : Flagship Class Performance!

The Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 is a very slim smartphone that folds to fit even the smallest pockets.

Yet it is powered by the Qualcomm Snapdragon 888, which makes it one of the most powerful smartphones in the world, with high-performance CPU + GPU cores :

  • a boosted Kryo 680 Prime core running at 2.84 GHz,
  • three high-performance Kryo 680 Gold cores running at 2.42 GHz,
  • four high-efficiency Kryo 680 Silver cores running at 1.8 GHz, and
  • an Adreno 660 GPU running at 792 MHz

This actually makes it a great gaming smartphone and one that is slim and stylish, and does not feel like a brick!

 

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 : Work Performance

We first tested the Galaxy Z Flip 3 using PCMark, which simulates work applications like web browsing, playing video, writing text and editing photos.

Work 3.0 Galaxy
Z Flip 3
Galaxy
S21 Ultra
Note20
Ultra
Galaxy
A52
Redmi
9T
Mobile Platform SD 888 Exynos
2100
Exynos
990
SD 750G SD 662
Performance Score 13317 12535 10523 7874 5986
Web Browsing 11637 10185 8865 7021 5844
Video Editing 7762 6336 6232 5693 3423
Writing 15316 15247 11112 7454 6657
Photo Editing 25357 37847 30789 15812 12031
Data Manipulation 11938 8310 6825 6424 4799

The Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 lets the Galaxy Z Flip 3 easily handle anything you throw at it, whether it’s just posting your latest Instagram pictures or editing a 4K video.

 

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 : Gaming Performance

For gaming, we tested the Galaxy Z Flip 3 using 3DMark, with these results :

3DMark Galaxy
Z Flip 3
Note20
Ultra
Galaxy
Note10+
Device SD 888 Exynos
990
Exynos
9825
Sling Shot Unlimited 9248 8026 3327
Wild Life Unlimited 3952 4504 3288
Wild Life
Extreme
Unlimited
1174 1387 528

Look at that – the Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 packs a serious punch when it comes to gaming.

It may seem unbelievable because the Galaxy Z Flip 3 is so slim and stylish, but it will easily handle any game you throw at it. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy!

The only problem is that because it’s so thin – it can get real toasty when you game on it. The back of the chassis can get as warm as 42°C.

 

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 : Overall Performance

We then tested the Galaxy Z Flip 3 using AnTuTu, yielding these results :

AnTuTu Galaxy
Z
Flip 3
Galaxy
S21 Ultra
Note20
Ultra
Galaxy
A52
Redmi 9T
Device SD 888 Exynos
2100
Exynos
990
SD 750G SD
662
AnTuTu Score 696767 624411 522735 341908 173559
CPU 206228 166290 146783 105098 64505
GPU 242573 258995 215205 88068 31734
Memory 133586 120805 89376 60642 40377
UX 114380 78321 71371 88100 36943

The AnTuTu benchmark confirms that the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 is a beast of a performer, beating even the very fast Galaxy S21 Ultra.

 

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 : Performance Summary

The Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 doesn’t look like your typical flagship smartphone. It’s larger than normal but looks extraordinarily slim. So you may be forgiven if you thought Samsung gave it a mid-range processor to keep it cool.

This is a flagship smartphone, and it comes with the industry-leading Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 mobile SoC, offering top-notch performance.

So you can count on it to easily handle anything and everything you throw at it, as the benchmark results above amply demonstrates.

The only problems with fitting such a powerful SoC into such a thin and light form factor? Heat and battery life, but that’s another story for another time!

 

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 : Price + Availability

The Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 is available for purchase from 27 August 2021 onwards, with a starting price of US$999 – about £723 / A$1,361 / S$1,357 / RM 4,231.

Here in Malaysia, you can buy one with these freebies :

  • RM350 e-voucher for Samsung Malaysia Online Store
  • Samsung Care+ protection (1 year), which covers accidental damage, including screen replacement, water damage and back cover replacement

In Singapore, you can buy one with these freebies :

  • Free Wireless Charger Duo and Clear Cover with Ring
  • Samsung Care+ protection (1 year), which covers accidental damage, including screen replacement, water damage and back cover replacement

In the United States, you will get these offers or freebies when you buy a Galaxy Z Flip 3 :

  • 50% off Samsung Galaxy Buds2
  • Free 4 months of YouTube Premium
  • Free 6 months of SiriusXM Streaming
  • Free 3 months of Spotify Premium

In the United Kingdom, you will get this freebie + offer when you buy a Galaxy Z Flip 3 :

  • Free 4 months of YouTube Premium
  • 5% cash back on Samsung.com purchases using Samsung Pay+

In Australia, you will get these offers when you buy a Galaxy Z Flip 3 :

  • Bonus $300 when you trade-in an eligible device
  • 50% off Samsung Care+

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > MobileTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

RX 6800 XT Smart Access Memory Performance Comparison!

Find out what AMD Smart Access Memory is all about, and how much of a performance effect it really has on the Radeon RX 6800 XT graphics card!

 

RX 6800 XT Smart Access Memory : How Does It Improve Performance?

Smart Access Memory is really a marketing term for AMD’s implementation of the PCI Express Resizable BAR (Base Address Registers) capability.

CPUs are traditionally limited to a 256 MB I/O memory address “window” for the GPU frame buffer.

Turning on Resizable BAR or Smart Access Memory removes that small access window, letting the CPU directly access the Radeon RX 6800 XT‘s graphics memory.

While the AMD graphics above suggest that Smart Access Memory will widen the memory path, and thus memory bandwidth, between the CPU and GPU, that’s not true.

It does not increase memory bandwidth. Instead, it speeds up CPU to GPU communications, by letting the CPU directly access more of GPU memory, instead of using the usual 256 MB “window”.

Recommended : AMD Smart Access Memory – How To Enable It?

 

RX 6800 XT Smart Access Memory : 3DMark

The 3DMark benchmark results don’t show any significant performance difference, with Smart Access Memory enabled.

 

RX 6800 XT Smart Access Memory : Game Performance Summary

But let’s look at its effect on the real world gaming performance…

Let’s start with a bird’s eye look at the performance effect of Smart Access Memory on the Radeon RX 6800 XT‘s performance.

For more detailed look at Smart Access Memory’s effect on each game, please click to the next page.

1080p Resolution (1920 x 1080)

At 1080p, Smart Access Memory improved frame rates by about 4.33%, and does not always give a performance boost to the Radeon RX 6800 XT.

It had virtually no performance effect in World War Z, The Division 2 and Star Control : Origins.

On the other hand, it delivered up to 16% better frame rates in Total War : Troy.

1440p Resolution (2560 x 1440)

Smart Access Memory had a bigger (5.22% average) effect on the Radeon RX 6800 XT at 1440p.

It had no effect in four games – Metro Exodus, World War Z, The Division 2 and Star Control : Origins.

But it has a large 10%-11% performance boost in F1 2019, Total War : Troy, Dirt 5 and Gears Tactics.

2160p Resolution (3840 x 2160)

At the 4K resolution though, the average performance boost from Smart Access Memory dropped to just 3.11%.

Most of the games had insignificant boosts in frame rates of 2-3%. Oddly enough, World War Z received a significant 4% boost in frame rate at 4K.

F1 2019 received the biggest boost from Smart Access Memory – a large 14% boost in frame rate!

Next Page > RX 6800 XT Smart Access Memory Game Performance

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


RX 6800 XT Smart Access Memory : Gaming Performance

F1 2019

F1 2019 really benefited from Smart Access Memory, with significant boosts in frame rates :

  • 1080p : +6.0%
  • 1440p : +10.8%
  • 2160p : +14.0%

Metro Exodus

On the other hand, Smart Access Memory had no effect on Metro Exodus.

World War Z

World War Z had uneven results with Smart Access Memory, with the greater effect at 4K :

  • 1080p : -1.3%
  • 1440p : +0.5%
  • 2160p : +4.0%

Total War : Troy

Total War : Troy benefited greatly from Smart Access Memory, especially at the 1080p and 1440p resolutions.

  • 1080p : +15.7%
  • 1440p : +10.0%
  • 2160p : +4.0%

The Division 2

The Division 2 actually performed slightly worse with Smart Access Memory enabled :

  • 1080p : -0.6%
  • 1440p : No difference
  • 2160p : -1.5%

Dirt 5

Dirt 5 benefited the most at the 1440p resolution :

  • 1080p : +4.0%
  • 1440p : +10.3%
  • 2160p : +2.5%

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5 benefited the most at the 1080p and 1440p resolutions :

  • 1080p : +7.9%
  • 1440p : +5.5%
  • 2160p : +4.0%

Gears Tactics

Gears Tactics benefited the most at the 1080p and 1440p resolutions :

  • 1080p : +5.7%
  • 1440p : +9.6%
  • 2160p : +3.3%

Star Control: Origins

Smart Access Memory had no effect on Star Control: Origins.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > First PageComputer | GamingHome

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


AMD Ryzen 9 5950X In-Depth Review : 16-Core Behemoth!

Built on the new Zen 3 architecture, the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X promises to offer unparalleled 16-core, 32-thread performance!

Take a look at its performance in our in-depth review, and find out why we gave it our Reviewer’s Choice Award!

 

AMD Ryzen 5000 Series : Built On Zen 3

The AMD Ryzen 5000 series is designed using the new AMD Zen 3 architecture, which promises to deliver 19% more instructions per cycle (IPC) over the last generation, thanks to these new features :

  • improved load / store performance and flexibility
  • double the size of directly-accessible L3 cache per core
  • a unified 8-core complex (CCX) with direct access to the 32 MB L3 cache
  • wider issue in floating point and integer engines
  • Zero Bubble branch prediction

The new architecture also reduces memory latency through improved core and cache communication, and offer a higher maximum boost clock.

This allows the Ryzen 5000 series desktop processors to deliver up to 2.8X more performance-per-watt versus the competition.

 

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X : Price + Availability

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X processor is available for sale starting 5 November 2020, at these RRP inclusive of tax, in Malaysia :

  • Malaysia : RM 3,699 (~US$889) inclusive of 6% tax
  • United States : RM 799

Note : It comes with a free copy of Far Cry 6

Here are some online purchase options :

 

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X : Specifications

Here is how the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X compares to the other Ryzen 5000 series processors :

Ryzen 9
5950X
Ryzen 9
5900X
Ryzen 7
5800X
Ryzen 5
5600X
Process 7 nm (CCD) + 12 nm (IOD)
Transistor
+ Die Size
CCD : 4.15 billion, 80.7 mm²
IOD : 2.09 billion, 125 mm²
Chiplets 2 x CCD
1 x IOD
1 x CCD
1 x IOD
Cores / Threads 16 / 32 12 / 24 8 / 16 6 / 12
Base Clock 3.4 GHz 3.7 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.7 GHz
Boost Clock 4.9 GHz 4.8 GHz 4.7 GHz 4.6 GHz
L1 Cache 1 MB 768 KB 512 KB 384 KB
L2 Cache 8 MB 6 MB 4 MB 3 MB
L3 Cache 64 MB 32 MB
TDP 105 W 65 W
Cooler None Wraith
Stealth

 

Unboxing The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X comes in a slimmer box, because it doesn’t come with any bundled cooler.

The last-generation Ryzen 9 3900X, you may recall, came with the Wraith Prism cooler.

 

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Up Close!

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X has sixteen Ryzen processor cores, with a 3.4 GHz base clock, and a 4.9 GHz boost clock.

It has a 105 watt TDP, and supports SMT (simultaneous multi-threading), which means it can handle up to 32 threads simultaneously.

Like the 3rd Gen Ryzen, it has 512 KB L2 cache per core, for an 8 MB L2 cache size; and a massive 64 MB L3 cache.

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X can be installed unto existing AMD 500 series motherboards, and later, the AMD 400 series as well, after a simple BIOS update.

Next Page > AMD Zen 3 Architecture + SoC Design

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


AMD Zen 3 Architecture

Codename Vermeer, Zen 3 is the next evolution of the Zen architecture, delivering a 19% improvement in instructions per clock (IPC) through these improvements :

Front-End Enhancements

  • Faster fetching, especially for branchy and large-footprint code
  • L1 branch target buffer doubled in size to 1024 entries for better prediction latency
  • Improved branch predictor bandwidth
  • Faster recovery from misprediction
  • “No bubble” prediction capabilities to make back-to-back predictions more quickly and better handle branchy code
  • Faster sequencing of op-cache fetches
  • Finer granularity in switching of op-cache pipes

Execution Engines

  • Reduce latency and enlarge structures to extract higher instruction-level parallelism (ILP)
  • New dedicated branch and st-data pickers for integer, now at 10 issues per cycle (+3 vs. Zen 2)
  • Larger integer window at +32 vs. Zen 2
  • Reduced latency for select float and int operations
  • Floating point has increased bandwidth by +2 for a total of 6-wide dispatch and issue
  • Floating point FMAC is now 1 cycle faster

Load Store

  • Larger structures and better prefetching to support the enhanced execution engine bandwidth
  • Overall higher bandwidth to feed the appetite of the larger/faster execution resources
  • Higher load bandwidth vs. Zen 2 by +1
  • Higher store bandwidth vs. Zen 2 by +1
  • More flexibility in load/store operations
  • Improved memory dependence detection
  • +4 table walkers in the TLB

SOC Architecture

  • Reduce dependency on main memory accesses, reduce core-to-core latency, reduce core-to-cache latency.
  • Unify all cores in a CCD into a single unified complex consisting of 4, 6, or 8 contiguous cores
  • Unify all L3 cache in a CCD into a single contiguous element of up to 32MB
  • Rearchitect core/cache communication into a ring system

 

AMD Zen 3 SoC Design

In addition to micro architectural improvements, Zen 3 (Vermeer) also features SoC design changes.

In Zen 2, each CCD (Compute Die) is made up of two CCX (core complexes), each with a 16 MB L3 cache.

Zen 3 uses a unified complex, in which each CCD now contains a single CCX with a unified 32 MB L3 cache.

This unified CCD design eliminates CCX-to-CCX communication, greatly improving core-to-core latency.

On the other hand, AMD reused the chiplet design, with one or two CCDs (fabricated on 7 nm) paired with a 12 nm IOD (I/O Die).

Reads from CCD to IO are still 2X write, to conserve die area and transistor budget. And it uses the same IOD from Matisse (Zen 2).

The new Zen 3 CCD has 4.15 billion transistors, with a die size of 80.7 mm². The Matisse-era IOD remains the same – 2.09 billion transistors, with a die size of 125 mm².

 

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Benchmarking Notes

In this review, we will take a look at the content creation and gaming performance of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, comparing it to 6 other processors :

Cores /
Threads
Base
Clock
Boost
Clock
L2
Cache
L3
Cache
Memory
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16 / 32 3.4 GHz 4.9 GHz 8 MB 64 MB DDR4-3200
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X 8 / 16 3.8 GHz 4.7 GHz 4 MB 32 MB DDR4-3200
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8 / 16 3.6 GHz 4.4 GHz 4 MB 32 MB DDR4-3200
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 8 / 16 3.7 GHz 4.3 GHz 4 MB 16 MB DDR4-2933
Intel Core i7-8700K 6 / 12 3.7 GHz 4.7 GHz 1.5 MB 12 MB DDR4-2666
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X 6 / 12 3.6 GHz 4.2 GHz 3 MB 16 MB DDR4-2933
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X 4 / 8 3.8 GHz 4.3 GHz 2 MB 16 MB DDR4-3200

Here are the specifications of the Intel and AMD testbeds we used.

Intel Testbed AMD Testbed
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix Z370-F-Gaming ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero
Memory G.SKILL Sniper X DDR4-3400 (8 GB x 2)
Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3200 (8 GB x 2)
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (GeForce 457.09)
Storage 1 TB SanDisk Ultra 3D SSD
OS Microsoft Windows 10 (64-bit)

Next Page > 3D Rendering, Transcoding, Radial Blur Performance

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


AMD Ryzen 9 5950X : 3D Rendering Speed

CINEBENCH R20 is a real-world 3D rendering benchmark based on the MAXON Cinema 4D animation software.

It is a great way to accurately determine the actual performance of a processor in 3D content creation.

CINEBENCH R20 Single Core Performance

This Single Core test is not reflective of real world performance, but it is useful to find out the performance of the individual core.

Like the Ryzen 7 5800X, the Ryzen 9 5950X broke past the 600 mark, and was 22.5% faster than the Ryzen 7 3700X.

Because it has a 11.4% higher boost clock, that works out to a 10% better performance per clock, over the last-generation Ryzen.

CINEBENCH R20 Multi Core Performance

The Multi Core test shows the processor’s real-world 3D rendering performance.

A score of almost 9900! That makes it 66% faster than the Ryzen 7 5800X, and 2X faster than the Ryzen 7 3700X, both 8-core, 16-thread processors.

Multi-Threading Boost

This is not a CINEBENCH benchmark result. The Multi-Threading Boost is our calculation of the performance boost that the processor’s Multi-Threading capability provides.

For some reason, the Ryzen 9 5950X doesn’t benefit at all from its SMT capability.

That’s why it only has a 66% performance advantage over the Ryzen 7 5800X, despite having twice as many cores.

 

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X : Transcoding Speed

HandBrake is a free, open-source video transcoding utility, which converts a video file from one resolution / format to another.

As you can imagine, it’s very compute-intensive, which makes it a great benchmark for multi-core processors. In our test, we converted a 4K video of 1.3 GB in size into a 1080p video (HQ1080p30).

Very nice! The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X was 30% faster than the Ryzen 7 5800X, 44% faster than the Ryzen 7 3700X and 74% faster than Ryzen 7 2700X.

 

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X : Radial Blur Speed

The radial blur filter adds the perception of motion to a picture. This is a compute-intensive operation that benefits from multiple processing cores.

This radial blur test was performed on Photoshop 2020 using a single 13.5 megapixel photo, with a filesize of 4,910,867 bytes.

This is a huge boost in performance! The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X was 87% faster than the Ryzen 7 5800X, 2.33X faster than the Ryzen 7 3700X and 2.67X faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X.

Next Page > Gaming Performance : 3DMark | F1 2019

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Synthetic Game Test : 3DMark

We used 3DMark’s Time Spy and Time Spy Extreme synthetic benchmarks, which supports DirectX 12, and the latest features like asynchronous compute, and multi-threading support.

Time Spy – 2560 x 1440

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X was 5% faster than the Ryzen 7 5800X20% faster than Ryzen 7 3700X, and 40% faster than Ryzen 7 2700X.

Of course, the CPU only has a slight influence on a game’s performance, so its effect on the overall gaming score is less significant.

Time Spy Extreme – 3840 x 2160

At the higher 4K resolution, the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X was 20% faster than Ryzen 7 5800X, 81% faster than Ryzen 7 3700X, and 2.3X faster than Ryzen 7 2700X and Core i7-8700K.

Now check out the processors’ effect on the overall gaming score… Obviously, CPU performance only has a small effect at this resolution.

 

F1 2019

F1 2019 is a racing game by Codemasters, released on 28 June 2019. We tested it on three resolutions at the Ultra High settings :

  • 1080p : 1920 x 1080 pixels
  • 1440p : 2560 x 1440 pixels
  • 2160p : 3840 x 2160 pixels

1080p Gaming Resolution

Look at that. The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X delivered 6% higher frame rates than the Ryzen 7 3700X, and 12% higher frame rates than the Ryzen 7 2700X!

1440p Gaming Resolution

At the higher 1440p resolution though, the effect of CPU performance was negligible, even with the GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER.

2160p Gaming Resolution

At 4K resolution, processor performance had no effect. The game was graphics-limited, not CPU-limited.

Next Page > Gaming Performance : World War Z | Strange Brigade

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


World War Z

Based on the 2013 movie, World War Z is a relatively recent third-person shooter game, released in April 2019.

We tested it on three resolutions using the Vulkan API at the High settings :

  • 1080p : 1920 x 1080 pixels
  • 1440p : 2560 x 1440 pixels
  • 2160p : 3840 x 2160 pixels

1080p Gaming Resolution

Look at that! The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X topped this comparison, tying with the Ryzen 7 5800X.

It delivered 16% higher frame rates than the Ryzen 7 3700X, and 20% higher frame rates than the Core i7-8700K.

1440p Gaming Resolution

When we bumped the resolution up to 1440p, it really didn’t matter that much which processor we used. They all performed about the same.

2160p Gaming Resolution

At 4K resolution, processor performance had absolutely no effect. The game was completely graphics-limited.

 

Strange Brigade

Strange Brigade is a third-person shooter game, released in August 2018. We tested it in three resolutions using the Vulkan API at the Ultra High settings :

  • 1080p : 1920 x 1080 pixels
  • 1440p : 2560 x 1440 pixels
  • 2160p : 3840 x 2160 pixels

1080p Gaming Resolution

CPU performance had only a small effect on frame rates in Strange Brigade, even at 1080p.

1440p Gaming Resolution

At 1440p, they were virtually all equal in performance. The game was already graphics-limited.

2160p Gaming Resolution

It was the same at 4K, of course – the game was completely graphics-limited.

Next Page > Gaming Performance : Metro Exodus | AotS

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Metro Exodus

Metro Exodus is a first-person shooter game, released in February 2019. We tested it in three resolutions using the Ultra settings :

  • 1080p : 1920 x 1080 pixels
  • 1440p : 2560 x 1440 pixels
  • 2160p : 3840 x 2160 pixels

1080p Gaming Resolution

Metro Exodus is graphics-intensive, so CPU performance has limited effect on its frame rate.

1440p Gaming Resolution

All of the processors performed the same at 1440p, with a slight edge to the Core i7-8700K.

2160p Gaming Resolution

At 4K, the game was completely graphics-limited, so it didn’t matter which processor we tested.

 

Ashes of the Singularity

Ashes of the Singularity is a 2016 game that supports multi-core processing and asynchronous compute.

In this game, the single core CPU performance has a significant effect on the actual frame rate.

We tested it on three resolutions using the DirectX 12 API at the High settings :

  • 1080p : 1920 x 1080
  • 1440p : 2560 x 1440
  • 2160p : 3840 x 2160

1080p Gaming Resolution

Look at that! The Ryzen 9 5950X delivered 9% higher frame rates than the Ryzen 7 5800X21% higher frame rates than the Core i7-8700K, and 23% higher frame rates than the Ryzen 7 3700X.

1440p Gaming Resolution

At 1440p, the Ryzen 9 5950X delivered 7% higher frame rates than the Ryzen 7 5800X, and 23% higher frame rates than both the Core i7-8700K and the Ryzen 7 3700X.

2160p Gaming Resolution

Even at 4K, CPU performance mattered in Ashes of the Singularity. The Ryzen 9 5950X delivered just 2% higher frame rates than the Ryzen 7 5800X, and 14% higher frame rates than both the Core i7-8700K and the Ryzen 7 3700X.

Next Page > AMD Ryzen 9 5950X : Verdict + Award, Price + Availability

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


AMD Ryzen 9 5950X : Our Verdict + Award!

Thanks to the new Zen 3 core optimisations and SoC design, the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X offers a nice leap forward in performance.

It offers significantly better single-core and multi-core performance over the last generation, offering a nice boost to both content creation and gaming performance.

As our benchmark results show, the Ryzen 9 5950X offers a large performance boost over the Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 7 2700X, and even the new Ryzen 7 5800X.

With 16 cores that support up to 32 threads, it barrels through everything thrown at it without a sweat.

But while AMD has highlighted the Ryzen 9 5950X as a great processor for gaming, it’s really best for serious content creation work.

It’s not that it won’t work well in games, it’s just overkill for games.

We cannot emphasise this great point about the Ryzen 9 5950X – even though it uses a new Zen 3 microarchitecture, it continues to use the AM4 socket.

If you have an existing AMD 500 Series motherboard, you can just pop in the Ryzen 9 5950X after a BIOS upgrade.

Those on AMD 400 Series motherboards will have to wait until Q1 2020, before they receive BIOS upgrades to support Zen 3.

In our Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X reviews, we pointed out that they were priced significantly higher than their predecessors.

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X is priced at $799 (RM3,699) – a $50 (RM550) premium over the last-generation Ryzen 9 3950X, which had a launch price of $749 (RM3,149).

But this time, it comes with a free copy of the upcoming game – Far Cry 6 Standard Edition, which is priced at $56.99.

Paradoxically, this makes the Ryzen 9 5950X the best deal of the Ryzen 5000 series, if you can afford it, of course!

That’s why we believe it deserves our Reviewer’s Choice Award. Congratulations, AMD!

So who should, or should NOT, buy the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X?

  • Buy : If you want the best possible 16-core processor for a new content creation system.
  • Buy : If you are upgrading from a first-generation Ryzen processor.
  • Buy : If you need more computing cores than your current system.
  • Consider : If you are upgrading from a second-generation Ryzen processor.
  • Skip : If you are already using a 3rd Gen Ryzen processor.

 

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X : Price + Availability

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X processor is available for sale starting 5 November 2020, at these RRP inclusive of tax, in Malaysia :

  • Malaysia : RM 3,699 (~US$889) inclusive of 6% tax
  • United States : RM 799

Note : It comes with a free copy of Far Cry 6

Here are some online purchase options :

 

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X : Specifications

Here is how the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X compares to the other Ryzen 5000 series processors :

Ryzen 9
5950X
Ryzen 9
5900X
Ryzen 7
5800X
Ryzen 5
5600X
Process 7 nm (CCD) + 12 nm (IOD)
Transistor
+ Die Size
CCD : 4.15 billion, 80.7 mm²
IOD : 2.09 billion, 125 mm²
Chiplets 2 x CCD
1 x IOD
1 x CCD
1 x IOD
Cores / Threads 16 / 32 12 / 24 8 / 16 6 / 12
Base Clock 3.4 GHz 3.7 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.7 GHz
Boost Clock 4.9 GHz 4.8 GHz 4.7 GHz 4.6 GHz
L1 Cache 1 MB 768 KB 512 KB 384 KB
L2 Cache 8 MB 6 MB 4 MB 3 MB
L3 Cache 64 MB 32 MB
TDP 105 W 65 W
Cooler None Wraith
Stealth

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > First Page | Computer Hardware | Home

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


AMD Ryzen 7 5800X In-Depth Review : 8-Core Powerhouse!

Built on the new Zen 3 architecture, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X promises to offer a leap forward in performance.

Take a look at its performance in our in-depth review, and find out if this is the Ryzen for you!

 

AMD Ryzen 5000 Series : Built On Zen 3

The AMD Ryzen 5000 series is designed using the new AMD Zen 3 architecture, which promises to deliver 19% more instructions per cycle (IPC) over the last generation, thanks to these new features :

  • improved load / store performance and flexibility
  • double the size of directly-accessible L3 cache per core
  • a unified 8-core complex (CCX) with direct access to the 32 MB L3 cache
  • wider issue in floating point and integer engines
  • Zero Bubble branch prediction

The new architecture also reduces memory latency through improved core and cache communication, and offer a higher maximum boost clock.

This allows the Ryzen 5000 series desktop processors to deliver up to 2.8X more performance-per-watt versus the competition.

 

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X : Price + Availability

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X processor will be available for sale starting 5 November 2020, at these RRP inclusive of tax :

  • Malaysia : RM 2,049 (~US$493) inclusive of 6% tax
  • United States : RM 449

Note : It comes with a free copy of Far Cry 6

Here are some online purchase options :

 

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X : Specifications

Here is how the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X compares to the other Ryzen 5000 series processors :

Ryzen 9
5950X
Ryzen 9
5900X
Ryzen 7
5800X
Ryzen 5
5600X
Process 7 nm (CCD) + 12 nm (IOD)
Transistor
+ Die Size
CCD : 4.15 billion, 80.7 mm²
IOD : 2.09 billion, 125 mm²
CCD Count 2 x CCD
1 x IOD
1 x CCD
1 x IOD
Cores / Threads 16 / 32 12 / 24 8 / 16 6 / 12
Base Clock 3.4 GHz 3.7 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.7 GHz
Boost Clock 4.9 GHz 4.8 GHz 4.7 GHz 4.6 GHz
L1 Cache 1 MB 768 KB 512 KB 384 KB
L2 Cache 8 MB 6 MB 4 MB 3 MB
L3 Cache 64 MB 32 MB
TDP 105 W 65 W
Cooler None Wraith
Stealth

 

Unboxing The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X comes in a slimmer box, because it doesn’t come with any bundled cooler.

The last-generation Ryzen 7 3800X, you may recall, came with the Wraith Prism cooler.

 

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X Up Close!

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X has eight Ryzen processor cores, with a 3.8 GHz base clock, and a 4.7 GHz boost clock.

It has a 105 watt TDP, and supports SMT (simultaneous multi-threading), which means it can handle up to 16 threads simultaneously.

Like the 3rd Gen Ryzen, it has 512 KB L2 cache per core, for a 4 MB L2 cache size; and a large 32 MB L3 cache.

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X can be installed unto existing AMD 500 series motherboards, and later, the AMD 400 series as well, after a simple BIOS update.

Next Page > AMD Zen 3 Architecture + SoC Design

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


AMD Zen 3 Architecture

Codename Vermeer, Zen 3 is the next evolution of the Zen architecture, delivering a 19% improvement in instructions per clock (IPC) through these improvements :

Front-End Enhancements

  • Faster fetching, especially for branchy and large-footprint code
  • L1 branch target buffer doubled in size to 1024 entries for better prediction latency
  • Improved branch predictor bandwidth
  • Faster recovery from misprediction
  • “No bubble” prediction capabilities to make back-to-back predictions more quickly and better handle branchy code
  • Faster sequencing of op-cache fetches
  • Finer granularity in switching of op-cache pipes

Execution Engines

  • Reduce latency and enlarge structures to extract higher instruction-level parallelism (ILP)
  • New dedicated branch and st-data pickers for integer, now at 10 issues per cycle (+3 vs. Zen 2)
  • Larger integer window at +32 vs. Zen 2
  • Reduced latency for select float and int operations
  • Floating point has increased bandwidth by +2 for a total of 6-wide dispatch and issue
  • Floating point FMAC is now 1 cycle faster

Load Store

  • Larger structures and better prefetching to support the enhanced execution engine bandwidth
  • Overall higher bandwidth to feed the appetite of the larger/faster execution resources
  • Higher load bandwidth vs. Zen 2 by +1
  • Higher store bandwidth vs. Zen 2 by +1
  • More flexibility in load/store operations
  • Improved memory dependence detection
  • +4 table walkers in the TLB

SOC Architecture

  • Reduce dependency on main memory accesses, reduce core-to-core latency, reduce core-to-cache latency.
  • Unify all cores in a CCD into a single unified complex consisting of 4, 6, or 8 contiguous cores
  • Unify all L3 cache in a CCD into a single contiguous element of up to 32MB
  • Rearchitect core/cache communication into a ring system

 

AMD Zen 3 SoC Design

In addition to micro architectural improvements, Zen 3 (Vermeer) also features SoC design changes.

In Zen 2, each CCD (Compute Die) is made up of two CCX (core complexes), each with a 16 MB L3 cache.

Zen 3 uses a unified complex, in which each CCD now contains a single CCX with a unified 32 MB L3 cache.

This unified CCD design eliminates CCX-to-CCX communication, greatly improving core-to-core latency.

On the other hand, AMD reused the chiplet design, with one or two CCDs (fabricated on 7 nm) paired with a 12 nm IOD (I/O Die).

Reads from CCD to IO are still 2X write, to conserve die area and transistor budget. And it uses the same IOD from Matisse (Zen 2).

The new Zen 3 CCD has 4.15 billion transistors, with a die size of 80.7 mm². The Matisse-era IOD remains the same – 2.09 billion transistors, with a die size of 125 mm².

 

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X Benchmarking Notes

In this review, we will take a look at the content creation and gaming performance of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, comparing it to 6 other processors :

Cores /
Threads
Base
Clock
Boost
Clock
L2
Cache
L3
Cache
Memory
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X 8 / 16 3.8 GHz 4.7 GHz 4 MB 32 MB DDR4-3200
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8 / 16 3.6 GHz 4.4 GHz 4 MB 32 MB DDR4-3200
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 8 / 16 3.7 GHz 4.3 GHz 4 MB 16 MB DDR4-2933
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X 6 / 12 3.7 GHz 4.6 GHz 3 MB 32 MB DDR4-3200
Intel Core i7-8700K 6 / 12 3.7 GHz 4.7 GHz 1.5 MB 12 MB DDR4-2666
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X 6 / 12 3.6 GHz 4.2 GHz 3 MB 16 MB DDR4-2933
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X 4 / 8 3.8 GHz 4.3 GHz 2 MB 16 MB DDR4-3200

Here are the specifications of the Intel and AMD testbeds we used.

Intel Testbed AMD Testbed
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix Z370-F-Gaming ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero
Memory G.SKILL Sniper X DDR4-3400 (8 GB x 2)
Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3200 (8 GB x 2)
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (GeForce 457.09)
Storage 1 TB SanDisk Ultra 3D SSD
OS Microsoft Windows 10 (64-bit)

Next Page > 3D Rendering, Transcoding, Radial Blur Performance

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


AMD Ryzen 7 5800X : 3D Rendering Speed

CINEBENCH R20 is a real-world 3D rendering benchmark based on the MAXON Cinema 4D animation software.

It is a great way to accurately determine the actual performance of a processor in 3D content creation.

CINEBENCH R20 Single Core Performance

This Single Core test is not reflective of real world performance, but it is useful to find out the performance of the individual core.

Look at that! What a phenomenal boost in single-core performance!

The Ryzen 7 5800X broke past the 600 mark, and was 22.5% faster than the Ryzen 7 3700X, even though it only has a 6.8% higher boost clock!

That works out to a 14.7% better performance per clock, over the last-generation Ryzen.

CINEBENCH R20 Multi Core Performance

The Multi Core test shows the processor’s real-world 3D rendering performance.

A score of almost 6000! That’s 23.6% faster than the Ryzen 7 3700X, which is also an 8-core, 16-thread processor.

It was actually 58.8% faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X, which makes it a great upgrade for the older 8-core, 16-thread processor.

Multi-Threading Boost

This is not a CINEBENCH benchmark result. The Multi-Threading Boost is our calculation of the performance boost that the processor’s Multi-Threading capability provides.

Interestingly, the Ryzen 7 5800X has better SMT performance than the Ryzen 5 5600X, even though they both use a single CCD.

 

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X : Transcoding Speed

HandBrake is a free, open-source video transcoding utility, which converts a video file from one resolution / format to another.

As you can imagine, it’s very compute-intensive, which makes it a great benchmark for multi-core processors. In our test, we converted a 4K video of 1.3 GB in size into a 1080p video (HQ1080p30).

That’s a nice speed bump! The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X was 10.4% faster than the Ryzen 7 3700X and 33.8% faster than Ryzen 7 2700X.

 

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X : Radial Blur Speed

The radial blur filter adds the perception of motion to a picture. This is a compute-intensive operation that benefits from multiple processing cores.

This radial blur test was performed on Photoshop 2020 using a single 13.5 megapixel photo, with a filesize of 4,910,867 bytes.

This is a big boost in performance! The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X was 24.5% faster than the Ryzen 7 3700X and 42.3% faster than both Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 5600X.

Next Page > Gaming Performance : 3DMark | F1 2019

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Synthetic Game Test : 3DMark

We used 3DMark’s Time Spy and Time Spy Extreme synthetic benchmarks, which supports DirectX 12, and the latest features like asynchronous compute, and multi-threading support.

Time Spy – 2560 x 1440

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X was 14.3% faster than Ryzen 7 3700X, and 33% faster than Ryzen 7 2700X.

Of course, the CPU only has a slight influence on a game’s performance, so its effect on the overall gaming score is less significant.

Time Spy Extreme – 3840 x 2160

At the higher 4K resolution, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X was 20% faster than Ryzen 7 3700X, and 40% faster than Ryzen 5 5600X.

Now check out the processors’ effect on the overall gaming score… Obviously, CPU performance only has a small effect at this resolution.

 

F1 2019

F1 2019 is a racing game by Codemasters, released on 28 June 2019. We tested it on three resolutions at the Ultra High settings :

  • 1080p : 1920 x 1080 pixels
  • 1440p : 2560 x 1440 pixels
  • 2160p : 3840 x 2160 pixels

1080p Gaming Resolution

Look at that. The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X delivered 6.5% higher frame rates than the Ryzen 7 3700X, and 12.5% higher frame rates than the Ryzen 7 2700X!

1440p Gaming Resolution

At the higher 1440p resolution though, the effect of CPU performance was negligible, even with the GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER.

2160p Gaming Resolution

At 4K resolution, processor performance had no effect. The game was graphics-limited, not CPU-limited.

Next Page > Gaming Performance : World War Z | Strange Brigade

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


World War Z

Based on the 2013 movie, World War Z is a relatively recent third-person shooter game, released in April 2019.

We tested it on three resolutions using the Vulkan API at the High settings :

  • 1080p : 1920 x 1080 pixels
  • 1440p : 2560 x 1440 pixels
  • 2160p : 3840 x 2160 pixels

1080p Gaming Resolution

Look at that! The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X topped this comparison, tying with the Ryzen 5 5600X.

It delivered 17% higher frame rates than the Ryzen 7 3700X, and 21% higher frame rates than the Core i7-8700K.

1440p Gaming Resolution

When we bumped the resolution up to 1440p, it really didn’t matter that much which processor we used. They all performed about the same.

2160p Gaming Resolution

At 4K resolution, processor performance had absolutely no effect. The game was completely graphics-limited.

 

Strange Brigade

Strange Brigade is a third-person shooter game, released in August 2018. We tested it in three resolutions using the Vulkan API at the Ultra High settings :

  • 1080p : 1920 x 1080 pixels
  • 1440p : 2560 x 1440 pixels
  • 2160p : 3840 x 2160 pixels

1080p Gaming Resolution

CPU performance had only a small effect on frame rates in Strange Brigade, even at 1080p.

1440p Gaming Resolution

At 1440p, they were virtually all equal in performance. The game was already graphics-limited.

2160p Gaming Resolution

It was the same at 4K, of course – the game was completely graphics-limited.

Next Page > Gaming Performance : Metro Exodus | AotS

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Metro Exodus

Metro Exodus is a first-person shooter game, released in February 2019. We tested it in three resolutions using the Ultra settings :

  • 1080p : 1920 x 1080 pixels
  • 1440p : 2560 x 1440 pixels
  • 2160p : 3840 x 2160 pixels

1080p Gaming Resolution

Metro Exodus is graphics-intensive, so CPU performance has limited effect on its frame rate.

1440p Gaming Resolution

All of the processors performed the same at 1440p, with a slight edge to the Core i7-8700K.

2160p Gaming Resolution

At 4K, the game was completely graphics-limited, so it didn’t matter which processor we tested.

 

Ashes of the Singularity

Ashes of the Singularity is a 2016 game that supports multi-core processing and asynchronous compute.

In this game, the single core CPU performance has a significant effect on the actual frame rate.

We tested it on three resolutions using the DirectX 12 API at the High settings :

  • 1080p : 1920 x 1080
  • 1440p : 2560 x 1440
  • 2160p : 3840 x 2160

1080p Gaming Resolution

Nice! The Ryzen 7 5800X delivered 11% higher frame rates than the Core i7-8700K, and 13% higher frame rates than the Ryzen 7 3700X.

1440p Gaming Resolution

At 1440p, the Ryzen 7 5800X delivered 15.5% higher frame rates than both the Core i7-8700K and the Ryzen 7 3700X.

2160p Gaming Resolution

Even at 4K, CPU performance mattered in Ashes of the Singularity. The Ryzen 7 5800X delivered 12% higher frame rates than both the Core i7-8700K and the Ryzen 7 3700X.

Next Page > AMD Ryzen 7 5800X : Verdict, Price + Availability

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


AMD Ryzen 7 5800X : Our Verdict!

Thanks to the new Zen 3 core optimisations and SoC design, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X offers a nice leap forward in performance.

Its single-core performance has been improved significantly over its predecessors, and so has its multi-core performance, offering a nice boost to both content creation and gaming performance.

Gamers will favour the cheaper Ryzen 5 5600X, but this is a great option for those who also need serious multi-core performance for content creation work.

It offers a large performance boost over the Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 7 2700X in both content creation and gaming performance.

Another great point about the Ryzen 7 5800X – even though it uses a new microarchitecture, it continues to use the AM4 socket

If you have an existing AMD 500 Series motherboard, you can pop it in after a BIOS upgrade.

Those on AMD 400 Series motherboards will have to wait until Q1 2020, before they receive BIOS upgrades to support Zen 3.

But while the Ryzen 7 5800X’s performance may be a leap forward, so is its price tag…

You may recall that the last-generation Ryzen 7 3800X had a launch price of $399 (RM1,799), with a nice Wraith Prism cooler.

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X costs substantially more at $449 (RM2,049), and no longer comes with a very nice bundled cooler!

On the other hand, it comes with a free copy of the upcoming game – Far Cry 6 Standard Edition...

So who should, or should NOT, buy the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X?

  • Buy : If you want the best possible 8-core processor for a new gaming or content creation system.
  • Buy : If you are upgrading from a first-generation Ryzen processor.
  • Buy : If you need more computing cores than your current system.
  • Consider : If you are upgrading from a second-generation Ryzen processor.
  • Skip : If you are already using a 3rd Gen Ryzen processor.

Those on a budget can consider purchasing a Ryzen 7 3700X. It may be slower for sure, but the money you save can be used towards the upcoming Radeon RX 6000 series graphics card!

 

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X : Price + Availability

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X processor will be available for sale starting 5 November 2020, at these RRP inclusive of tax, in Malaysia :

  • Malaysia : RM 2,049 (~US$493) inclusive of 6% tax
  • United States : RM 449

Note : It comes with a free copy of Far Cry 6

Here are some online purchase options :

 

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X : Specifications

Here is how the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X compares to the other Ryzen 5000 series processors :

Ryzen 9
5950X
Ryzen 9
5900X
Ryzen 7
5800X
Ryzen 5
5600X
Process 7 nm (CCD) + 12 nm (IOD)
Transistor
+ Die Size
CCD : 4.15 billion, 80.7 mm²
IOD : 2.09 billion, 125 mm²
CCD Count 2 x CCD
1 x IOD
1 x CCD
1 x IOD
Cores / Threads 16 / 32 12 / 24 8 / 16 6 / 12
Base Clock 3.4 GHz 3.7 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.7 GHz
Boost Clock 4.9 GHz 4.8 GHz 4.7 GHz 4.6 GHz
L1 Cache 1 MB 768 KB 512 KB 384 KB
L2 Cache 8 MB 6 MB 4 MB 3 MB
L3 Cache 64 MB 32 MB
TDP 105 W 65 W
Cooler None Wraith
Stealth

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > First Page | Computer Hardware | Home

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


AMD Ryzen 5 5600X In-Depth Review : A Leap Forward!

Built on the new Zen 3 architecture, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X promises to offer a leap forward in performance.

Find out in our in-depth review why we agree, and gave it our Reviewer’s Choice Award!

 

AMD Ryzen 5000 Series : Built On Zen 3

The AMD Ryzen 5000 series is designed using the new AMD Zen 3 architecture, which promises to deliver 19% more instructions per cycle (IPC) over the last generation, thanks to these new features :

  • improved load / store performance and flexibility
  • double the size of directly-accessible L3 cache per core
  • a unified 8-core complex (CCX) with direct access to the 32 MB L3 cache
  • wider issue in floating point and integer engines
  • Zero Bubble branch prediction

The new architecture also reduces memory latency through improved core and cache communication, and offer a higher maximum boost clock.

This allows the Ryzen 5000 series desktop processors to deliver up to 2.8X more performance-per-watt versus the competition.

 

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X : Price + Availability

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X processor is available for sale starting 5 November 2020, at these RRP inclusive of tax :

  • Malaysia : RM 1,349 (~US$324) inclusive of 6% tax
  • United States : RM 299

Note : Unlike the Ryzen 9 5950X, Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X, the Ryzen 5 5600X will NOT come with a free copy of Far Cry 6.

Here are some online purchase options :

 

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X : Specifications

Here is how the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X compares to the other Ryzen 5000 series processors :

Ryzen 9
5950X
Ryzen 9
5900X
Ryzen 7
5800X
Ryzen 5
5600X
Process 7 nm (CCD) + 12 nm (IOD)
Transistor
+ Die Size
CCD : 4.15 billion, 80.7 mm²
IOD : 2.09 billion, 125 mm²
Chiplets 2 x CCD
1 x IOD
1 x CCD
1 x IOD
Cores / Threads 16 / 32 12 / 24 8 / 16 6 / 12
Base Clock 3.4 GHz 3.7 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.7 GHz
Boost Clock 4.9 GHz 4.8 GHz 4.7 GHz 4.6 GHz
L1 Cache 1 MB 768 KB 512 KB 384 KB
L2 Cache 8 MB 6 MB 4 MB 3 MB
L3 Cache 64 MB 32 MB
TDP 105 W 65 W
Cooler None Wraith
Stealth

 

Unboxing The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X comes in a slimmer box, with a bundled AMD Wraith Stealth cooler inside.

The Wraith Stealth is the most basic cooler AMD ships, usually with entry-level processors like the Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 3300X.

 

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Up Close!

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X has six Ryzen processor cores, with a 3.7 GHz base clock, and a 4.6 GHz boost clock.

It has a 65 watt TDP, and supports SMT (simultaneous multi-threading), which means it can handle up to 12 threads simultaneously.

Like the 3rd Gen Ryzen, it has 512 KB L2 cache per core, for a 3 MB L2 cache size; and a large 32 MB L3 cache.

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X can be installed unto existing AMD 500 series motherboards, and later, the AMD 400 series as well, after a simple BIOS update.

Next Page > AMD Zen 3 Architecture + SoC Design | Benchmark Notes

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


AMD Zen 3 Architecture

Codename Vermeer, Zen 3 is the next evolution of the Zen architecture, delivering a 19% improvement in instructions per clock (IPC) through these improvements :

Front-End Enhancements

  • Faster fetching, especially for branchy and large-footprint code 
  • L1 branch target buffer doubled in size to 1024 entries for better prediction latency 
  • Improved branch predictor bandwidth 
  • Faster recovery from misprediction 
  • “No bubble” prediction capabilities to make back-to-back predictions more quickly and better handle branchy code 
  • Faster sequencing of op-cache fetches 
  • Finer granularity in switching of op-cache pipes

Execution Engines

  • Reduce latency and enlarge structures to extract higher instruction-level parallelism (ILP)
  • New dedicated branch and st-data pickers for integer, now at 10 issues per cycle (+3 vs. Zen 2)
  • Larger integer window at +32 vs. Zen 2
  • Reduced latency for select float and int operations
  • Floating point has increased bandwidth by +2 for a total of 6-wide dispatch and issue
  • Floating point FMAC is now 1 cycle faster

Load Store

  • Larger structures and better prefetching to support the enhanced execution engine bandwidth 
  • Overall higher bandwidth to feed the appetite of the larger/faster execution resources 
  • Higher load bandwidth vs. Zen 2 by +1 
  • Higher store bandwidth vs. Zen 2 by +1 
  • More flexibility in load/store operations 
  • Improved memory dependence detection 
  • +4 table walkers in the TLB

SOC Architecture

  • Reduce dependency on main memory accesses, reduce core-to-core latency, reduce core-to-cache latency.
  • Unify all cores in a CCD into a single unified complex consisting of 4, 6, or 8 contiguous cores 
  • Unify all L3 cache in a CCD into a single contiguous element of up to 32MB 
  • Rearchitect core/cache communication into a ring system

 

AMD Zen 3 SoC Design

In addition to micro architectural improvements, Zen 3 (Vermeer) also features SoC design changes.

In Zen 2, each CCD (Compute Die) is made up of two CCX (core complexes), each with a 16 MB L3 cache.

Zen 3 uses a unified complex, in which each CCD now contains a single CCX with a unified 32 MB L3 cache.

This unified CCD design eliminates CCX-to-CCX communication, greatly improving core-to-core latency.

On the other hand, AMD reused the chiplet design, with one or two CCDs (fabricated on 7 nm) paired with a 12 nm IOD (I/O Die).

Reads from CCD to IO are still 2X write, to conserve die area and transistor budget. And it uses the same IOD from Matisse (Zen 2).

The new Zen 3 CCD has 4.15 billion transistors, with a die size of 80.7 mm². The Matisse-era IOD remains the same – 2.09 billion transistors, with a die size of 125 mm².

 

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Benchmarking Notes

In this review, we will take a look at the content creation and gaming performance of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X, comparing it to 6 other processors :

Cores /
Threads
Base
Clock
Boost
Clock
L2
Cache
L3
Cache
Memory
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X 8 / 16 3.8 GHz 4.7 GHz 4 MB 32 MB DDR4-3200
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8 / 16 3.6 GHz 4.4 GHz 4 MB 32 MB DDR4-3200
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 8 / 16 3.7 GHz 4.3 GHz 4 MB 16 MB DDR4-2933
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X 6 / 12 3.7 GHz 4.6 GHz 3 MB 32 MB DDR4-3200
Intel Core i7-8700K 6 / 12 3.7 GHz 4.7 GHz 1.5 MB 12 MB DDR4-2666
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X 6 / 12 3.6 GHz 4.2 GHz 3 MB 16 MB DDR4-2933
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X 4 / 8 3.8 GHz 4.3 GHz 2 MB 16 MB DDR4-3200

Here are the specifications of the Intel and AMD testbeds we used.

Intel Testbed AMD Testbed
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix Z370-F-Gaming ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero
Memory G.SKILL Sniper X DDR4-3400 (8 GB x 2)
Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3200 (8 GB x 2)
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (GeForce 457.09)
Storage 1 TB SanDisk Ultra 3D SSD
OS Microsoft Windows 10 (64-bit)

Next Page > 3D Rendering, Transcoding, Radial Blur Performance

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


AMD Ryzen 5 5600X : 3D Rendering Speed

CINEBENCH R20 is a real-world 3D rendering benchmark based on the MAXON Cinema 4D animation software.

It is a great way to accurately determine the actual performance of a processor in 3D content creation.

CINEBENCH R20 Single Core Performance

This Single Core test is not reflective of real world performance, but it is useful to find out the performance of the individual core.

Look at that! What a phenomenal boost in single-core performance!

The Ryzen 5 5600X was 19.5% faster than the Ryzen 7 3700X, even though it only has a 4.5% higher boost clock!

That works out to a 14.3% better performance per clock, over the last-generation Ryzen.

CINEBENCH R20 Multi Core Performance

The Multi Core test shows the processor’s real-world 3D rendering performance.

This is very good performance for a 6-core processor, performing just 12.6% slower than the Ryzen 7 3700X, which is an 8-core, 16-thread processor.

More so when you realise that it was actually 12.3% faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X, which is an older 8-core, 16-thread processor.

Multi-Threading Boost

This is not a CINEBENCH benchmark result. The Multi-Threading Boost is our calculation of the performance boost that the processor’s Multi-Threading capability provides.

While the Zen 3 microarchitecture gave it a big boost in single core performance, its SMT performance appears to have taken a slight hit.

 

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X : Transcoding Speed

HandBrake is a free, open-source video transcoding utility, which converts a video file from one resolution / format to another.

As you can imagine, it’s very compute-intensive, which makes it a great benchmark for multi-core processors. In our test, we converted a 4K video of 1.3 GB in size into a 1080p video (HQ1080p30).

Look at that! Despite having just six cores, the Ryzen 5 5600X was slightly faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X, which has 8 cores.

 

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X : Radial Blur Speed

The radial blur filter adds the perception of motion to a picture. This is a compute-intensive operation that benefits from multiple processing cores.

This radial blur test was performed on Photoshop 2020 using a single 13.5 megapixel photo, with a filesize of 4,910,867 bytes.

Even though it was a 6-core processor, the Ryzen 5 5600X was just slightly slower than the Ryzen 7 2700X, which has 8 cores. Impressive!

Next Page > Gaming Performance : 3DMark | F1 2019

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Synthetic Game Test : 3DMark

We used 3DMark’s Time Spy and Time Spy Extreme synthetic benchmarks, which supports DirectX 12, and the latest features like asynchronous compute, and multi-threading support.

Time Spy – 2560 x 1440

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X was 5% slower than the Ryzen 7 2700X, and 5% faster than the Core i7-8700K.

Of course, the CPU only has a slight influence on a game’s performance, so its effect on the overall gaming score is less significant.

Time Spy Extreme – 3840 x 2160

At the higher 4K resolution, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X was 8.3% faster than both the Ryzen 7 2700X and the Core i7-8700K.

Now check out the processors’ effect on the overall gaming score… Obviously, CPU performance only has a small effect at this resolution.

 

F1 2019

F1 2019 is a racing game by Codemasters, released on 28 June 2019. We tested it on three resolutions at the Ultra High settings :

  • 1080p : 1920 x 1080 pixels
  • 1440p : 2560 x 1440 pixels
  • 2160p : 3840 x 2160 pixels

1080p Gaming Resolution

Look at that. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X delivered 6.5% higher frame rates than the Ryzen 7 3700X, and 12.5% higher frame rates than the Ryzen 7 2700X!

1440p Gaming Resolution

At the higher 1440p resolution though, the effect of CPU performance was negligible, even with the GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER.

2160p Gaming Resolution

At 4K resolution, processor performance had no effect. The game was graphics-limited, not CPU-limited.

Next Page > Gaming Performance : World War Z | Strange Brigade

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


World War Z

Based on the 2013 movie, World War Z is a relatively recent third-person shooter game, released in April 2019.

We tested it on three resolutions using the Vulkan API at the High settings :

  • 1080p : 1920 x 1080 pixels
  • 1440p : 2560 x 1440 pixels
  • 2160p : 3840 x 2160 pixels

1080p Gaming Resolution

Look at that! The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X delivered the best performance in this comparison, matching the Ryzen 7 5800X.

It delivered 17% higher frame rates than the Ryzen 7 3700X, and 21% higher frame rates than the Core i7-8700K.

1440p Gaming Resolution

When we bumped the resolution up to 1440p, it really didn’t matter that much which processor we used. They all performed about the same.

2160p Gaming Resolution

At 4K resolution, processor performance had absolutely no effect. The game was completely graphics-limited.

 

Strange Brigade

Strange Brigade is a third-person shooter game, released in August 2018. We tested it in three resolutions using the Vulkan API at the Ultra High settings :

  • 1080p : 1920 x 1080 pixels
  • 1440p : 2560 x 1440 pixels
  • 2160p : 3840 x 2160 pixels

1080p Gaming Resolution

CPU performance had only a small effect on frame rates in Strange Brigade, even at 1080p.

1440p Gaming Resolution

At 1440p, they were virtually all equal in performance. The game was already graphics-limited.

2160p Gaming Resolution

It was the same at 4K, of course – the game was completely graphics-limited.

Next Page > Gaming Performance : Metro Exodus | AotS

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Metro Exodus

Metro Exodus is a first-person shooter game, released in February 2019. We tested it in three resolutions using the Ultra settings :

  • 1080p : 1920 x 1080 pixels
  • 1440p : 2560 x 1440 pixels
  • 2160p : 3840 x 2160 pixels

1080p Gaming Resolution

Metro Exodus is graphics-intensive, so CPU performance has limited effect on its frame rate.

1440p Gaming Resolution

All of the processors performed the same at 1440p, with a slight edge to the Core i7-8700K.

2160p Gaming Resolution

At 4K, the game was completely graphics-limited, so it didn’t matter which processor we tested.

 

Ashes of the Singularity

Ashes of the Singularity is a 2016 game that supports multi-core processing and asynchronous compute.

In this game, the single core CPU performance has a significant effect on the actual frame rate.

We tested it on three resolutions using the DirectX 12 API at the High settings :

  • 1080p : 1920 x 1080
  • 1440p : 2560 x 1440
  • 2160p : 3840 x 2160

1080p Gaming Resolution

Nice! The Ryzen 5 5600X was almost as fast as the Ryzen 7 5800X, and delivered 9.4% higher frame rates than the Core i7-8700K, and 11.3% higher frame rates than the Ryzen 7 3700X.

1440p Gaming Resolution

At 1440p, the Ryzen 5 5600X delivered 12.8% higher frame rates than both the Core i7-8700K and the Ryzen 7 3700X.

2160p Gaming Resolution

Even at 4K, CPU performance mattered in Ashes of the Singularity. The Ryzen 5 5600X delivered 9.2% higher frame rates than both the Core i7-8700K and the Ryzen 7 3700X.

Next Page > Our Verdict + Award | Price + Availability

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


AMD Ryzen 5 5600X : Our Verdict + Award!

There is no doubt that the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X is a leap forward for AMD, thanks to the new Zen 3 core and SoC design.

Its single-core performance has been improved significantly over its predecessors, offering a nice boost to content creation and gaming performance.

Gamers, in particular, will favour this model over the Ryzen 7 5800X because it delivers the same gaming performance at 2/3rds the cost.

It also handily beats the Ryzen 7 3700X in gaming performance, making it a better option for gaming systems.

Even though the Ryzen 5 5600X uses a new microarchitecture, it continues to use the AM4 socket and will support AMD 500 Series chipsets on launch day (with a BIOS upgrade).

That’s really great news for those planning to upgrade from their existing Ryzen processors.

Those on AMD 400 Series motherboards will have to wait until Q1 2020, before they receive BIOS upgrades to support Zen 3.

But while the Ryzen 5 5600X’s performance may be a leap forward, so is its price tag…

You may recall that the last-generation Ryzen 5 3600X had a launch price of $249 (RM859), with a Wraith Spire cooler.

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X costs substantially more at $299 (RM1,349), and ships with the smaller and cheaper Wraith Stealth cooler.

That said, the Ryzen 5 5600X truly provides a significant boost in performance, and it deserves our Reviewer’s Choice Award.

So who should, or should NOT, buy the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X?

  • Buy : If you want the best possible 6-core processor for a new gaming system.
  • Buy : If you are upgrading from a first-generation Ryzen processor.
  • Consider : If you are upgrading from a second-generation Ryzen processor.
  • Skip : If you are already using a 3rd Gen Ryzen processor.

Those on a budget can consider purchasing a Ryzen 5 3600X. It may not be as fast, but the money you save can be used towards the upcoming Radeon RX 6000 series graphics card!

 

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X : Price + Availability

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X processor is available for sale starting 5 November 2020, at these RRP inclusive of tax :

  • Malaysia : RM 1,349 (~US$324) inclusive of 6% tax
  • United States : RM 299

Note : Unlike the Ryzen 9 5950X, Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X, the Ryzen 5 5600X will NOT come with a free copy of Far Cry 6.

Here are some online purchase options :

 

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X : Specifications

Here is how the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X compares to the other Ryzen 5000 series processors :

Ryzen 9
5950X
Ryzen 9
5900X
Ryzen 7
5800X
Ryzen 5
5600X
Process 7 nm (CCD) + 12 nm (IOD)
Transistor
+ Die Size
CCD : 4.15 billion, 80.7 mm²
IOD : 2.09 billion, 125 mm²
Chiplets 2 x CCD
1 x IOD
1 x CCD
1 x IOD
Cores / Threads 16 / 32 12 / 24 8 / 16 6 / 12
Base Clock 3.4 GHz 3.7 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.7 GHz
Boost Clock 4.9 GHz 4.8 GHz 4.7 GHz 4.6 GHz
L1 Cache 1 MB 768 KB 512 KB 384 KB
L2 Cache 8 MB 6 MB 4 MB 3 MB
L3 Cache 64 MB 32 MB
TDP 105 W 65 W
Cooler None Wraith
Stealth

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > First Page | Computer Hardware | Home

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Radeon RX 6000 vs GeForce RTX 30 : Faster + Cheaper!

AMD claims that their Radeon RX 6000 graphics cards are faster and cheaper than the GeForce RTX 30 graphics cards NVIDIA recently launched.

Take a look at the performance results comparing their Radeon RX 6000 cards against the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 30 cards!

 

Radeon RX 6000 vs GeForce RTX 30 : Faster + Cheaper!

The AMD Radeon RX 6000 Series is built upon the new RDNA 2 architecture, which introduces an enhanced compute unit, a new visual pipeline, and the all-new AMD Infinity Cache!

RDNA 2 promises to deliver up to 54% better performance per watt over the last-generation RDNA, and up to 3.25X more bandwidth with its new Infinity Cache.

In this video, Dr. Lisa Su, Scott Kerkelman and Laura Smith shares how the new Radeon RX 6000 cards beat NVIDIA’s GeForce RTX 30 cards in performance, power efficiency and yes, price!

 

Radeon RX 6000 vs GeForce RTX 30 : Performance Comparison

Caveats

  • These results were provided by AMD, and have yet to be verified by independent reviewers / end users.
  • The games were tested with different APIs (DX12, Vulkan) and the best results were used. They are therefore, not directly comparable.
  • The AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT and RX 6800 cards were tested with Rage Mode and/or Smart Access Memory enabled, which may not reflect real world performance.

Radeon RX 6900 XT vs GeForce RTX 3090 : 4K Gaming Performance

According to AMD, their Radeon RX 6900 XT will match or beat the GeForce RTX 3090, at a much lower price point and significantly lower power consumption.

Radeon RX 6800 XT vs GeForce RTX 3080 : 4K Gaming Performance

At 4K, AMD promises that their Radeon RX 6800 XT will match or beat the GeForce RTX 3080, at a lower price point and with a lower power consumption.

Radeon RX 6800 XT vs GeForce RTX 3080 : 1440p Gaming Performance

At 1440p, the Radeon RX 6800 XT is roughly equal to GeForce RTX 3080 in performance, at a lower price point and with a lower power consumption.

Radeon RX 6800 vs GeForce RTX 2080 Ti : 4K Gaming Performance

Depending on the game, the Radeon RX 6800 will match or be significantly faster than the GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, at a significantly lower price point.

Radeon RX 6800 vs GeForce RTX 2080 Ti : 1440p Gaming Performance

At 1440p, the Radeon RX 6800 is significantly faster than the GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, at a significantly lower price point.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Computer HardwareHome

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Snapdragon vs Exynos vs Kirin : Battle Of The Flagships!

Your fancy new flagship smartphone is probably powered by a Snapdragon, Exynos or Kirin mobile platform, but just how fast are they really?

Find out which is the fastest flagship mobile SoC in our little performance comparison!

 

Snapdragon vs Exynos vs Kirin : Battle Of The Flagships!

So we managed to get our hands on the fastest mobile platforms available in the market today :

Snapdragon
865+
Exynos
990
Kirin
990
Process 7 nm N7P 7 nm EUV 7 nm EUV
CPU
Cores
1 x Kryo 585 Gold
(3.09 GHz)
3 x Kryo 585 Gold
(2.42 GHz)
4 x Kryo 585 Silver
(1.8 GHz)
2 x Exynos M5
(2.7 GHz)
2 x Cortex-A76
(2.5 GHz)
4 x Cortex-A55
(2.0 GHz)
2 x Cortex-A76
(2.86 GHz)
2 x Cortex-A76
(2.09 GHz)
4 x Cortex-A55
(1.8 GHz)
GPU Adreno 650 Mali-G77 MP11 Mali-G76 MC16
Memory
Support
LPDDR5 LPDDR5 LPDDR5
Storage
Support
UFS 3.0 UFS 3.0 UFS 3.0
5G Modem Snapdragon X55
(Separate)
Exynos 5123
(Separate)
Balong 5000
(Integrated)

Now you may be wondering – what about MediaTek? They get a pass because they cheat at benchmarks.

 

Snapdragon vs Exynos vs Kirin : TLDR Summary

For those who are too lazy to drill down into the results, here’s a quick and dirty summary.

The Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 Plus is definitely the superior mobile platform.

In most benchmarks, it was significantly faster than both the Samsung Exynos 990 and the HUAWEI Kirin 990.

Snapdragon
865+
Exynos
990
Kirin
990
PCMark Work 2.0 Winner -16.3% -30.6%
Computer Vision Winner -16.9% -23.2%
3DMark Vulkan Winner -11.4% -33.7%
3DMark OpenGL Winner -4.5% -30.1%
Geekbench Multi-Core Winner -3.2% -3.7%
Geekbench Single-Core -21.1% -2.2% Winner
AnTuTu Overall Winner -9.5% -22.8%
Average Winner -6.1% -21.4%

You are unlikely to notice the small 6% performance difference between the Snapdragon 865+ and the Exynos 990.

However, the 21% performance deficit of the HUAWEI Kirin 990 versus the Snapdragon 865+ will be noticeable. So will its 14% performance deficit against the Exynos 990.

Even if TSMC was allowed to continue making Kirin 990 for HUAWEI, it is no longer a competitive flagship mobile platform.

 

Snapdragon vs Exynos vs Kirin : PCMark Work 2.0

Snapdragon 865+ Exynos 990 Kirin 990
Work 2.0 Score Winner -16.3% -30.6%
Web Browsing 2.0 Winner -27.2% -43.3%
Video Editing Winner -18.5% -26.2%
Writing 2.0 Winner -12.0% -13.4%
Photo Editing 2.0 -10.7% Winner -45.6%
Data Manipulation Winner -29.6% -26.9%

 

Snapdragon vs Exynos vs Kirin : PCMark Computer Vision

This is a benchmark that tests the AI capabilities of these mobile platforms :

  • image recognition with TensorFLow
  • graphical barcode scanning with ZXing
  • optical character recognition with Tesseract

Snapdragon 865+ Exynos 990 Kirin 990
Computer Vision Winner -16.9% -23.2%
TensorFlow -44.2% -5.0% Winner
ZXing Winner -18.1% -3.6%
Tesseract -19.9% Winner -56.6%

Next Page > Snapdragon vs Exynos vs Kirin : 3DMark | Geekbench | AnTuTu

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Snapdragon vs Exynos vs Kirin : 3DMark Sling Shot Extreme

We tested them using the Sling Shot Extreme test in 3DMark, using both Vulkan and OpenGL ES 3.1 graphics API.

Vulkan is a newer graphics API, with much lower overhead, and can therefore deliver better performance than OpenGL ES which is supported by more games.

3DMark rendered the game at the 2560 x 1440 resolution, allowing for a fair comparison irrespective of the devices’ actual display resolution.

Snapdragon 865+ Exynos 990 Kirin 990
Vulkan Overall Winner -11.4% -33.7%
Vulkan Graphics Winner -17.0% -48.8%
Vulkan Physics -6.3% -9.1% Winner
OpenGL Overall Winner -4.5% -30.1%
OpenGL Graphics Winner -6.2% -41.3%
OpenGL Physics -2.4% -4.0% Winner

 

Snapdragon vs Exynos vs Kirin : Geekbench

Snapdragon 865+ Exynos 990 Kirin 990
Multi-Core (MC) Winner -3.2% -3.7%
MC Crypto -27.2% -23.9% Winner
MC Integer Winner -4.2% -6.0%
MC Floating Point Winner -2.9% -7.7%
Single-Core (1C) -21.1% -2.2% Winner
1C Crypto -33.2% -10.3% Winner
1C Integer -19.4% -3.7% Winner
1C Floating Point -23.8% Winner -3.1%

 

Snapdragon vs Exynos vs Kirin : AnTuTu

Snapdragon 865+ Exynos 990 Kirin 990
Overall Winner -9.5% -22.8%
CPU Winner -9.0% -15.7%
GPU Winner -6.8% -37.6%
MEM -2.6% -11.5% Winner
UX Winner -18.3% -25.5%

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > First PageMobile Devices | Home

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Series : Exynos 990 Performance!

Take a look at the work and gaming performance of the Exynos 990 version of the Samsung Galaxy Note 20 series smartphones!

 

Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Series : Powered By Exynos 990

Globally, the Samsung Galaxy Note 20 and Note 20 Ultra smartphones are powered by the Samsung Exynos 990, the same mobile SoC used by the Samsung Galaxy S20 smartphones.

Faster Processor + GPU

Its custom Mongoose 5 (Exynos M5) cores are 20% faster than the Mongoose 4 (Exynos M4) cores used in the flagship-class Exynos 9825 that powered last year’s Galaxy Note 10 smartphones.

Its Arm Mali-G77 GPU uses the new Valhall architecture, which promises to offer a 20% boost in graphics performance or power efficiency.

Faster LPDDR5 Memory

The Exynos 990 is the first Samsung mobile platform to use the new LPDDR5 memory, which offers a 31% higher clock speed – increased from 2093 MHz to 2750 MHz.

This allows it to deliver up to 5,500 Mbps or 687.5 MB/s in memory bandwidth. It should also allow for lower power consumption.

Faster NPU + DSP

Its AI capabilities also received a big boost with a new dual-core NPU and improved digital signal processor (DSP) that can process over 10 trillion operations (TOPS) per second!

Recommended : Samsung Exynos 990 : Everything You Need To Know!

 

Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Series : Exynos 990 Performance!

Note : We tested the Galaxy Note 20 Ultra against last year’s Galaxy Note10+ and Galaxy S10+ devices, as well as the two fastest Qualcomm devices we have in the lab, including the latest Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+.

However, please note that the Snapdragon 865+ results are from the Galaxy Tab S7+ tablet, not a smartphone.

Work Performance : PCMark

We tested the Galaxy Note 20 Ultra using PCMark, which simulates work applications like web browsing, playing video, writing text and editing photos.

Work 2.0 Galaxy
Tab
S7+
Galaxy
Note20
Ultra
Galaxy
Note10+
Black Shark
2 Pro
Galaxy
S10+
Mobile Platform SD 865+ Exynos 990 Exynos 9825 SD 855+ Exynos 9820
Performance Score
(Average)
12348 10523 8981 8384 7846
Web Browsing 11864 8865 8293 6768 8583
Video Editing 7664 6232 9166 5948 5524
Writing 12659 11112 9579 9226 9076
Photo Editing 26230 30789 19376 17595 10710
Data Manipulation 9511 6825 6155 6339 6450

Samsung Exynos has historically been rather poor at work performance. But the Exynos 990 was significantly faster than the last-generation Exynos 9825 and Exynos 9820.

Thanks to the improved performance, the Galaxy Note 20 Ultra was 17% faster than last year’s Galaxy Note10+ (Exynos 9825), and 25% faster than the Black Shark 2 Pro, which is powered by Snapdragon 855+.

However, the Snapdragon 865+ is 17% faster than the Exynos 990 in this test, losing out only in the Photo Editing test (by 15%).

Gaming Performance : 3DMark

For gaming, we first tested the Galaxy Note 20 Ultra using 3DMark, with these results :

3DMark Galaxy
Tab
S7+
Galaxy
Note20
Ultra
Black Shark
2 Pro
Galaxy
Note10+
Galaxy
S10+
Device SD 865+ Exynos 990 SD 855+ Exynos 9825 Exynos 9820
Sling Shot Extreme (OpenGL) 6958 6642 6258 5037 4470
Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) 6457 5722 5386 4794 4314
Sling Shot 8793 8128 8127 4883 4343

The Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra was as fast as the Black Shark 2 Pro (Snapdragon 855+) in Sling Shot, and 6% faster in Sling Shot Extreme.

However, the Exynos 990 was no match for the Snapdragon 865+, which was 5% faster (OpenGL) to 13% faster (Vulkan) in Sling Shot Extreme.

Gaming Performance : AnTuTu

We then tested the Galaxy Note 20 Ultra using AnTuTu, yielding these results :

AnTuTu Galaxy
Tab
S7+
Galaxy
Note20
Ultra
Black Shark
2 Pro
Galaxy
Note10+
Galaxy
S10+
Device SD 865+ Exynos 990 SD 855+ Exynos 9825 Exynos 9820
AnTuTu Score 577726 522735 434168 348397 330549
CPU 161243 146783 126170 101187 100272
GPU 230859 215205 188158 156700 149930
Memory 98269 89376 65052 72051 68188
UX 87355 71371 54788 18459 12159

In AnTuTu, the Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra was 20% faster than the Black Shark 2 Pro (Snapdragon 855+) and 40% faster than the Xiaomi Mi 9 (Snapdragon 855)!

The Galaxy Note 20 Ultra was even faster when we compared it to last year’s Galaxy Note10+ (Exynos 9825) – 50% faster, and Galaxy S10+ (Exynos 9820) – 58% faster!

But the Exynos 990 was, yet again, slower than the Snapdragon 865+ in this test. The Snapdragon 856+ was faster by 10.5%.

 

Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Series : Specifications (Exynos Version)

Specifications Galaxy Note 20 Galaxy Note20 Ultra
Display 6.7-inch Infinity-O Display
Super AMOLED+ Panel
6.9-inch Infinity-O Display
Dynamic AMOLED 2X Panel
Display Features HDR10+, 60 Hz HDR10+, 120 Hz, 1500 nits
Display Resolution 1080 x 2400 pixels 1440 x 3088 pixels
Protection Corning Gorilla Glass Victus, IP68
Operating System One UI 2.0 (Android Q)
Platform Samsung Exynos 990
Processor 2 x Mongoose 5 cores (2.7 GHz)
2 x Cortex-A76 cores (2.5 GHz)
4 x Cortex-A55 cores (2.0 GHz)
GPU ARM Mali-G77 MP11
Memory 8 GB LPDDR5 12 GB LPDDR5
Internal Storage 256 GB 256 GB
External Storage Hybrid MicroSD Slot (up to 512 GB)
Front Camera 10 MP camera (f/2.2)
Main Cameras 12 MP main camera (f/1.8)
12 MP ultra-wide camera (f/2.2)
64 MP 3X Hybrid Zoom camera (f/2.0)
108 MP main camera (f/1.8)
12 MP ultra-wide camera (f/2.2)
12 MP 5X Optical Zoom camera (f/3.0)
Laser focus sensor
Connectivity Bluetooth 5.1
WiFi-AX
USB 2.0 Type C
S Pen Yes, 9 ms response time, 4096 levels
Lithium Titanate battery (24 hours standby)
Fingerprint Sensor 3D Sonic Max
Battery 4,300 mAh 4,500 mAh
Charging 25 W 25 W
Dimensions 75.2 mm wide
161.6 mm tall
8.3 mm thick
77.2 mm wide
164.8 mm tall
8.1 mm thick
Weight 192 g 208 g

 

Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Series : Where To Buy?

Malaysia (Exynos 990)

Singapore (Exynos 990)

United States (Snapdragon 865+)

United Kingdom (Exynos 990)

Australia (Exynos 990)

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Mobile Devices | Home

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Samsung Galaxy Tab S7 | Tab S7+ : Performance Comparison!

The Samsung Galaxy Tab S7 and Galaxy Tab S7+ are both high-performance tablets, powered by the Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+.

Let’s take a look at their performance, and see how they compare against other tablets and smartphones!

 

Samsung Galaxy Tab S7  vs Galaxy Tab S7+ : A Quick Primer

The Galaxy Tab S7 and Galaxy Tab S7+ are Samsung’s latest premium tablets, both powered by the Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+.

The Galaxy Tab S7+ basically offers a large and better display with a larger battery and a better S Pen, over the Galaxy Tab S7.

Recommended : Samsung Galaxy Tab S7 Plus : Hands-On Preview!

For an easier comparison, here is a table comparing their key specifications :

Specifications Samsung Galaxy Tab S7 Samsung Galaxy Tab S7+
Display Size 11-inch 12.4-inch
Display Type LTPS LCD Super AMOLED
Resolution 1600 x 2560 pixels (276 ppi) 1752 x 2800 pixels (266 ppi)
Display Features 120 Hz refresh rate, 500 nits 120 Hz refresh rate, HDR10+
Protection Corning Gorilla Glass (Victus?)
Operating System One UI 2.0 (Android Q)
Platform Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+
Processor 1 x Kryo 585 Prime core (3.0 GHz)
3 x Kryo 585 Gold cores (2.4 GHz)
4 x Kryo 585 Silver cores (1.8 GHz)
GPU Qualcomm Adreno 650 (660 MHz)
RAM + Storage 6 GB + 128 GB
8 GB + 256 GB / 512 GB
External Storage MicroSD Slot (up to 1 TB)
Front Camera 8 MP camera
Main Cameras 13 MP main camera (f/2.0 aperture)
5 MP ultra-wide camera (f/2.2 aperture)
Connectivity Bluetooth 5.1, WiFi-AX
USB 2.0 Type C
S Pen 4096 levels
Lithium Titanate battery
9 ms response time, 4096 levels
Lithium Titanate battery
Fingerprint Sensor Yes, In-Display
Audio Quad Speakers tuned by AKG (with Dolby Atmos)
Battery 8,000 mAh 10,090 mAh
Dimensions 165.3 mm wide
253.8 mm tall
6.3 mm thick
185.0 mm wide
285.0 mm tall
5.7 mm thick
Weight 498 g (Wi-Fi)
500 g (LTE)
502 g (5G)
575 g

 

Samsung Galaxy Tab S7 | S7+ Performance : PCMark

Work 2.0 Galaxy Tab
S7 / S7+
Galaxy
Note20 Ultra
Xiaomi
Mi 9
MatePad Pro Black Shark
2 Pro
Mobile Platform SD 865+ Exynos 990 SD 855 Kirin 990 SD 855+
Performance Score
(Average)
12348 10523 9471 8575 8384
Web Browsing 11864 8865 7792 6723 6768
Video Editing 7664 6232 6038 5656 5948
Writing 12659 11112 10919 10969 9226
Photo Editing 26230 30789 20161 15991 17595
Data Manipulation 9511 6825 7356 6952 6339

The Samsung Galaxy Tab S7 / S7+ was, undoubtedly, the king of work applications. It was, on average :

It only lost out to the Galaxy Note 20 Ultra in the Photo Editing test – by 15%.

 

Samsung Galaxy Tab S7 | S7+ Performance : 3DMark

3DMark Galaxy Tab
S7 / S7+
Galaxy
Note20 Ultra
Black Shark
2 Pro
Xiaomi
Mi 9
MatePad Pro
Device SD 865+ Exynos 990 SD 855+ SD 855 Kirin 990
Sling Shot Extreme (OpenGL) 6958 6642 6258 5487 4865
Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) 6457 5722 5386 4808 4283
Sling Shot 8793 8128 8127 7241 4323

The Samsung Galaxy Tab S7 / S7+ also delivered the best gaming performance in the 3DMark test. On average, it was :

 

Samsung Galaxy Tab S7 | S7+ Performance : AnTuTu

AnTuTu Galaxy Tab
S7 / S7+
Galaxy
Note20 Ultra
MatePad
Pro
Black Shark
2 Pro
Xiaomi
Mi 9
Device SD 865+ Exynos 990 Kirin 990 SD 855+ SD 855
AnTuTu Score 577726 522735 446098 434168 371473
CPU 161243 146783 135977 126170 126011
GPU 230859 215205 144098 188158 156318
Memory 98269 89376 100944 65052 77763
UX 87355 71371 65079 54788 11381

The Samsung Galaxy Tab S7 / S7+ also delivered the best performance in AnTuTu. On average, it was :

 

Samsung Galaxy Tab S7 | S7+ : Price + Availability

The smaller Galaxy Tab S7 will be available in Fall 2020, with a lower starting price of $649.99 in the US, and its optional keyboard at $199.99.

The Samsung Galaxy Tab S7 Plus is also available in Fall 2020 with a starting price of $849.99 in the US, with its optional keyboard at $229.99.

Recommended : Samsung Galaxy Tab S7 Plus : Hands-On Preview!

Here in Malaysia, both models are available for purchase, with these colour options :

  • Galaxy Tab S7 : RM 3,299 (roughly US$790 | £600 | A$1090 | S$1080)
    Available in Mystic Black or Mystic Silver colour options
  • Galaxy Tab S7+ : RM 4,599 (roughly US$1,100 | £836 | A$1520 | S$1508)
    Available in Mystic Black, Mystic Silver or Mystic Bronze colour options

They will be available for purchase from these online Samsung stores in Malaysia, starting 28 August 2020 :

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Mobile Devices | Home

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra Battery Life Comparison

The Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra comes with a large 4,500 mAh battery, but how long does it really last at 120 Hz, or at full display resolution?

We put the Galaxy Note 20 Ultra through the paces, and compared it to a few other devices in our lab. Check out the results!

 

Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra : Battery Life Considerations

The Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra comes with a 4,500 mAh battery, which is just a little larger than the Galaxy Note 10+‘s 4,300 mAh battery.

On paper, this should give it a little more battery life than the Galaxy Note 10+. But the Note 20 Ultra is also the first Note to feature a 120 Hz display.

120 Hz Refresh Rate

A higher refresh rate will give you a smoother display, at the expense of higher power consumption and consequently, lower battery life.

That’s why Samsung doesn’t keep the display running at 120 Hz all the time. Instead, they offer an Adaptive option, doubling the refresh rate to 120 Hz only when it’s “necessary”.

WQHD+ Resolution

The other “trick” that Samsung uses to keep power consumption lower is to use a lower display resolution by default – FHD+ (1080 x 2316 pixels).

You can switch to the full WQHD+ resolution of 1440 x 3088 pixels, but that will increase power consumption and reduce battery life, because the GPU has to process more pixels.

Note : The Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra only supports 120 Hz at the FHD+ or HD+ resolutions. Switching to WQHD+ limits you to just 60 Hz.

Let’s find out exactly how much both display options affect the Galaxy Note 20 Ultra‘s battery life!

 

Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra Battery Life Comparison

To test the Galaxy Note 20 Ultra‘s battery life, we turned off Automatic Brightness, and set its display brightness to 50%.

Why 50%? That is actually slightly higher than the average indoor brightness level of 40% during the day, and is what we usually use in all our mobile battery life tests.

It is important to fix the brightness level, to make sure the screen brightness does not change as the ambient brightness changes.

We then ran the PCMark Work 2.0 battery life test until its battery capacity dropped to 20% several times, and picked the best result.

Resolution + Refresh Rate Comparison

First, we started with a resolution and refresh rate comparison. The

Work 2.0 FHD+ (60 Hz) WQHD+ (60 Hz) FHD+ (120 Hz)
Battery Capacity 4,500 mAh 4,500 mAh 4,500 mAh
Battery Life 10 hrs 9 mins 9 hrs 17 mins 7 hrs 34 mins
Battery Utilisation 5.91 mAh / min. 6.46 mAh / min. 7.93 mAh / min.

The Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra has pretty good battery life of just over 10 hours, but only if you keep it at the default FHD+ resolution and use the standard 60 Hz refresh rate.

Increasing the display resolution to WQHD+ reduced battery life by 52 minutes, or about 8.5%. Not too bad, since you still get 9+ hours.

Switching to Adaptive mode though will drastically reduce battery life by a whopping 155 minutes, which is a full quarter less than its maximum battery life!

Full HD+ Resolution @ 60 Hz

Battery
Performance
MatePad Pro Black Shark
2 Pro
S20 Ultra
(FHD 60Hz)
Galaxy
Note10+
Galaxy
S10+
Note20 Ultra
(FHD 60Hz)
Capacity 7,250 mAh 4,000 mAh 5,000 mAh 4,300 mAh 4,100 mAh 4,500 mAh
Battery Life 14 hrs 1 min 12 hrs 25 mins 11 hrs 32 mins 10 hrs 32 mins 10 hrs 17 mins 10 hrs 9 mins
Utilisation
Per Min.
6.90 mAh 4.30 mAh 5.78 mAh 5.44 mAh 5.32 mAh 5.91 mAh
Review Links Review Review Review Review Review Review
Price Check US
UK
Malaysia
Singapore
Australia
UK
Malaysia

Singapore

Australia
US
UK
Malaysia
Singapore
Australia
US
UK
Malaysia
US
UK
Malaysia
US
UK
Malaysia
Singapore
Australia

Even with its slightly larger battery, the Galaxy Note 20 Ultra has a slightly shorter battery life than the Galaxy Note 10+.

It even has a shorter battery life than the Galaxy S10+, which has a 10% smaller battery.

WQHD+ Resolution @ 60 Hz

Battery
Performance
MatePad Pro Black Shark
2 Pro
S20 Ultra
(WQHD 60Hz)
Galaxy
Note10+
Galaxy
S10+
Note20 Ultra
(WQHD 60Hz)
Capacity 7,250 mAh 4,000 mAh 5,000 mAh 4,300 mAh 4,100 mAh 4,500 mAh
Battery Life 14 hrs 1 min 12 hrs 25 mins 10 hrs 54 mins 10 hrs 32 mins 10 hrs 17 mins 9 hrs 17 mins
Utilisation
Per Min.
6.90 mAh 4.30 mAh 6.12 mAh 5.44 mAh 5.32 mAh 6.46 mAh
Review Links Review Review Review Review Review
Price Check US
UK
Malaysia
Singapore
Australia
UK
Malaysia

Singapore

Australia
US
UK
Malaysia
Singapore

Australia
US
UK
Malaysia
US
UK
Malaysia
US
UK
Malaysia
Singapore
Australia

When we increased the resolution to WQHD+, the Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra had a full hour shorter battery life than the Galaxy S10+, which has a 10% smaller battery.

FHD+ Resolution @ 120 Hz

Battery
Performance
MatePad Pro Black Shark
2 Pro
Galaxy
Note10+
Galaxy
S10+
S20 Ultra
(FHD 120Hz)
Note20 Ultra
(FHD 120Hz)
Capacity 7,250 mAh 4,000 mAh 4,300 mAh 4,100 mAh 5,000 mAh 4,500 mAh
Battery Life 14 hrs 1 min 12 hrs 25 mins 10 hrs 32 mins 10 hrs 17 mins 9 hrs 4 mins 7 hrs 34 mins
Utilisation
Per Min.
6.90 mAh 4.30 mAh 5.44 mAh 5.32 mAh 7.35 mAh 7.93 mAh
Review Links Review Review Review Review Review
Price Check US
UK
Malaysia
Singapore
Australia
UK
Malaysia

Singapore

Australia
US
UK
Malaysia
US
UK
Malaysia
US
UK
Malaysia
Singapore

Australia
US
UK
Malaysia
Singapore
Australia

The Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra used significantly more power than the Galaxy S20 Ultra, with a 120 Hz refresh rate.

Thanks to its 11% larger battery, and lower power consumption, the Galaxy S20 Ultra lasts 1.5 hours longer than the Note 20 Ultra.

 

Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra : Where To Buy?

Malaysia

Here are the direct online purchase links in Malaysia :

Recommended : Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra: Malaysia Launch + Trade-Up Deals!

Singapore

Here are the direct online purchase links in Singapore :

United States

Here are the direct online purchase links in the United States :

United Kingdom

Here are the direct online purchase links in the United Kingdom :

Australia

Here are the direct online purchase links in Australia :

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Mobile Devices | Home

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Snapdragon 865 Plus vs Exynos 990 Performance Compared!

Just how fast is the Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 Plus compared to the Samsung Exynos 990?

Let’s find out in our very own performance comparison!

 

Snapdragon 865 Plus vs Exynos 990 : What’s The Deal?

When Samsung announced the Galaxy Note 20 and Galaxy Note 20 Ultra smartphones, they were criticised for using the Exynos 990 in the global edition, instead of the Snapdragon 865 Plus.

Samsung only chose to use the Snapdragon 865 Plus for Galaxy Note 20 and Galaxy Note 20 Ultra smartphones sold in South Korea, China, Japan and the United States.

But just how much faster is the Snapdragon 865 Plus, compared to the Exynos 990? Let’s find out…

 

Snapdragon 865 Plus vs Exynos 990 : A Quick Primer

The Samsung Exynos 990 isn’t a particularly old platform, powering the Samsung Galaxy S20 smartphones. But it lagged behind the Snapdragon 865, which received a performance boost in the 865+ variant.

They are both 7 nm mobile SoCs that support LPDDR5 memory, and UFS 3.0 storage, but lack an integrated 5G modem.

The Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 Plus is essentially an overclocked variant, with its single Prime core clocked at 3.1 GHz (instead of 2.84 GHz), and a 10% faster Adreno 650 GPU.

It has three sustained performance Kryo 585 Gold (A77) cores at 2.4 GHz, and four low-power Kryo 585 Silver (A55) cores at 1.8 GHz.

The Samsung Exynos 990 has two high-speed Mongoose 5 cores, clocked at a more sedate 2.7 GHz, two sustained performance A76 cores at 2.5 GHz, and four low-power A55 cores at 2.0 GHz.

Snapdragon 865 Plus Exynos 990
Process 7 nm N7P 7 nm EUV
CPU Cores 1 x Kryo 585 Gold (3.1 GHz)
3 x Kryo 585 Gold (2.4 GHz)
4 x Kryo 585 Silver (1.8 GHz)
2 x Exynos M5 (2.7 GHz)
2 x Cortex-A76 (2.5 GHz)
4 x Cortex-A55 (2.0 GHz)
GPU Adreno 650 Mali-G77 MP11
Memory Support LPDDR5 LPDDR5
Storage Support UFS 3.0 UFS 3.0 / 2.1
5G Modem Snapdragon X55 (Separate)
– 7.5 Gbps
Exynos 5123 (Separate)
– 7.35 Gbps

Now, we could not get our hands on an actual Galaxy Note 20 or Galaxy Note 20 Ultra powered by the Snapdragon 865+, so we used the next best thing – the new Samsung Galaxy Tab S7 Plus!

 

Snapdragon 865 Plus vs Exynos 990 : TLDR Summary

For those who are too lazy to drill down into the results, here’s a quick and dirty summary.

The Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 Plus is definitely the superior platform. In most benchmarks, it was significantly faster than the Samsung Exynos 990.

  • PCMark : +19.4% faster
  • Sling Shot Extreme (OpenGL) : +4.8% faster
  • Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) : +12.8% faster
  • Sling Shot : +8.2% faster
  • Geekbench (Single Core) : +2.2% faster
  • AnTuTu : +10.5% faster

The Samsung Exynos 990 was only slightly faster in a single benchmark :

  • Geekbench (Multi Core) : +0.5% faster

That said, these are benchmark results. You are unlikely to actually notice the performance difference in real world usage, even in high-end games.

Samsung appears to acknowledge this performance difference, and compensate for it by giving Exynos models double the storage – 256 GB instead of 128 GB.

So if you have the option to choose between the Snapdragon and Exynos versions of the Galaxy Note 20 or Galaxy Note 20 Ultra, it’s really a choice between the faster Snapdragon 865+ platform, or the slower Exynos 990 with double the storage.

 

Snapdragon 865 Plus vs Exynos 990 : PCMark

The Snapdragon 865+ was faster than the Exynos 990 in these tests :

  • Data Manipulation : +42%
  • Web Browsing 2.0 : +37.4%
  • Overall Work 2.0 : +19.4%
  • Writing 2.0 : +13.6%

The Exynos 990 was faster than the Snapdragon 865+ in one test :

  • Photo Editing 2.0 : +12%

 

Snapdragon 865 Plus vs Exynos 990 : 3DMark

The Snapdragon 865+ was faster than the Exynos 990 in all three benchmarks :

  • Sling Shot Extreme (OpenGL) : +4.8%
  • Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) : +12.8%
  • Sling Shot : +8.2%

The Snapdragon 865+ was faster than the Exynos 990 in all six tests :

  • Vulkan Graphics : +20.5%
  • Vulkan Overall : +12.8%
  • OpenGL Graphics : +6.6%
  • OpenGL Overall : +4.8%
  • Vulkan Physics : +3.0%
  • OpenGL Physics : +1.6%

Next Page > Snapdragon 865 Plus vs Exynos 990 : Geekbench | AnTuTu

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Snapdragon 865 Plus vs Exynos 990 : Geekbench

The Snapdragon 865+ was faster than the Exynos 990 in half of the tests :

  • Multi Core Crypto : +31.4%
  • Single Core Crypto : +11.5%
  • Single Core Integer : +3.8%
  • Single Core Overall : +2.2%

The Exynos 990 was faster than the Snapdragon 865+ in these other half of the tests :

  • Multi Core Floating Point : +5.2%
  • Single Core Floating Point : +3.2%
  • Multi Core Integer : +1.9%
  • Multi Core Overall : +0.5%

 

Snapdragon 865 Plus vs Exynos 990 : AnTuTu

The Snapdragon 865+ was faster than the Exynos 990 in all four tests, and the overall score :

  • UX : +22.4%
  • Overall : +10.5%
  • MEM : +10.0%
  • CPU : +9.9%
  • GPU : +7.3%

 

Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Smartphones : Where To Buy?

Malaysia

Singapore

United States

United Kingdom

Australia

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > First Page | Mobile Devices | Home

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


ASUS ROG Phone 2 vs Black Shark 2 PRO : Who Wins?

Now that both the ASUS ROG Phone 2 and Black Shark 2 PRO are out and competing with each other, the question mobile gamers are asking – which is the better gaming smartphone?

In this article, we will compare both the ROG Phone 2 and the Black Shark 2 PRO, and see which is the better gaming device!

 

Gaming Smartphones?

Both the Black Shark 2 PRO and ASUS ROG Phone 2 claim to be gaming smartphones. What’s the difference between these two “gaming” smartphones and “regular” smartphones?

While ALL smartphones can handle games pretty well, especially if they are flagship devices, gaming smartphones claim to offer an edge to serious mobile gamers, like :

  • really fast CPU and GPU, with high-speed memory and storage
  • better cooling system to sustain gaming performance
  • large display with a high refresh rate, or low latency, or both
  • better wireless connectivity to ensure no lag during gameplay
  • large battery for longer gameplay
  • better audio for more enjoyable gameplay
  • special controls or buttons, or gamepad add-ons

Of course, many flagship-class smartphones already offer many of those features, which is why some argue that gaming-specific smartphones are merely a way for some brands to carve a niche to survive in the ultra-competitive smartphone market.

But we digress… let’s compare the two top gaming smartphones that are coming, or will soon come to a store near you – the Black Shark 2 PRO (MY | SG | AU | UK) and the ASUS ROG Phone 2 (MY | SG | US | UK | AU).

 

ASUS ROG Phone 2 vs Black Shark 2 PRO Specifications

Let’s start with a quick comparison of their key specifications.

Specifications Black Shark 2 PRO ROG Phone 2
Display 6.39-inch AMOLED display
– 1080 x 2340 pixels
108.9% DCI-P3 colour gamut
60 Hz refresh rate
6.59-inch AMOLED display
– 1080 x 2340 pixels
108% DCI-P3 colour gamut
– up to 120 Hz refresh rate
System Platform Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 Plus
Processor 1 x Qualcomm Kryo 485 Gold core (2.96 GHz)
3 x Qualcomm Kryo 485 Gold cores (2.42 GHz)
4 x Qualcomm Kryo 485 Silver cores (1.8 GHz)
GPU Qualcomm Adreno 640 (672 MHz)
RAM 8 GB / 12 GB LPDDR4X
Storage 128 GB / 256 GB UFS 3.0 512 GB / 1 TB UFS 3.0
Front Camera 20 MP with f/2.0 aperture 24 MP front camera
Rear Cameras 48 MP Sony IMX586 sensor, with f/1.75 aperture
12 MP telephoto camera, with f/2.2 aperture
48 MP Sony IMX586 sensor, with f/1.79 aperture
13 MP ultra-wide camera, with 125-degree field of view
Connectivity 4G : LTE Cat18 – 211 Mbps UL, 1.2 Gbps DL
WiFi : 802.11ac, 4×4 MIMO
Bluetooth : BT 5.0
4G : LTE Cat18 – 211 Mbps UL, 1.2 Gbps DL
WiFi : 802.11ad, 4×4 MIMO
Bluetooth : BT 5.0
Special Sensors ForceTouch Sensors Ultrasonic AirTrigger
Fingerprint Sensor Yes, In-Display Optical Sensor
Audio Dual front-facing speakers Dual front-facing speakers + DTS:X Ultra
Battery 4,000 mAh battery 6,000 mAh battery
Charger 27 watt fast charger 30 watt fast charger
Dimensions 75.0 mm wide
163.6 mm tall
8.77 mm thick
77.6 mm wide
170.99 mm tall
9.78 mm thick
Weight 205 g 240 g

 

ASUS ROG Phone 2 vs Black Shark 2 PRO

Although there are quite a few more differences between the two models, we are going to focus mainly on the gaming and mobility aspects in this comparison.

Performance : Tie

Both Black Shark 2 PRO (MY | SG | AU | UK)) and ROG Phone 2 (MY | SG | US | UK | AU) have the same performance.

They both use the same Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 Plus mobile platform, and come with 8 GB or 12 GB of LPDDR4x memory.

Recommended : The Snapdragon 855 Plus vs Snapdragon 855 Comparison!

Storage : ROG Phone 2

Both Black Shark 2 PRO and ASUS ROG Phone 2 use UFS 3.0 storage, which is about 2X faster than UFS 2.1. This is the key point.

The ROG Phone 2 comes with twice as much storage as the Black Shark 2 PRO. However, 256 GB is more than what most gamers will ever use – even PUBG Mobile takes up only 1.54 GB of space!

Honestly, paying extra for 512 GB of storage or even 1 TB is just pointless for gamers. But we will give the advantage to the ROG Phone 2 (MY | SG | US | UK | AU), if only for the bragging rights.

Cooling : Black Shark 2 PRO

The Black Shark 2 PRO (MY | SG | AU | UK) features a Mille-Feuille full area liquid cooling system that, according to them, is far superior to that of the ROG Phone 2 (MY | SG | US | UK | AU).

Device CPU Temp. GPU Temp. RAM Temp. Chassis Temp.
Black Shark 2 PRO 65.7 °C 51.2 °C 52.0 °C 35.7 °C
ASUS ROG Phone 2 77.5 °C 54.6 °C 55.0 °C 47.1 °C
Difference + 11.8 °C + 3.4 °C + 3.0 °C + 11.4 °C

Display : Tie

The ASUS ROG Phone 2 boasts a 120 Hz display, while the Black Shark 2 PRO (MY | SG | AU | UK) only has a 60 Hz display.

However, Black Shark has publicly pooh-poohed the usefulness of a 120 Hz display in this recent Q&A session :

Instead of a higher refresh rate, they opted to use DC dimming to reduce eyestrain, and an integrated DSP with MEMC (Motion Estimation, Motion Compensation) capabilities to eliminate unwanted judder and blur. So we think this counts as a tie.

Do note too that a 120 Hz refresh rate uses up significantly more power, which is why ASUS actually set it to 60 Hz by default!

Recommended : ROG Phone 2 : How To Turn On 90Hz / 120Hz Refresh Rate!

Touch Screen : Black Shark 2 PRO

Black Shark also focused on reducing the latency of the touch screen display, with 240 Hz report rate even with three fingers. This is, arguably, far more important for competitive gaming than a 120 Hz display.

Touch Report Rate Black Shark 2 PRO ASUS ROG Phone 2 Difference
1 Finger 240 Hz 195 Hz – 45 Hz / 18.75 %
2 Fingers 240 Hz 145 Hz – 95 Hz / 39.58 %
3 Fingers 240 Hz 135 Hz – 105 Hz / 43.75%

They also claim that the Black Shark 2 PRO (MY | SG | AU | UK) has a significantly lower touch latency than the ROG Phone 2.

Touch Latency Black Shark 2 PRO ASUS ROG Phone 2 Difference
Not Shooting 30.7 ms 41.6 ms + 10.9 ms / 35.5 %
Shooting 48.6 ms 70.0 ms + 21.4 ms / 44.0 %

Battery : ROG Phone 2

The ROG Phone 2, on the other hand, boasts a 6,000 mAh battery that is 50% larger than the Black Shark 2 PRO‘s battery. This means you will get to play longer on the ROG Phone 2 (MY | SG | US | UK | AU).

Portability : Black Shark 2 PRO

This may not be important to everyone, but if you want to be able to carry your gaming smartphone in your pocket, the Black Shark 2 PRO (MY | SG | AU | UK) is both smaller and lighter than the ROG Phone 2.

Availability : Black Shark 2 PRO

This may not seem important, until you decide you want to buy one.

The Black Shark 2 PRO (MY | SG | AU | UK) was available to purchase for weeks before the first batch of ROG Phone 2 (MY | SG | US | UK | AU) was released.

ASUS has always had a reputation for a slow roll-out, and that hasn’t changed with the ROG Phone 2 – even after it was launched, quantities were limited.

Price : Black Shark 2 PRO

Here is a quick comparison table to show the price difference between the two models :

Countries Black Shark 2 PRO
(12 GB + 256 GB)
ASUS ROG Phone 2
(12 GB + 512 GB)
Difference
Malaysia RM 2,999 RM 3,499 + RM 500 (16.7%)
Singapore S$869 S$1,299 + S$430 (49.5%)
United States ~$729 $889 + $160 (21.9%)
United Kingdom £560 £1,149 £589 (105.2%)
Australia ~A$1,059 A$1,964 + A$905 (85.5%)

Recommended : Why ROG Phone II Tencent Is Better Than The Global Edition!

 

So Which Is Better?

Frankly speaking, you can game without any issue on any decent smartphone these days. But if you are a serious or professional gamer, a gaming smartphone could give you the competitive edge you need.

But between the two models, we personally prefer the Black Shark 2 PRO (MY | SG | AU | UK) for these reasons :

  • its better cooling system will maintain gaming performance, while keeping the chassis cooler to touch
  • a low latency touch display is arguably more important for gaming, than a high refresh rate display
  • even though the ROG Phone 2 has a larger battery, the 120 Hz display significantly limits its battery life
  • the Black Shark 2 PRO is MUCH CHEAPER than the ROG Phone 2 Global Edition

Recommended : Black Shark 2 PRO In-Depth Review : A Real Gaming Beast!

 

Black Shark 2 PRO : Where To Buy

Here are online purchase options for the Black Shark 2 PRO :

[adrotate group=”2″]

Malaysia

Singapore

United Kingdom

Australia

 

ASUS ROG Phone 2 : Where To Buy

Here are online purchase options for the ASUS ROG Phone 2 :

You can also purchase the much cheaper ROG Phone 2 Tencent Edition in the grey market. *

* Please note that if you purchase a grey market Tencent unit, you will not be entitled to warranty outside of China.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Mobile Devices | GamingHome

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


RX 5700 vs RTX 2060 SUPER Performance Comparison!

NVIDIA targeted the RTX 2060 SUPER squarely at the new RX 5700, and AMD countered with a price cut. But which should YOU buy? Which is the better deal?

Let’s compare their performance in various games and resolutions, and find out which card offers the best performance and value!

 

AMD Radeon RX 5700 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 is built around the new AMD Navi GPU that uses the new RDNA architecture and fabricated on the 7 nm process technology.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER, on the other hand, is based on the current NVIDIA Turing GPU that is fabricated on the 12 nm process. It is essentially a cut-down version of the GeForce RTX 2070.

Specifications AMD Radeon
RX 5700
NVIDIA GeForce
RTX 2060 SUPER
Stream Processors 2304 2176
Base Clock 1465 MHz 1470 MHz
Boost Clock 1725 MHz 1650 MHz
TMUs 144 136
Min. Texture Fill Rate 211.0 GT/s 199.9 GT/s
Max. Texture Fill Rate 248.4 GT/s 224.4 GT/s
ROPs 64 64
Min. Pixel Fill Rate 93.8 GP/s 94.1 GP/s
Max. Pixel Fill Rate 110.4 GP/s 105.6 GP/s
Memory Size 8 GB 8 GB
Memory Type GDDR6 GDDR6
Memory Speed 14 Gbps 14 Gbps
Bus Width 256-bit 256-bit
Bandwidth 448 GB/s 448 GB/s
TGP 185 watts 175 watts

In the coming sections, we will compare their performance in different games, followed by an evaluation of their value propositions.

 

RX 5700 vs RTX 2060 SUPER Noise Level

We recorded videos of both the Radeon RX 5700 (US | UK | MY) and the RTX 2060 SUPER (US | MY) running the Time Spy Extreme benchmark at the 4K resolution.

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 (US | UK | MY) uses slightly more power at 185 watts, but has only a single blower fan. The fan noise, while not really loud, is clearly audible.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER (US | MY), on the other hand, uses slightly less power at 175 watts. Thanks to its dual-fan cooler, it is much quieter than the RX 5700.

 

RX 5700 vs RTX 2060 SUPER Performance Comparison

F1 2019

F1 2019 is a really new racing game by Codemasters, released on 28 June 2019. We tested it at the Ultra High settings.

Amazingly, both the RX 5700 and RTX 2060 SUPER were equally fast at all three resolutions.

World War Z

Based on the 2013 movie, World War Z is a relatively new third-person shooter game, released in April 2019. We tested it using the Vulkan API at the Ultra High settings.

Both cards were equally fast at 1080p and 2160p, but the Radeon RX 5700 (US | UK | MY) was 11% faster than the RTX 2060 SUPER (US | MY) at 1440p.

The Division 2

Tom Clancy’s The Division 2 is a new third-person shooter game released in March 2019. We tested it at the Extreme settings.

The GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER (US | MY) was definitely the superior card. It was faster by 11.5% at 1080p, and 8.5% at 1440p – the two playable resolutions.

Strange Brigade

Strange Brigade is also a third-person shooter game, released in August 2018. We tested it using the Vulkan API at the Ultra High settings.

The GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER (US | MY) was, again, the superior card although the Radeon RX 5700 (US | UK | MY) matched its performance at 2160p.

The RTX 2060 SUPER was faster by 7.5% at 1080p, and 6.5% faster at 1440p.

Next Page > More Game Benchmarks, Price-Performance + Power Efficiency Comparison, Our Verdict

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Metro Exodus

Metro Exodus is a relatively new first-person shooter game, released in February 2019.

We tested it using the Ultra settings.

Both cards were roughly equal at 1080p and 2160p, but the Radeon RX 5700 (US | UK | MY) had a significant 8.33% performance advantage over the RTX 2060 SUPER (US | MY) at 1440p.

Ashes of the Singularity

Ashes of the Singularity is a 2016 game that supports multi-core processing and asynchronous compute. We tested it using the DirectX 12 API at the Extreme settings.

The Radeon RX 5700 (US | UK | MY) was definitely the superior card at all resolutions. It was 3.5% faster at 1080p, 6.3% faster at 1440p, 9.8% faster at 2160p.

 

RX 5700 vs RTX 2060 SUPER : 6 Game Average

Let’s take a look at what happens when we averaged the frame rates from all six games…

It’s like the Radeon RX 5700 (US | UK | MY) and RTX 2060 SUPER (US | MY) were one and the same card!

The RTX 2060 SUPER had a slight 3.5% performance advantage at 1080p, but the RX 5700 (US | UK | MY) had a similar 3.4% performance advantage at 1440p.

 

RX 5700 vs RTX 2060 SUPER : Price-Performance Value

Raw performance is one thing, but what about price-performance value? Especially after new RX 5700 price cut? Let’s find out…

Specifications NVIDIA GeForce
RTX 2060 SUPER
AMD Radeon
RX 5700
Old Price
AMD Radeon
RX 5700
New Price
Launch Price $399 $379 $349
6 Game Average Frame Rate 86.3 fps 86.0 fps 86.0 fps
$ Per fps $4.623 $4.407 $4.058

Even though both cards performed the same, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 (US | UK | MY) offers 12.2% better price-performance value.

The price cut really helped a lot. Without it, the Radeon RX 5700 would have offered only 5% better price-performance value, and that’s nothing compared to the two free games from NVIDIA!

 

RX 5700 vs RTX 2060 SUPER : Performance Per Watt

Now, let’s compare their power efficiency in performance per watt.

Since we cannot test their actual power consumption, we will have to rely on their rated TGP (Total Graphics Power) specifications.

Specifications AMD Radeon
RX 5700
NVIDIA GeForce
RTX 2060 SUPER
Total Graphics Power (TGP) 185 watts 175 watts
6 Game Average Frame Rate 86.0 fps 86.3 fps
Watt Per fps 2.15 2.03

Despite the AMD Navi’s advantage in fabrication technology, the RTX 2060 SUPER (US | MY) was 5.6% more power efficient than the RX 5700 (US | UK | MY).

 

RX 5700 vs RTX 2060 SUPER : Our Verdict

Both Radeon RX 5700 (US | UK | MY) and GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER (US | MY) are great buys. So let us summarise the key selling points from our perspective as gamers and hardware enthusiasts.

Why You Should Buy The AMD Radeon RX 5700

  • It is significantly cheaper, by $50 / ~RM 205 / ~£40 / €44!
  • It supports PCI Express 4.0
  • It has the most potential for performance improvements with newer drivers
  • It has three DisplayPort 1.4 ports.

Read our in-depth review : AMD Radeon RX 5700 Review : 1440p Gaming FTW!

Why You Should Buy The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER

  • It has a much quieter two-fan cooler
  • It uses 10 watt less power, and is 5.6% more power efficient
  • It only requires a single 8-pin power connector
  • It has a USB-C port and a dual-linked DVI port

Read our in-depth review : NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER In-Depth Review!

 

Recommended Reading

[adrotate group=”2″]

Go Back To > First Page | Computer HardwareGaming | Home

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

iPhone XS vs Galaxy Note9 – Which Is Better In Low Light?

Both the Samsung Galaxy Note9 and the Apple iPhone XS claim to have the world’s best cameras. While both take great photos in good light, how do they perform in low-light conditions?

Let’s find out in our photo and video comparison of the Apple iPhone XS and the Samsung Galaxy Note9. See for yourself which smartphone has the best low-light camera performance!

Updated @ 2018-12-25 : Minor updates of the article, with some additional information.

First posted @ 2018-12-18

 

iPhone XS vs Galaxy Note9 – Low Light Camera Performance!

We compared the Samsung Galaxy Note9‘s low light performance against the iPhone X back in September, just before the Apple iPhone XS (US | UKShopee | Lazada) was released.

The iPhone XS maintained the same dual-lens camera module from last year’s iPhone X, with software improvements like Smart HDR and better tone mapping. The only hardware upgrade we could tell was the ability to record stereo sound for its videos.

What this means is the  iPhone XS has very similar photographic capabilities to the Samsung Galaxy Note9. They both use 12 MP image sensors with 1.0 µm pixels, paired with f/2.4 lens that offer 2X optical zoom with optical image stabilisation. Where they really differ in is their wide-angle cameras.

The iPhone X’s wide-angle camera uses a 12 MP image sensor with 1.22 µm pixels, paired with f/1.8 lens that support optical image stabilisation.

The Galaxy Note9, on the other hand, uses a 12 MP image sensor with larger 1.4 µm pixels, paired with a Dual Aperture lens that can switch between  f/1.5 and f/2.4. It also supports optical image stabilisation.

Here is a table comparing the key features of their main cameras.

Main Camera SpecificationsSamsung Galaxy Note9Apple iPhone XS / XS Max
TypeDual Camera System with wide and telephoto lensDual Camera System with wide and telephoto lens
Main Camera Features- 12 MP Dual Pixel sensor
- 1.4 µm pixel size
- can switch between f/1.5 and f/2.4 apertures
- optical image stabilisation (OIS)
- 12 MP sensor
- 1.22 µm pixel size
- f/1.8 aperture
- optical image stabilisation (OIS)
Telephoto Camera Features- 2x optical zoom
- 12 MP sensor
- 1.0 µm pixel size
- f/2.4 aperture
- optical image stabilisation (OIS)
- 2x optical zoom
- 12 MP sensor
- 1.0 µm pixel size
- f/2.4 aperture
- optical image stabilisation (OIS)
Built-in FlashDual-tone LED flashQuad-LED flash
Video Recording Capabilities4K video : up to 60 fps
1080p video : up to 60 fps
720p video : Up to 960 fps
4K video : up to 60 fps
1080p video : up to 240 fps
720p video : 30 fps
Camera Switching While Recording VideoYesNo
Live Focus CapabilityYesNo
Dual Capture CapabilityYesNo

As you can see, there are other differences between the two camera systems :

Now, let’s take a look at how well they both perform in low-light conditions!

[adrotate group=”1″]

 

iPhone XS vs Galaxy Note9 – Low Light Video Shootout

Let’s kick it off with a comparison of their low-light video recording capabilities. This time, we tested them with and without their flash turned on.

With and without the flash, the Samsung Galaxy Note9 (US | UKShopee | Lazada) was definitely better at recording low-light videos than the Apple iPhone XS (US | UKShopee | Lazada).

It is not just about the brightness. Thanks to its quad-lens flash, the iPhone XS has better control of the light. But it lacks contrast compared to the Galaxy Note9.

Here is an example of a night dancing session at the Curve. The singers are on a well-lit platform, but the dancers are not lit by street lights. The Samsung Galaxy Note9 was not mounted on any gimbal.

Despite the changing brightness of the scene, the Samsung Galaxy Note9 did a great job of instantly adjusting the brightness of the subjects. This is not an easy feat when we switched focus to the dancers, because the background is much brighter.

What we ended up with is a happy balance of reasonably bright subjects without overly bright backgrounds. In fact, you can see right into the restaurant behind the dancers!

Next Page > iPhone XS vs Galaxy Note9 Low Light Photo Shootout + Verdict

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


iPhone XS vs Galaxy Note9 – Low Light Photo Shootout

Let’s start with a dimly-lit shot. Here we have four toys with some indirect lighting.

Dimly-Lit Scene

When you try to take a poorly-lit scene, the Samsung Galaxy Note9 (US | UKShopee | Lazada) automatically switches to the wide f/1.5 aperture. The depth-of-field was much shallower, so you need to be careful about framing the shot, or focusing on the subject, or it will be out-of-focus.

But look at how well the colours turn out. Even in the low light, the colours appear vivid, especially the red lightsaber and Mario’s red shirt. You can also make out that his jeans is blue in colour.

The photo taken by the Apple iPhone XS (US | UKShopee | Lazada) was darker, so the colours are noticeably muted. And Mario’s jeans now appears to be black, instead of blue. Its f/1.8 aperture is definitely no match for the Galaxy Note9’s wider f/1.5 aperture.

Extremely Low Light

We turned off the background light, and it’s almost completely dark. Yet, we can make out all four toys, including Darth Minion, using the Samsung Galaxy Note9.

Unfortunately, it was so dark with the iPhone XS, we can barely frame the shot. You can just about see a little of the baby leopard’s head, but that’s about it.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Bright Night Scenes

These two photo comparisons will look at street scenes that are lit up by street lights.

In both cases, the Samsung Galaxy Note9 (US | UKShopee | Lazada) delivered brighter and more realistically-lit photos than the iPhone XS (US | UKShopee | Lazada).

 

iPhone XS vs Galaxy Note9 – Our Verdict

When we first posted our Galaxy Note9 vs iPhone X comparison, some iPhone fans criticised us for not using the newer iPhone XS. Never mind the fact that they were not available when we did the test. Never mind the fact that both the iPhone X and iPhone XS have the same camera hardware.

To be fair to these Apple fans, the iPhone XS (US | UKShopee | Lazada) introduces some new software improvements. Squeezing a little extra out of old hardware is something Apple engineers are very good at.

But no matter how clever they are, they just cannot beat the superior optics and sensor in the Samsung Galaxy Note9 (US | UKShopee | Lazada), and by extension, the Samsung Galaxy S9+. In every test, the Samsung smartphone was superior in low light conditions.

Not only does the Galaxy Note9 have a larger and brighter f/1.5 aperture, its image sensor has 32% larger pixels – 1.4 microns vs. 1.22 microns. They both allow for significantly better low-light camera performance, whether you are taking photos or recording videos.

Whatever Apple may put on the billboards, the Galaxy Note9 and Galaxy S9+ has superior photography and videography performance. This is yet another reason why we gave it our Editor’s Choice Award!

 

Where To Buy The Samsung Galaxy Note9?

Malaysia

  • Samsung Galaxy Note9 (128 GB) : RM 3,299 (Lazada | Shopee)
  • Samsung Galaxy Note9 (512 GB) : RM 4,199 (Lazada | Shopee)

United States

  • Samsung Galaxy Note9 (128 GB, International Unlocked) : $732
  • Samsung Galaxy Note9 (128 GB, US Unlocked) : $899.99
  • Samsung Galaxy Note9 (512 GB, International Unlocked) : $992.49
  • Samsung Galaxy Note9 (512 GB, US Unlocked) : $1,149.99

United Kingdom

  • Samsung Galaxy Note9 (128 GB) : £661
  • Samsung Galaxy Note9 (512 GB) : £929.99

 

Where To Buy The Apple iPhone XS?

Malaysia

United States

United Kingdom

 

Recommended Reading

[adrotate group=”2″]

Go Back To > First PageMobile Devices | Home

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Galaxy Note9 vs iPhone X – Who Wins The Low Light Shootout?

Our previous low-light camera comparison between the Samsung Galaxy Note9 and two other Android smartphones was so popular, we decided to pit it against the best smartphone Apple could produce – the iPhone X.

We only had a short time with the Apple iPhone X, but it was good enough to get some sample shots and videos. Check out our low-light shootout between the Samsung Galaxy Note9 and the Apple iPhone X!

 

Galaxy Note9 vs. iPhone X – Cameras Compared

Both the Samsung Galaxy Note9 (US | UKShopee | Lazada) and the Apple iPhone X boast dual main cameras – a wide angle camera and a telephoto camera.

Interestingly, their telephoto cameras are practically identical in feature and capability. They both use 12 MP image sensors with 1.0 µm pixels, paired with f/2.4 lens that offer 2X optical zoom with optical image stabilisation. But their wide-angle cameras are quite different.

The iPhone X’s wide-angle camera uses a 12 MP image sensor with 1.22 µm pixels, paired with f/1.8 lens that support optical image stabilisation.

The Galaxy Note9, on the other hand, uses a 12 MP image sensor with larger 1.4 µm pixels, paired with a Dual Aperture lens that can switch between  f/1.5 and f/2.4. It also supports optical image stabilisation.

Here is a table comparing the key features of their main cameras.

Main Camera SpecificationsSamsung Galaxy Note9Apple iPhone X
TypeDual Camera System with wide and telephoto lensDual Camera System with wide and telephoto lens
Main Camera Features- 12 MP Dual Pixel sensor
- 1.4 µm pixel size
- can switch between f/1.5 and f/2.4 apertures
- optical image stabilisation (OIS)
- 12 MP sensor
- 1.22 µm pixel size
- f/1.8 aperture
- optical image stabilisation (OIS)
Telephoto Camera Features- 2x optical zoom
- 12 MP sensor
- 1.0 µm pixel size
- f/2.4 aperture
- optical image stabilisation (OIS)
- 2x optical zoom
- 12 MP sensor
- 1.0 µm pixel size
- f/2.4 aperture
- optical image stabilisation (OIS)
Built-in FlashDual-tone LED flashQuad-LED flash
Video Recording Capabilities4K video : up to 60 fps
1080p video : up to 60 fps
720p video : Up to 960 fps
4K video : up to 60 fps
1080p video : up to 120 fps
720p video : 30 fps
Camera Switching While Recording VideoYesNo
Live Focus CapabilityYesNo
Dual Capture CapabilityYesNo

As you can see, there are other differences between the two camera systems :

Now, let’s take a look at how well they both perform in low-light conditions!

 

Galaxy Note9 vs. iPhone X – Who Wins The Low Light Shootout?

Let’s start with a dimly-lit shot. Here we have four toys with some indirect lighting.

Dimly-Lit Scene

The Samsung Galaxy Note9 (US | UKShopee | Lazada) automatically switched to the wide f/1.5 aperture. The depth-of-field was much shallower, so Mario is a little out-of-focus. But the colours are more accurately captured even in this dimly-lit scene.

When we switched to the iPhone X, its f/1.8 aperture had a deeper DOF. However, the colours are more muted and some details are lost. Look at the red-coloured heart in Darth Minion’s hand, and Mario’s left boot.