Re: Samsung Galaxy Note
 

but it seems the benchmarks show otherwise.

http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_gala...-news-4201.php

Re: Samsung Galaxy Note
 

You might want to re-check that dude, lmao.

The NOTE has the fastest dualcore SoC.
The others are in another league, the quadcore league. I also place the 4S in there because of iOS (lower level coding for some software), and the S4 chips because they are not A9 chips (like a hybrid of a9 and a15).

Besides, when loading webpages (real world test case of SunSpider) there is little, scratch that, no difference between the two. Until there is heavy/powerful software involved you would not know the difference between the two. Its potential unrealized.

Re: Samsung Galaxy Note
 

Before the Note, I had for like a month the S2 and it is faster. Not a metter of processor, I mean, the user experience.

There is not lag at all in the S2. I still prefer the Note, and hope ICS make it run smoother.

Re: Samsung Galaxy Note
 

What should I recheck?
The Galaxy note scored around 2900 in sunspider the SIII scores 1479 which is almost twice as fast.

Re: Samsung Galaxy Note
 

what? My n9 scores 2604 in sunspider benchmark

Re: Samsung Galaxy Note
 

Well, the bench marks for the SIII are quite impressive but not enough, at least at this point, for me to be interested in trading in my Note for one. For most applications I use, the Note is plenty fast enough. For example, when I scroll through pages on the web I'd have to take a speed reading course to keep up with it. So a faster rendering of pages doesn't buy me much here. I'm sure there are exceptions and situations, like multitasking, that the extra speed would be appreciated. But I would have preferred more ram and better multitasking due to smarter OS. It would be interesting to see how well, say, ubuntu performs on it when loaded. When I first got the Note I didn't use the stylus much but now I find myself pulling it out more often. Also, I really love the size of the screen on the Note. It is actually ironic how nicely the maemo.org webpages fit on that size screen. It makes it a much more pleasurable experience reading than any mobile device I've ever used. Hopefully ICS and premium suite shows up soon on Note so there is a lot to look forward to!

Re: Samsung Galaxy Note
 

Maybe it is because it is NOT in that benchmark ??
The NOTE =/= NOTE 10.1
And the FACT that the Note 10.1 did NOT score 2,900 it fared much better than that with a score of 1,891.

I just ran it now on standard browser and my score is 1,520.
I could make it run faster (lower number) if I stopped all background tasks, used Chrome browser (much faster js), and increased screen timeout period (reduced interacting with screen).

Besides a difference between a 1,500 and a 3,000 figure is not double the performance. On paper it may be, but in reality both can (browser)perform relatively the same speeds.

Re: Samsung Galaxy Note
 

lol, give n9 dualcore, and latest gpu, boooom, ur note is nowhere, :p

Re: Samsung Galaxy Note
 

I know it's not in that list, never said it was but the SIII is what I was showing. I know that the Note != Note10.1 Hence why my 2900 value does not match the 1891 of the Note 10.1 in that list

I used the Note established default sunspider benchmark score found here
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/02/sam...ark-sunspider/

or here

http://tinyurl.com/bnmsnah

which is between 2900 and 3000 ms.

They browse at "relatively the same speed" because for non taxing sites it is the difference of a small figure, does not mean it isn't double the speed. Waiting 0.5 seconds instead of 1 is not going to be noticeable but it's still twice as fast. However it still means if you visit a very javascipt heavy site which takes say 2 minutes to load on a Note, that would take 1 minute instead (some sites disqus.js and thread.js take an awful long time). Of course that depends on the actual tasks.


Edit: a word is censored in the second url so link was broken. Had to create a tinyurl for link to work.

Re: Samsung Galaxy Note
 

Ohkay.

I didn't use any of those weblinks....I ran the benchmark off my phone.
And I'm more inclined to believe my hands-on score of ~1,500 rather than one published by an unknown. And like I said, I can get a better score if I tried.

My point still stands, benchmarks mean nothing when it comes to real performance. ibrakalifa is possibly true that Harmattan running on a more modern processor would outpace even these high-end devices.

(The only thing benchmarks can do is to prove one device is actually faster than another, when the scores are very far apart.
I'm talking like a difference between gingerbread SGS and SGS2 where they behave close/slight edge to S2...but in benchmarks the S2 proves its superiority by showing more impressive figures.)