Samsung’s Exynos 5 Octa Defeats Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 600 In Latest Benchmarks

Samsung Exynos 5 Octa

The Samsung Galaxy S 4 will launch with one of two different processors depending on what country you live in, and according to the latest benchmarks, Samsung’s Exynos 5 Octa outperforms Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 600 when running the latest test firmware. There are three different versions of the Galaxy S 4: The GT-I9500 running a Exynos 5 Octa at 1.6 GHz without LTE, GT-I9505 running a Snapdragon 600 at 1.9 GHz with LTE, and a Korean variant, the SHV-E300S running a Exynos 5 Octa at 1.8 GHz with LTE. In these new benchmarks, the GT-I9500 and GT-I9505 went head-to-head.

According to SamMobile, an insider scored 28018 points on AnTuTu with the GT-I9500. Compared to the GT-I9505 Galaxy S 4, it scored 23607 points as found by GSMArena. While we were hoping the Exynos 5 Octa would make its way into the Galaxy S 4 heading to the U.S. and UK, you shouldn’t notice too much of a performance difference in normal tasks. However, that doesn’t take away from the fact that it performs better with CPU-intensive apps and is more power efficient.

Source: SamMobile

  • Kary Krismer

    The last sentence is unclear. Which processor are you describing as “it?”

    • Mike Stenger

      Exynos 5 Octa.

      • Stickyourfingerinmybut

        Stick your finger in my but for me

        • youareafaggot

          your a fag

  • ChuckN007

    To put those two scores in perspective:
    1) both of them are faster than any other existing smart phone’s processor, and
    2) both of them are capable of far more processing than would ever be used by 99.9% of all smart phone users.

    • gameraddikted

      1) I agree.
      2) Respectably disagree :-)

      • ChuckN007

        I think you meant to say “Respectfully” rather than “Respectably”.
        What phone do you have, and what do you use it for that would use that much processing power?
        What percentage of the people you know are gamer addicts like yourself? My earlier comment #2 was based on the fact that 99.9% of the population of smart phone buyers are not gamers. I know a very large cross section of people, and far less than 1% are gamers.

        • BetterTechIsMoreUsefulTech

          If your very allegedly large cross section (that description makes me think of a grid or area – how about assortment) of people somehow topped 200 people, then 1 person would make just 0.5%.. Actually, in order for you to claim “far fewer than 1% of people are gamers” and have some weight behind that claim, you’d have to know well over 1,000 people. As far as I know it’s really not possible for you to know the habits and tendencies of every single one of those people unless you’re a combination of savant and stalker. Even then however you’d still be basing your assumption on the people YOU come into contact with, and that’s not necessarily a good sample variety of people – for example if you lived in an area where the variety of people is very narrow, like an upperclass area or a ghetto.

          Consider this – about 90% of my friends and family enjoy casual gaming on their various devices (phones, iPods, and iPads) while catching a bus, waiting in the doctor’s office, and so on.. it wouldn’t be right of me to say 90% of the population are using their devices for gaming though. I also live in a country which has a predominantly white population, however the planet is not predominantly white haha.

          TL;DR – the population (and market) is heterogeneous. I’d like my smartphone to be a versatile tool that I can use to make calls, relax sometimes, AND run programs that once required computers (create 3D molecular structures, run small-scale simulations for things, etc).

          • ChuckN007

            When I said that less than 1% of the population are “gamers,” I should have said “extreme gamers” or “gamer addicts” to distinguish between that very small segment of the smart phone user population and the much larger segment that you mentioned that might play Solitaire or Angry Birds or something on their smart phone while waiting for a bus or a doctor’s appointment.
            The “extreme” gamers probably would use the processing power of an 8 core or 1.9 Ghz quad core.
            But what other common everyday functions need or even use that much processing?
            Even in a desktop like mine with a very fast quad core, most common functions and operations do not utilize multiple cores, right?

        • BetterTechIsMoreUsefulTech

          Error in the first line – I meant “allegedly very large”.

        • Sim Kern Cheh

          Don’t even need to be a gamer to use up all the CPU. Try running a location service that collects GPS data and dumps it to a remote database at 5 second intervals. When the old phone goes about to update apps, my “5 second” intervals become deadly inaccurate. I guess every bit of CPU juice counts.

          • ChuckN007

            Do you think that even 1 out of 100 cell phone users use their cell phone to do that? I think it is far less than 1 out of 100.
            My initial point was that, for the vast majority of users of a Galaxy S4, either the 4-core processor in the U.S. or 8-core processor in other countries would provide more than enough processing for normal use. If someone says that they “need” the 8 core version, they are asking the phone to do something that no other phone has been able to do to date.

    • noobalert

      2nd statement proves your a total noob. Disagree with you mr phone noob

      • ChuckN007

        Ok. 98%. I exaggerated. It’s more processing than is being used right now in a smart phone, since it’s not even available yet. Will some people ever use that much processing in a smart phone? Sure. But very few. Maybe you’re one of those very few. Or maybe you’re just a troll.
        The earlier comment about #2 by “gameraddikted” would be the type of person who would use that much processing, if that person had a smart phone and played certain games on it.
        What are you using right now? What would you do on a smart phone if you had a smart phone with those benchmark results? What percent of all smart phone users do you think would use all that processing?
        It sounds like you’re a troll. You call other people a noob. Your online name is “noobalert”. Noob sounds like your favorite word and your favorite insult. If I looked you up, would I find that your posts are all insults?
        I’d love to have a rational intelligent discussion with you. But when you start out with name calling and insulting, and don’t provide anything intelligent, it sounds like rational intelligent discussion is not something you are capable of.

      • Aakash Khali

        If u have any idea about processors on PCs, let me tell you that u play games like Bttlefield with your GPU and not the CPU. CPU provides for the basic tasks like multitasking but GPU for ur games, desktop themes, video rendereing etc.

  • Lucas Shrek

    Looks pretty new and fast processor but have to wait for the reviews of the samsung galaxy s4 device using it..

  • Willie

    i wonder did the international s4 did have lte equiped?

  • Stickyourfingerinmybut

    Stick your finger in my but

  • Stickyourfingerinmybut

    I like boys

  • Ebi

    Samsung Exynos is not as efficient as Qualcomm’s Snapdragon in terms of power consumption. And having an Octa core is not necessary up to 90% as the apps need only dual/quad core for processing. Qualcomm’s 600 chip is more balanced in terms of power as well as processing management.

    • georgi

      Exynos 5 octa is using arm big.LITTLE so it is quad core.One set of powerful cores (cortex-a15) and power efficient (cortex-a7).Google it.