Just curious

[Banished Angel]

I've been reading reviews on both the Galaxy S II and the Evo 3D.

The Evo 3D features:
1.2 GHz dual-core processor, Adreno 220 GPU, Qualcomm
MSM8660 chipset

The S II features:
Dual-core 1.2GHz ARM Cortex-A9 processor, Mali-400MP
GPU, Exynos chipset

From everything I've read on paper the Adreno 220 blows the Mali-400MP away, but in every benchmark I've seen the Mali-400MP is the clear winner. Why is that? Now that the Evo is running Android 4.0 the situation might have improved, but I still can't figure out why the GSII benches so much better. Is it poor optimization on Qualcomm's part or what?

 

[DragonSlayer95]

Just to me, bench marks mean nothing to me, my theory load both sob's up with apps push them to their limits, I've handled a GS2 before, but my 3vo is my second love coming from the og GS1.

Sent From My HTC Evo 3D Using TapaTalk 2

 

[BackHandLegend]

A lot of Devs and people alike keep saying that benchmarks aren't reliable. I have to agree because I get a range from 1100 to 3500 on the same rom, same settings, apps closed, and same kernel. It's really up to experience with phones to know which one is better.

 

[DragonSlayer95]

Exactly, for me, if a phone can handle heavy texting, some Web browsing, emails, and heavy high end gaming, root friendly as well.

A keeper for me.

Sent From My HTC Evo 3D Using TapaTalk 2