4월 25일 (목) 오후 10:51
랩터 인터내셔널에 오신걸 환영 합니다
>

logo

  • head
  • news
  • product
  • mobile
  • benchmark
  • analysis
  • computing
  • multimedia

"SAN"은 "Storage Area Network"...
웹 애플리케이션에서의 버퍼 오버...
XSS(크로스 사이트 스크립팅) 취...
S10_678x452.jpg


삼성 갤럭시S10 스마트폰에 탑재되는 엑시노스 9820과 스냅드래곤 855에 대한 성능 비교


PCMark Work 2.0 - Web Browsing 2.0PCMark Work 2.0 - Web Browsing 2.0

In PCMark’s Web Browsing test, the new Galaxy S10s both perform well. What is interesting to see here is that compared to the scores we initially ran on Qualcomm’s reference device back in January, the Snapdragon 855 Galaxy S10 represents a notable uplift, and seems to be a better representation of the capability of the chip compared to the QRD.

It’s to be noted that the comparisons I’m making today are all on the new Android 9 firmwares – I don’t have updated figures for the Exynos S9 or the Snapdragon Note9, but have the latest numbers on the Snapdragon S9 and Exynos Note9, which should be identical to their sister series' counter-parts.

The new Exynos 9820 Galaxy S10 now showcases a large performance upgrade compared to last year’s Exynos 9810 units. The new chip’s figures are good and better than the Snapdragon 845, however aren’t able to match either the Snapdragon 855 nor the HiSilicon Kirin 980 – the latter two both based on Arm’s newest Cortex A76 CPU cores.

PCMark Work 2.0 - Video EditingPCMark Work 2.0 - Video Editing

The video editing test is less relevant nowadays as performance differences between different platforms are quite minor. Still the new Exynos still shows a distinct performance difference to the Snapdragon counter-part, similar to what we saw last year.

PCMark Work 2.0 - Writing 2.0PCMark Work 2.0 - Writing 2.0

The writing test is probably the single most important component of PCMark when it comes to representing the experienced performance of a device. The Snapdragon 855 Galaxy S10 falls in line with the QRD’s performance, which is excellent.

The new Exynos 9820 Galaxy S10 represents a major jump for Samsung, scoring double what we’ve seen on the Exynos 9810 units last year. Likely what this means is that Samsung has solved some of the most important performance issues plaguing the Exynos S9/Note9. The phone still lags behind the new Snapdragon 855 as well as the Kirin 980. We’re not sure if this continued difference is due to hardware or scheduler, and we won’t be able to find out until a more in-depth investigation at a later date.

PCMark Work 2.0 - Photo Editing 2.0PCMark Work 2.0 - Photo Editing 2.0

In the Photo Editing test we see the new Exynos 9820 similarly performing almost twice as well as last year’s Samsung silicon. Here it’s clearer that the difference is due to new improved scheduler reactivity as the workload isn’t necessarily throughput limited. The continued performance detriment to the Snapdragon and Kirin chipsets however still points our that Samsung’s APIs still aren’t as well optimised.

PCMark Work 2.0 - Data ManipulationPCMark Work 2.0 - Data Manipulation

Finally, the Data Manipulation score is more single-thread limited workload. Here, the new Snapdragon 855 Galaxy S10 takes the top spot among devices. The new Exynos 9820 doesn’t fall too far behind, and does represent a big boost over the Galaxy S9 in either versions.

Speedometer 2.0 - OS WebViewSpeedometer 2.0 - OS WebView

Switching over to a browser benchmark, the new Galaxy S10s both perform almost identically. The performance of the Snapdragon 855 is a bit better than the QRD we tested in January, however it’s still lagging behind the Kirin 980.

The Exynos 9820’s performance here represents a huge boost compared to the Exynos 9810. The score presented here not only represents the possibly much better scheduler, but also hardware improvements on the part of the new cluster and microarchitecture designs.

Performance looks “OK” for the Exynos – Though Snapdragon looks to be leading

Overall the new Galaxy S10s are both in line with expectations. The Snapdragon 855 Galaxy S10’s performance isn’t much of a surprise, as we had covered the chipset in detail at Qualcomm’s performance preview event. The Galaxy S10 actually performs better than the QRD – putting to rest some of the worries we had on the early platform. It’s to be noted that Qualcomm here still lags a tad behind HiSilicon’s Kirin 980 in some aspects, probably a result of the latter’s better memory latency.

The new Exynos 9820 performs significantly better than last year’s 9810. Here Samsung seems to have taken note of the scheduler slowness that has plagued the last 3 generations of Samsung SoCs. Besides some obvious software improvements, the new M4 microarchitecture also seems to have upped the performance. Samsung claims 20% better performance than the 9810, which looks to be reasonable.

Battery Life To Be Determined

Today’s results only represent a bare minimum in terms of benchmarking Samsung’s new devices. While the new Exynos 9820 can’t keep up to the Snapdragon 855 in terms of performance, it’s no longer such a stark difference as we saw last year.

Most importantly, there’s still one big open question: power efficiency. As we’ve covered in our preview of the Snapdragon 855, the new Cortex A76 derived cores on a new 7nm process node showcase some outstanding efficiency figures. HiSilicon’s Kirin 980 is able to power some of highest endurance flagship devices today, and I expect the Snapdragon 855 to be able to achieve the same. If the new Exynos is able to achieve the same is something we’ll have to find out at a later date. We have to remember that Samsung’s chipset not only has to fix its microarchitectural efficiency issues, but also comes with a process manufacturing disadvantage as the chip is produced on a (theoretically) inferior 8nm process.

Unfortunately we won’t have the Galaxy S10 in-house for review until after public availability on March 8th – so we’ll have to be a little more patient before we can post a more detailed analysis of Samsung’s new flagship devices.


출처 - https://www.anandtech.com


결론 : 스냅드래곤 855가 엑시노스 9820 보다 성능이 훨씬 뛰어남

  • profile
    RAPTER_INTERNATIONAL 2019.03.01 13:38
    I hope you are always happy
  • ?
    성균관대 2019.03.01 13:43
    엑시노스를 보면 AMD가 떠오르는 이유는 뭘까요
  • profile
    CCIE 2019.03.01 18:02
    9820은 화웨이 기린한테도 졌네요
  • profile
    코어m 2019.03.02 09:58
    삼성은 경쟁력이 상실된 사업부는 가차없이 내치기로 유명한데, 몇 년전부터 저건 왜 나두고 있을까여,,, 엑시노스는 내부거래 빼면 고객도 없을텐데






List of Articles
제목 날짜 조회 수
현존 게이밍 지존 승부) 인텔 9600K vs 9700K vs 9900k 인 게임 테스트 1 2019.08.04 1809
Ryzen 7 3700x vs i7 9700k Test in 10 Games 1 2019.07.21 1857
라데온RX 5700 XT vs RTX 2070 SUPER vs RTX 2080 Test in 9 Games 2019.07.21 7924
AMD 라이젠 3600 VS 인텔 9600K 성능 승부 3 2019.07.21 3484
AMD 라이젠9 3900X vs 인텔 Core i9-9900K 게임 성능 대결 2019.07.13 3343
AMD 라데온RX 5700XT, RX 5700 벤치마크 (NAVI) 2019.07.13 1034
공식) AMD 신형 3700X, 3900X vs 인텔 9900K, 9700K 승부 6 2019.07.07 1957
엔비디아 지포스RTX 2070 Super & RTX 2060 Super 리뷰 2 2019.07.07 1696
삼성 갤럭시 폴드 리뷰 : 더 버지 / 월 스트리트 저널 / CNBC 5 2019.04.21 3614
삼성 갤럭시S10 : 엑시노스 9820 vs 스냅드래곤 855 승부 4 2019.03.01 7831
Nvidia 지포스GTX 1660 Ti 6GB 리뷰 : Turing Without The RTX 2 2019.02.26 2330
AMD 라데온7 16GB 리뷰, 절망의 라데온 (Radeon VII) 4 2019.02.08 3253
엔비디아 지포스RTX 2060 6G 파운더스 에디션 리뷰 3 2019.01.13 3327
Intel Core i9-9980XE CPU 리뷰, 18코어 36스레드 성능은? 2019.01.13 2239
인텔 순정 i5 8400 vs. AMD 오버클럭 Ryzen 5 2600X OC 승부 2 2019.01.12 1858
AMD RADEON RX 590 벤치마크 - RX 580 오버클럭 버전 2 2018.11.17 9644
Battlefield V Benchmark Performance Analysis (GPU 벤치마크) 2018.11.11 2285
인텔 Core i9-9900K, Core i7-9700K, Core i5-9600K 공식 벤치마크 4 2018.10.20 5656
아이폰 XS 벤치마크 성능 테스트 : 더 빠르고 오래 가는 아이폰 2018.09.28 1955
애플 iPhone XS Max, iPhone XS vs 삼성 갤럭시 노트9 성능 대결 3 2018.09.24 2423
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, RTX 2080 성능 벤치마크 (탐스 하드웨어) 4 2018.09.24 2481
엔비디아 튜링 아키텍처 지포스RTX 2080TI, 2080 성능 확인 4 2018.09.15 2147
AMD 라이젠 스레드리퍼 2990WX, 2970WX, 2950X 벤치마크 3 2018.08.18 7389
킹스톤 A1000 NVMe SSD 벤치마크, 저렴한 NVMe 2018.07.21 1239
Board Pagination Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 26 Next
/ 26