Looks like a solid improvement over previous gen Android GPUs, but we still aren't seeing another big generational leap yet. Any word on that status of Series 6 in SoCs? I can't seem to find anything of substance since the CES announcement of the G6200 and G6400, but they certainly sound promising.
Series 6 will probably arrive either with the Novathor Cortex A15 SoCs, or with Apple's A6.
Either way, I have a feeling that the OMAP 5 and the A5x are going to be an accurate picture of the GPU performance for this generation, mostly because it seems to be that most other tablets and phones won't be needing the GPU muscle that the iPad 3 did.
What's to keep any company from massaging any of these well-know benchmarks? And on these fully closed platforms, would there be any way to detect that?
You guys are missing a huge factor that probably makes the Adreno 320 faster than PowerVR 5 series and that's TDP. The power consumption of the PowerVR SGX543MP4 is just too high in comparison with other tablet SoCs and a valid comparison between the speed of the two isn't exactly possible ATM. Not to mention that both SoCs are on different process anyway (28nm vs 45nm). It would be a different story if the overall TDP of the APQ 8064 is equal to that of the current A5X when the GL benchmark is running. Any company out there can make a faster GPU than currently available, but it's not too easy when the max TDP is close to 1w.
A better comparison is if the next iPhone comes with the same A5X chip built on Samsung's 32nm process and a slightly slower clock (like we've seen before from Apple) to match the current TDP of the A5 chip found in the iPhone 4S. The power constraints on a smartphone SoC are more restricting. If so, a better comparison would be possible, and that's for the new iPhone vs whatever smartphone comes equipped with the Adreno 320 GPU.
Right now, I'd give the APQ 8064 the performance advantage, the GPU is NOT the sole defining factor of performance in either apps or games, not even for the UI; The CPU also factors in. Physics, some forms of rendering, sound, touch, sensors, and lots of other stuff currently depend on the CPU in current generation (even next generation) SoCs, these also factor in a huge difference in game play and application run speeds and usability. I believe the APQ 8064 gives a more "balanced" performance ratio than the A5X, and will most probably make the entire package run faster on any given load, all while having a smaller power footprint.
So ... when are we going to see this thing on desktop (low power non-x86 based PCs) ? Judging by these figures it should be possible to get 2007 era PC performance in thermal budget of a 1993 486-based PC ... passive cooling, able to run 3D games, play media, perform office chores etc. This thing makes Atom look like a bad joke.
ARM solutions are definitely surging forward, but Atom isn't in neutral. It's hard to say which will dominate the other in the coming years, but I'd be surprised if they aren't at least competitive with each other.
Atom still slaughters these ARM CPUs when it comes to CPU-based benchmarks like web browsing and whatnot. Of course the price you pay is a TDP that is an order of magnitude higher, but even Krait isn't really competitive with Atom on a pure CPU performance level.
What are you talking about? There was a single benchmark where Atom came out on top (Sunspider) for a while, and that is a where sw optimizations on the browser side play the dominant role.
I won't link here to competing websites, but if you did a small search you'd see that Medfield based phones offer a level of performance comparable to dual core A9, while Krait or quad core Exynos simply "slaughter" it, to use your words.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
9 Comments
Back to Article
zanon - Friday, August 24, 2012 - link
Looks like a solid improvement over previous gen Android GPUs, but we still aren't seeing another big generational leap yet. Any word on that status of Series 6 in SoCs? I can't seem to find anything of substance since the CES announcement of the G6200 and G6400, but they certainly sound promising.Hunt3rj2 - Saturday, August 25, 2012 - link
Series 6 will probably arrive either with the Novathor Cortex A15 SoCs, or with Apple's A6.Either way, I have a feeling that the OMAP 5 and the A5x are going to be an accurate picture of the GPU performance for this generation, mostly because it seems to be that most other tablets and phones won't be needing the GPU muscle that the iPad 3 did.
MartinT - Saturday, August 25, 2012 - link
What's to keep any company from massaging any of these well-know benchmarks? And on these fully closed platforms, would there be any way to detect that?Hunt3rj2 - Saturday, August 25, 2012 - link
The fact that a whole trio of LG phones with Adreno 320s are right up there in benchmarks on the GLBenchmark website?There's literally at least 3 phones from LG that have been benchmarked with Adreno 320s, and some have even higher FPS than the MDP.
lilmoe - Saturday, August 25, 2012 - link
You guys are missing a huge factor that probably makes the Adreno 320 faster than PowerVR 5 series and that's TDP. The power consumption of the PowerVR SGX543MP4 is just too high in comparison with other tablet SoCs and a valid comparison between the speed of the two isn't exactly possible ATM. Not to mention that both SoCs are on different process anyway (28nm vs 45nm). It would be a different story if the overall TDP of the APQ 8064 is equal to that of the current A5X when the GL benchmark is running. Any company out there can make a faster GPU than currently available, but it's not too easy when the max TDP is close to 1w.A better comparison is if the next iPhone comes with the same A5X chip built on Samsung's 32nm process and a slightly slower clock (like we've seen before from Apple) to match the current TDP of the A5 chip found in the iPhone 4S. The power constraints on a smartphone SoC are more restricting. If so, a better comparison would be possible, and that's for the new iPhone vs whatever smartphone comes equipped with the Adreno 320 GPU.
Right now, I'd give the APQ 8064 the performance advantage, the GPU is NOT the sole defining factor of performance in either apps or games, not even for the UI; The CPU also factors in. Physics, some forms of rendering, sound, touch, sensors, and lots of other stuff currently depend on the CPU in current generation (even next generation) SoCs, these also factor in a huge difference in game play and application run speeds and usability. I believe the APQ 8064 gives a more "balanced" performance ratio than the A5X, and will most probably make the entire package run faster on any given load, all while having a smaller power footprint.
Arnulf - Saturday, August 25, 2012 - link
So ... when are we going to see this thing on desktop (low power non-x86 based PCs) ? Judging by these figures it should be possible to get 2007 era PC performance in thermal budget of a 1993 486-based PC ... passive cooling, able to run 3D games, play media, perform office chores etc. This thing makes Atom look like a bad joke.ImSpartacus - Sunday, August 26, 2012 - link
ARM solutions are definitely surging forward, but Atom isn't in neutral. It's hard to say which will dominate the other in the coming years, but I'd be surprised if they aren't at least competitive with each other.A5 - Sunday, August 26, 2012 - link
Atom still slaughters these ARM CPUs when it comes to CPU-based benchmarks like web browsing and whatnot. Of course the price you pay is a TDP that is an order of magnitude higher, but even Krait isn't really competitive with Atom on a pure CPU performance level.Pipperox - Sunday, August 26, 2012 - link
What are you talking about?There was a single benchmark where Atom came out on top (Sunspider) for a while, and that is a where sw optimizations on the browser side play the dominant role.
I won't link here to competing websites, but if you did a small search you'd see that Medfield based phones offer a level of performance comparable to dual core A9, while Krait or quad core Exynos simply "slaughter" it, to use your words.