Monday, May 4th 2020
Samsung/AMD Radeon GPU for Smartphones is Reportedly Beating the Competition
Samsung and AMD announced last year their strategic partnership to bring AMD RDNA GPUs to the Samsung mobile chips and use that as the only GPU going forward. And now, some performance numbers are going around about the new RDNA smartphone GPU that is compared to Qualcomm Adreno 650 GPU. Thanks to the South Korean technology forum "Clien", they have obtained some alleged performance results of new GPU in the GFXBench benchmark. The baseline in these tests is the Qualcomm Adreno 650 GPU, which scored 123 FPS in Manhattan 3.1 test, 53 FPS in Aztec Normal, and 20 FPS in Aztec High.
The welcome surprise here is the new RDNA GPU Samsung is pursuing. It has scored an amazing 181 FPS in Manhattan 3.1 test (up 47% from Adreno 650), 138 FPS in Aztec Normal (up almost 200% from Adreno 650), and 58 FPS in Aztec High which is 190% higher compared to Adreno 650. This performance results could be very true, as the Samsung and AMD collaboration should give first results in 2021 when the competition will be better, and they need to prepare for that. You always start designing a processor for next-generation workloads and performance if you want to be competitive by the time you release a product.
Source:
TweakTown
The welcome surprise here is the new RDNA GPU Samsung is pursuing. It has scored an amazing 181 FPS in Manhattan 3.1 test (up 47% from Adreno 650), 138 FPS in Aztec Normal (up almost 200% from Adreno 650), and 58 FPS in Aztec High which is 190% higher compared to Adreno 650. This performance results could be very true, as the Samsung and AMD collaboration should give first results in 2021 when the competition will be better, and they need to prepare for that. You always start designing a processor for next-generation workloads and performance if you want to be competitive by the time you release a product.
44 Comments on Samsung/AMD Radeon GPU for Smartphones is Reportedly Beating the Competition
Though Draneo may be confused for a highly toxic plumbing cleaner.
I mean... Dead by Daylight. A disturbed mess of pixels. Is this really impressive?
Its cool they're making progress... but its not hard to make big jumps from nothing.
For giggles, here is what a PSP in 2005 could do... at 60 FPS locked
Let us congratulate the real hero for making the journey possible.
Give this guy his corporate title already!
Eric Demers fan for life!
Mobile has a lot more factors than pure performance.
Well... this will settle things down for RoW devices. The mobile gamer market is also big, they know what they do...
87 > 181 = +47% ?
its like +108%
Lets see
Samsung are already selling their inferior Exynos in their flagmans, and all non-geeky users couldn't care less.
Switching GPU looks more like a PR stunt at this stage. Samsung clearly demonstrate they couldn't care less about thier user base, once the product is bought.
seems i was right. If you are showing me examples this terrible you do not have any idea of it. There are plenty of mobile games with visual fidelity akin to somewhere between PS3 and PS4.
Ill bring up some cases. Look at Asphalt 9, or CoD mobile. Flagship devices render them at 1080p and above while maintaining 60FPS or higher consistantly. visually speaking, mobile phone GPUs advanced a lot.
The examples you brought up look like mobile games 7+ years ago, when available GPUs were not even at 20% of their current compute power.
Have a look at this : www.anandtech.com/show/15603/the-samsung-galaxy-s20-s20-ultra-exynos-snapdragon-review-megalomania-devices/6
Exynos custom cores are considerably worse in pretty much everything, you'd just be ignoring reality if you thought otherwise. If they are so great why are they stopping production of new designs ?
www.anandtech.com/show/14072/the-samsung-galaxy-s10plus-review/9
www.anandtech.com/print/12620/improving-the-exynos-9810-galaxy-s9-part-2
Yes admittedly Snapdragon is superior across the board but there's a lot of issues which makes testing on phones, even same models, truly not an apples to apples comparison.
Geekbench is undeniably trash, making people believe Apple makes sub 5W SoCs that rival desktop chips with ten times the power budget. That's how out of touch with reality that benchmark's scores are. No benchmark could possibly give a 100% accurate hierarchy but no other benchmark has generated results that are so bewildering like Geekbench did. You have proof right in front of you, all benchmarks paint the Snapdragon SoCs as being faster, all except Geekbench, isn't that bizarre ? I suspect Samsung simply optimized a couple of things for this one benchmark in particular since they knew everyone has a fetish for comparing Android with Apple.
I haven't had many S20 boards my hands yet and evaluate the power tables and their averages ie silicon quality. But already with S10 I rarely saw ASV tables better than 3. Average battery life got worse versus older S9 gen, they have to clock it higher to cover the arch deficiency. My Qualcomm SD based devices, like Sony, LG and weird rare makers not worth mentioning do work faster in many workloads, including web and gaming and have better battery life without much thinking about it. They don't have the power to market and do not pay for better reviews and do not tamper benchmarks that often...
@R0H1T calm down. It is a fact. Even best XDA devs are spitting on Exynos with last gens and said no more of that crap. If you put besides an US and RoW versions with Exynos and QD of the same version, they differ a lot speed wise... If you have that opportunity do the testing yourself... don't indulge much on reading reviews, they have often cherry picked devices also running alternate software. It is simple you know...
I have to accent, I have to deal with them personally all my time... as it is my job... I know mobile HW as my backyard on smallest element level, and the heck it evolves just by blinking an eye... truly a tech spearhead, PC has fallen behind a bit actually. AMD stepping in seemed to be a logical step.