Tuesday, February 15th 2022
Samsung RDNA2-based Exynos 2200 GPU Performance Significantly Worse than Snapdragon 8 Gen1, Both Power Galaxy S22 Ultra
The Exynos 2200 SoC powering the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra in some regions such as the EU, posts some less-than-stellar graphics performance numbers, for all the hype around its AMD-sourced RDNA2 graphics solution, according to an investigative report by Erdi Özüağ, aka "FX57." Samsung brands this RDNA2-based GPU as the Samsung Xclipse 920. Further, Özüağ's testing found that the Exynos 2200 is considerably slower than the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 powering the S22 Ultra in certain other regions, including the US and India. He has access to both kinds of the S22 Ultra.
In the UL Benchmarks 3DMark Wildlife test, the Exynos 2200 posted a score of 6684 points, compared to 9548 points by the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (a difference of 42 percent). What's even more interesting, is that the Exynos 2200 is barely 7 percent faster than the previous-gen Exynos 2100 (Arm Mali GPU) powering the S21 Ultra, which scored 6256 points. The story repeats with the GFXBench "Manhattan" off-screen render benchmark. Here, the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 is 30 percent faster than the Exynos 2200, which performs on-par with the Exynos 2100. Find a plethora of other results in the complete review comparing the two flavors of the S22 Ultra.
Özüağ predicts that Samsung could be working on a major software update that could improve or normalize performance between the two phone types. and that the Exynos 2200 is in need of significant software-level optimization. Özüağ also offers valuable insights into a possible cause the RDNA2-based Xclipse 920 is underwhelming. The iGPU could be starved for engine clocks, or we think possibly even memory bandwidth. Engine clocks play a decisive role in the performance of RDNA2-based discrete GPUs. AMD also spent significant engineering capital on lubricating the memory sub-system with the on-die Infinity Cache memory that operates at bandwidths typically 3-4 times that of the GDDR6 memory. The extremely tight power budget and Samsung 4 nm node could be impacting the iGPU's ability to sustain high engine clocks. We'll keep track on this story, as it marks AMD's second rodeo with smartphone graphics since the ATI Imageon days (over 14 years ago).
Source:
Erdi Özüağ (YouTube)
In the UL Benchmarks 3DMark Wildlife test, the Exynos 2200 posted a score of 6684 points, compared to 9548 points by the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (a difference of 42 percent). What's even more interesting, is that the Exynos 2200 is barely 7 percent faster than the previous-gen Exynos 2100 (Arm Mali GPU) powering the S21 Ultra, which scored 6256 points. The story repeats with the GFXBench "Manhattan" off-screen render benchmark. Here, the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 is 30 percent faster than the Exynos 2200, which performs on-par with the Exynos 2100. Find a plethora of other results in the complete review comparing the two flavors of the S22 Ultra.
84 Comments on Samsung RDNA2-based Exynos 2200 GPU Performance Significantly Worse than Snapdragon 8 Gen1, Both Power Galaxy S22 Ultra
It's a huge scam, when reviews online all get the top tier limited USA model and the rest of the world gets an honest to god piece of shit, with missing features and abandoned firmware updates.
This is why i quit buying samsung products, and snagging a few "bargains" lately second hand has showed its still in full force.
Even the watch i've got has like 8 different hardware variants under the same name, all with different RAM amounts, battery sizes, clock speeds...
Now the review sample is a 24 core, 5.3GHz sample with 64MB cache...
[Users gets a quad core 3.2GHz, same product name - because they dont live within the geographic location of intel headquarters]
All this hot air due to a YouTuber who most probably has an early test unit with outdated drivers.
Plus, with these highly integrated devices, it's pretty hard to draw the line. Is is a new product if you've changed the suppliers for capacitors? The flash supplier? A different screen?
Plus, the name is not actually the same, they each carry their own model numbers.
If you're looking for protection for the fool that can't understand anything more than the big text on the front of the box... can't be done.
also oh well ... damn, i rally thought the Xclipse 920 (stupid name ... seriously ... "Ekse-clipse" literally) aka: RDNA2 Radeon for SOC did not S(U)C(K) and beat Adreno/Radeon for SOC (dangit :laugh: both have the same origine but one got refined after being acquired by Qualcomm )
also the SD 8 Gen 1 is not really great either, to the point that the SD870 is still the better Qualcomm chipset around (888/888+ and 8 Gen 1 are notorious for overheating and losing performances due to that )
ohhhh playtime is over indeed ...
(still glad that my phone has a Samsung E4 120hz panel nonetheless )
You don't like it? Don't buy. Want the US version? Amazon is a few clicks away.
Only one part of S22 is a fashion accessory and lower tier S22 are meant for mainstream. The issue is a wider market segmentation, competitiveness and pricing. There is no good reason to sell less performant device in more developed market and for higher price. I hope EU trade specialists finally take action on this.
To raise the awareness of this issue, Samsung needs to be forced to inform customers, via national mobile vendors, that they sell two versions of the same device in different parts of the world. Once there is better awareness, there will be more pressure on them to change this.
It's like selling Tesla car with less efficient battery in Europe and better battery in Japan. Ridiculous.
And more reason for Samsung and EU authorities to push for the best performant device, so that exchange cycles are even less frequent and phones can last longer.
Mobile phone should last at least 4-5 years, like many other electronic devices. Two year exchange cycles are purely capitalistic push, unhealthy for the planet and our mind-set. I hope authorities also finally push vendors to implement much more efficient batteries in phones, which have already been developed by engineers. Current phone batteries are bonkers. Leaders of the world have been talking about how to save the planet while phone vendors solder batteries that quickly degrade. This must change.Sure, they make mistakes sometimes, as shown in Intel's case, but there are other cases when consumers got more protection and better service, such as abolishion of roaming charges and many more. Incompetence happens, granted, and lessons need to be learnt.
after the Antutu scandale back some time ago (which mainly involved samsung) i learned to not trust any reviewer :laugh: (aside TPU's one haha... and even then ... i notice that their GPUs or CPUs usually have slightly higher perf for the one i also own hehehe ... )
it's the same as sponsored streamer who swear by a brand (i will not name it but it ... "shave" ... a lot) and maintain it's the best brand and they never had any issues with it, meanwhile a lot of "normal" customers, including me, have to RMA almost every single hardware from that brand... (well i still have one ... that still work 1 year after, which is ... surprising)
that aside,
well ... Apple i can see why people buy them, Samsung ... less, specially when you can find a phone for a half to a quarter of the price that has equivalent specs, ok ok ... i said camera and screen .... but why, since i already have the screen checked, would i pay 800$ more for that when the picture i can take are more than good for the usage i have, and the SD 8 Gen 1 or even worse the new Exynos 2200 would not warrant the overprice either
That said, I am sure Samsung won;t send out duds to YT reviewers. Few more days and we will know what is cooking.
The last time i super paid attention was when my S5 was playing up, and i found out you could fix it by updating to a firmware... that australia never got. Ever.
This is the "samsung galaxy S5" - sold and marketed as one phone.
More accurately, it's 16 phones in a trenchcoat - the only thing guaranteed is that cases and screen protectors are the same size for them all -.-
It's gotten worse since then, like the LTE version of my watch has double the ram, while the larger sized band has 50% more battery.
It feels like extreme dishonesty with mainstream reviewers getting a top tier all bells and whistles model, with consumers getting shafted.
Oh look week long battery life! (sorry, 80% of the variants get one day battery life. But it's not a LIE because ONE model CAN get that in SOME situations....)
Not that it's an excuse, other phones make do with less by just including redundant bands for most regions (I believe Google Nexus/Pixel took this to another level by including almost all the bands available in most regions because of Google Fi)
The S4 and S5 i had issues with could eventually flash an indian firmware, but it disabled huge amounts of features. Literally editing one text file to change it from a G to an F model or vice versa, locked and unlocked features.
Indian model, by changing one letter? youtube is 720p max, no "3D" videos, no 60FPS, all disabled because of unexplained region locks.
I'm venting and pissed about all this, because i still own those phones as the resale value is trash and there is simply no method to get 'everything' working
Think about it for a second: does it make sense to send a reviewer in Europe the US version that they don't to sell in that market?
It's very simple really: you're presented with a product, you inform your self about it and then you buy or not. Samsung doesn't care if you like their product or not (unless it affects sales, which happens virtually never).
Are you for real?
Intel dont have a 12900K with different core counts or i dont know, entirely differnent architectures around the world - just the ONE model.
These arent small differences like supported radio bands, at all.