Stop looking at old benchmarks run with beta drivers at trade show! lol
Oh yeah, Anand was just rebuffing a fake article published by engadget and other dumb hype blogs. (webOS running 'twice as fast' on the iPad 2 tosh)
Have a look at the latest 3D benchmark results.
http://nena.se/nenamark/view?version=2
http://www.glbenchmark.com/result.jsp
The first link also has the benchmarks done at multiple resolutions too. There is also a large variation in results too due to the fact many of the CPUs are overclocked and some look quite weird too which seems to be also down to drivers too. If you look at the MALI400 results with the
stock 1.2GHZ CPU in the SOC the results vary from 38 to 56. Most scores seem to be between 38 and 47. I suspect that the higher results are down to a CPU overclock which has not been picked up by the software.
The results for the Adreno 220 are very inconsistent too. Their are phones running at the
default 1.2GHZ clockspeed which seem to produce higher framerates at 960x540 than 800X480. You are looking at 26 to 33 for the Adreno 220 at 960X540 with a 1.2GHZ GPU. With 35% less pixels that is between 36 to 44 at at 800X480 which is in the same ballpark as the MALI400.
On top of this the 1.2GHZ Samsung Exynos 4210 is a faster CPU than the 1.2GHZ Qualcomm MSM8260. The former is an out of order design and the latter is an in order design meant for high clockspeeds.
Considering that the MALI400 has been out for over 6 months as opposed to 3 months for the Adreno 220,I expect Adreno 220 performance to improve as will be used in more models than the MALI400. Even,in the GLBenchmark website the MALI400 wins the Egypt benchmark but still the Adreno 220 wins in the Pro benchmark considering it is pushing 35% more pixels.
All the MALI400 devices are WVGA. Unless there is a test of a MALI400 device at qHD the results don't indicate anything. You need more memory bandwidth if you are pushing 35% more pixels. The GPUs in the XGA tablets need to push even more pixels than the qHD phones.
Again it is pointless comparing results between different operating sytems though(second link). You might as well compare the gaming performance of Ubuntu 11.04 ,Windows 7 and OS X 10.6 using the same hardware. The benchmark also tests at multiple resolutions too.
This is why controlled testing from websites like Anandtech are a better indication of what the actual performance will be.
...or the latest set of Anandtech benchmarks
here. (No SGS2 though)
The Adreno 220 is pretty new too so drivers will also take time to improve just like with Nvidia and AMD graphics cards..
Perhaps you need to look at the resolutions in the Anandtech review you linked to.
"Next are RightWare’s Basemark ES 2.0 which is the latest version of the ever popular 3DMark Mobile ES 2.0, itself an industry standard. The test has two main tests and then a variety of subtests, and
Adreno 220 maintains a lead here over the faster SGX 540, but we can see already how much that extra ~100 MHz advantage helps the Droid 3 over the Droid Charge’s Hummingbird (A8 + SGX 540 at 200 MHz). We run at the same VGA resolution here so the results are comparable despite the different display sizes."
The SGX540 is slower.
The SGX540 is slower.
"The ever popular GLBenchmark 2.0 is also an industry standard and a regular fixation in our smartphone benchmarking section, and the Droid 3 results mirror what we saw both way back when the device popped up online in the results browser and our initial testing two weeks ago with the phone. GLBenchmark runs in full screen mode,
so keep in mind the qHD versus WVGA discrepancy when comparing results. We can easily again see that the higher clocked OMAP4430 SGX 540 changes things up nicely. "
qHD=960X540(518400 pixels)
WVGA=800X480(384000 pixels)
The Adeno 220 phones have to render 35% more pixels.
So in three of the four benchmarks tested the Adreno 220 is faster than the overclocked SGX540 and the Tegra 2 IGP.
"Next up is what started it all for us, the Quake 3 Android port “kwakk3” which is starting to show its age and is
basically at the FPS cap on newer devices with newer GPUs. We’ve kept it around for the Droid 3 however just to illustrate how quickly things like this have gone from being almost unplayable a year ago to fluid on modern hardware. Anand keeps saying hyper Moore’s law, and this is just one more data point you can point at as supporting that hypothesis. "
So in 5 tests at qHD,the SGX540 is slower in three. The Droid 3 SKU also has an overclocked GPU which means other implementations of the SGX540 are slower. This is why the results of the first Anandtech article are valid as they use a standard SGX540 and not a special overclocked one.
Considering that the SGX540 has been around for a year,I suspect better drivers will mean the Adreno 220 will have improved performance in future reviews. It has barely been around for three months in production form. The original Anandtech article I linked to used a
development platform too, so it means performance was not final either.
.
The real 720p flash on the desktop site? What OS/flash build are you running? (Flash doesn't use the GPU or decoder on Android 2.x, it's all SIMD (VFPv3/Neon) ability. That's why playback sucks compared to native players)