Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Oct 2013 16:07 UTC
Benchmarks

With the exception of Apple and Motorola, literally every single OEM we've worked with ships (or has shipped) at least one device that runs this silly CPU optimization. It's possible that older Motorola devices might've done the same thing, but none of the newer devices we have on hand exhibited the behavior. It's a systemic problem that seems to have surfaced over the last two years, and one that extends far beyond Samsung.

Pathetic, but this has been going on in the wider industry for as long as I can remember - graphics chip makers come to mind, for instance. Still, this is clearly scumbag behaviour designed to mislead consumers.

On the other hand, if you buy a phone based on silly artificial benchmark scores, you deserve to be cheated.

Permalink for comment 573816
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: not a cheat
by phoenix on Thu 3rd Oct 2013 19:14 UTC in reply to "not a cheat"
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

Depends.

Are you trying to measure what the absolute best performance is for taskX or hardware-bitY?

Or, are you trying to measure the typical experience of a user doing taskX?

For the former, sure, enable the "performance" CPU governor, the "performance" GPU governor, switch to the "noop" disk scheduler, and run things at 100% utilisation. This is really only good for marketing purposes, since the battery life is atrocious if you actually run the phone/tablet like this.

For the latter, you want to measure how things work when they "race-to-sleep", how/if they bring extra cores online, etc. This is what people really want to see, but that no one wants to publish. The closest you get is in battery life tests.

Reply Parent Score: 4