System Performance Revisited

Now that we’ve covered battery life we can revisit another topic where our testing has changed dramatically for 2016, which is our system performance benchmarks. As previously mentioned this year a major goal of ours was to focus on benchmarks with metrics that better indicate user experience rather than being subject to additional layers of indirection in addition to updating our previously used benchmarks. Probably one of the hardest problems to tackle from a testing perspective is capturing what it means to have a smooth and fast phone, and with the right benchmarks you can actually start to test for these things in a meaningful way instead of just relying on a reviewer’s word. In addition to new benchmarks, we’ve attempted to update existing types of benchmarks with tests that are more realistic and more useful rather than simple microbenchmarks that can be easily optimized against without any meaningful user experience improvements. As the Galaxy S7 edge is identical in performance to the Galaxy S7, scores for the Galaxy S7 edge are excluded for clarity.

JetStream 1.1

Kraken 1.1 (Chrome/Safari/IE)

WebXPRT 2015 (Chrome/Safari/IE)

In browser/JavaScript performance the Galaxy S7 in its Snapdragon 820 variants performs pretty much as you'd expect with fairly respectable performance about on par with the iPhone 6 at least part of the time, which frankly still isn't enough but a lot of this is more due to Google's lack of optimization in Chrome than anything else. The Exynos 8890 version comes a lot closer but it still isn't great. Subjectively browsing performance on the Galaxy S7 with the Snapdragon 820 is still painful with Chrome, and I have to install either a variant of Snapdragon Browser or Samsung's stock browser in order to get remotely acceptable performance. Even then, performance isn't great when compared to Apple's A9-equipped devices. The lack of single thread performance relative to other devices on the market in conjunction with poor software optimization on the part of Google is really what continues to hold OEMs back here rather than anything that Samsung Mobile is capable of resolving.

PCMark - Work Performance Overall

PCMark - Web Browsing

PCMark - Video Playback

PCMark - Writing

PCMark - Photo Editing

PCMark shows that the Galaxy S7 is generally well-optimized, with good performance in native Android APIs, although devices like the OnePlus 3 pull ahead in general, likely due to differences in DVFS, lower display resolution, more RAM, and similar changes as the hardware is otherwise quite similar. In general though unless you get something with a Kirin 95x in it you aren't going to get performance much better than what you find in the Galaxy S7, although the software optimization in cases like the writing test could be better for the Snapdragon 820 version of the phone.

DiscoMark - Android startActivity() Cold Runtimes

DiscoMark - Android startActivity() Hot Runtimes

As hinted by the PCMark results, the Galaxy S7 with the Snapdragon 820 is really nothing to write home about when it comes to actual software optimizations, while the Exynos 8890 version is significantly faster in comparison. The fastest devices by far here are still the Kirin 950-equipped phones, but even from cold start launches the HTC 10 is comparable, and pulls ahead slightly when the applications are pre-loaded into memory. The OnePlus 3 and Xiaomi Mi5 are closer to what the S820 GS7 should be achieving, which is really more a testament to just how strangely slow the Galaxy S7 with Snapdragon 820 is.

Overall though, the Galaxy S7 in both iterations are acceptably fast for general purpose tasks. However, with that said the Snapdragon 820 variant is noticeably slower, and the software stack seems to be less optimized for whatever reason even after multiple post-launch OTAs and all the latest app updates. Given that these devices have locked bootloaders it's difficult to really go deep and try to figure out exactly what's causing these issues, but it's likely that Samsung Mobile has the engineering staff to do this and resolve these issues as a 600 USD phone really shouldn't be performing worse than a 400 USD phone. On the bright side, the Exynos 8890 variants perform quite well here, with performance comparable to top devices and often beating out Snapdragon 820 devices, although usually not by a huge margin.

Introduction and Battery Life Revisited System Performance Cont'd
Comments Locked

266 Comments

View All Comments

  • lilmoe - Wednesday, July 6, 2016 - link

    Does support and availability ring a bell? Sure, the high-end is overpriced, but companies like Samsung and LG have WAY more overhead and licensing to pay for than Chinese companies. This isn't only about brand recognition.
  • Impulses - Thursday, July 7, 2016 - link

    I dunno that any of these companies really have great support, as in customer support, none are doing great at updates tho I'll grant you the Samsung and HTC of the world (maybe not LG) are probably doing better than OPO and Huwaei at long term updates...

    You're probably right about availability, but will that matter in the long run? I could care less about whether the phone I buy is available in Best Buy or the carrier store. I surely represent a minority in that regard but that could change...
  • lilmoe - Thursday, July 7, 2016 - link

    "I dunno that any of these companies really have great support"

    Good support > NO support.

    Consumers don't care about updates, what they care about is repairs and returns. When it comes to updates, Samsung is delivering security updates on a monthly basis. I personally stopped caring for the "latest and greatest" version of Android.

    You probably wouldn't care until your device starts acting up. For most people, just walking in to fix their phones is a lot more appealing than mailing them in (if the latter was even available).
  • Impulses - Thursday, July 7, 2016 - link

    Repairs and returns... Doesn't everyone that care about that just pay the carrier for insurance? I guess the extended warranties the likes of HTC have been providing lately are nice too... I'm not really sure the mass market cares a ton about that tho, mostly out of cluelessness, if anything they go for the easiest option (insurance)...

    You talk about walking in for a fix, but that comes down to carriers, not really Samsung, at least in the US... And the vast majority of the time they just hand out replacements because it's quicker and involves less work and staffing on their part.

    If Samsung or some other big OEM has walk in service centers elsewhere in the world that's need to me. If anything, you're making a case for things like Apple Care... And before you accuse me of being a fan boy again, the only piece of Apple hardware I've ever owned was an iPod touch 2nd gen.
  • Impulses - Thursday, July 7, 2016 - link

    These's news (not need) to me rather.
  • lilmoe - Friday, July 8, 2016 - link

    Here's another piece of news for you, there's a vast new world abroad.
  • ph00ny - Tuesday, July 5, 2016 - link

    As a long time reader of the site, i miss Brian. His analytical style of writing fit the site perfect back in the days
  • vyis - Tuesday, July 5, 2016 - link

    His nexus 4 review is the first i read here, and make me stay here
  • ph00ny - Tuesday, July 5, 2016 - link

    I remember offering to send my international Note 1 to him so that he can review it since they didn't release one for another four months and that was released with snapdragon
  • more-or-less - Tuesday, July 5, 2016 - link

    Frankly speaking, hugely dissapointed with the review and the effort put by the editor. Some battery tests missing Exynos values or Edge values. What on earth took 4 months for this review??
    I am sincerely waiting for a deep-dive article by Andrei F. Otherwise, this review is just a dissapointment on every level.
    If you release a review after 4 months, make it worthwhile. I am 'sure' this review could have been finished within 1 month, if someone wanted to.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now