System Performance

While subjective judgments of performance may be possible to make when the delta is significant, when the gap gets increasingly close within the range of perceivable performance differences it becomes important to rely on more precise and accurate methods of measuring the overall performance of the mobile device. For the most part, when we’re discussing system performance the single biggest factor is often the SoC, which makes sense given that an SoC contains the CPU, GPU, video encode and decode blocks, memory bus, and DSPs. There are other aspects of the device that determine the overall perception of performance and things that can have a meaningful effect on performance, but the SoC is often the gating factor.

In order to test this we run mobile devices through our standard suite of benchmarks. In the case of the Galaxy Note5 and Galaxy S6 edge+, there shouldn’t be too many surprises given the commonality in components with the Galaxy S6.

Kraken 1.1 (Chrome/Safari/IE)

Google Octane v2  (Chrome/Safari/IE)

WebXPRT 2013 (Chrome/Safari/IE)

WebXPRT 2015 (Chrome/Safari/IE)

Basemark OS II 2.0 - Overall

Basemark OS II 2.0 - System

Basemark OS II 2.0 - Memory

Basemark OS II 2.0 - Graphics

Basemark OS II 2.0 - Web

PCMark - Work Performance Overall

PCMark - Web Browsing

PCMark - Video Playback

PCMark - Writing

PCMark - Photo Editing

If you guessed that performance in these benchmarks would be similar to the Galaxy S6, you'd be right. Given the shared SoC and general commonality in components performance remains as high as it is with the Galaxy S6. In some cases we see improvements, likely a combination of changes to Chrome and changes to areas like the frequency governor to respond faster to changes in load. It's probably fair to say that the Exynos 7420 will continue to be the best SoC for Android mobile devices in 2015, although it's likely that we'll see significantly increased competition for 2016.

Display System Performance Cont'd and NAND Performance
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • ciderrules - Tuesday, October 6, 2015 - link

    Funny you picked the iPhone 6S and not the 6S Plus, which is a better comparison due to it having a larger screen and more "pixels to push".

    It scored 85 hours on their endurance rating, easily beating the GS6's 73 hours. Further, the 6S Plus beat last years 6 Plus even with a smaller battery. GS6 actually had less battery life than the GS5.

    So Apple gives you the most powerful processor on the planet, decreases the battery size by 8%, and manages to increase battery life.
  • Kuzi - Tuesday, October 6, 2015 - link

    iPhone 6s Plus is a phablet the same size of the Note 5, so should be compared with the Note 5 which gets the same rating of 85 too, but is pushing 1.7 times more pixels while offering faster multithreaded performance.
  • ciderrules - Tuesday, October 6, 2015 - link

    No, it's not faster. I already explained this to you before and you're still coming back and posting incorrect information again?

    Primate Labs (makers of Geekbench) rates the Note5 at 4351, the iPhone 6S/6S Plus at 4330/4331. So yes, the Note5 is a fraction of a percent faster in multi core performance.
  • Kuzi - Wednesday, October 7, 2015 - link

    How many times do I have to explain that I own a Galaxy S6 and I get +5200 on Geekbench multicore test. I also own an Xperia Z4 tablet (SD 810 based) that gets +4800. So both are faster than A9 in multicore.

    Also GSMArena & Phonearena get similar results for exynos 7420 based devices as per below:

    There is some variance with each test run, and if the phone is warmer it gets slightly lower results. In my case the lowest I got was 5000 for GS6.
  • thedons1983 - Sunday, October 18, 2015 - link

    What a fucki#g moron. You are pathetic!!
  • coburn_c - Sunday, October 4, 2015 - link

    Both curves of the plus have a disgusting green hue to them, and when you tilt it until one disappears, the entire front gets the baby poo greens. It is easily the worst viewing angle on any modern phone, and on an AMOLED of all places, a technology known for its viewing angles. I can't imagine how they could have screwed up worse.
  • thedons1983 - Sunday, October 18, 2015 - link

    Then you lack imagination... Apple has already made a worse phone for starters, or are you so ignorant, that you can't tell the difference between apples and oranges????
  • theduckofdeath - Monday, October 5, 2015 - link

    I wonder why Anandtech still had one standard for Samsung and one standard for everybody else when it comes to displays? I don't see you people scrutinise and down rank ocular quality issues with LCD displays like to do with AMOLED. AMOLED haven't just caught up to LCD this year, it's been superior for years, Anandtech. Fix your flawed and biased tests.
  • Peichen - Monday, October 5, 2015 - link

    If AMOLED is anywhere close to IPS why aren't EIZO, NEC, Dell switching their professional lineup to AMOLED? Why are 31" calibrated IPS monitors going for $3000 while the same money can get you 55" 4K OLED TV? For that matter, how come no one is selling a calibrated OLED anything? With all the green/purple tint and grayish white you'd think OLED could use some calibration.

    Leave the review to the professionals. Your eyeballing review aren't worth the hot air carrying the sound bits.
  • Kamus - Tuesday, October 6, 2015 - link

    "The professionals" agree with him, go read displaymate's reviews.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now