Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/g/ - Technology


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 50 KB, 596x550, iPhone 5S CPU.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823095 No.36823095 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe] [rbt]

We all knew it was coming, but still.

This is pretty huge.

(It's over Android is finished)

>> No.36823117
File: 51 KB, 594x550, iPhone 5S Octane.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823117

Even in benchmarks where Android typically had an advantage, like Google's own octane

>> No.36823134
File: 37 KB, 600x550, iPhone 5S GPU.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823134

>> No.36823139

>expecting speed of something running in javaVM

>> No.36823150
File: 37 KB, 600x550, iPhone 5S GPU 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823150

A new GPU test

>> No.36823160
File: 34 KB, 600x550, iPhone 5S Battery LTE.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823160

No battery improvement though

>> No.36823219
File: 75 KB, 800x600, IMG_17001_575px[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823219

iPhone 5S

>> No.36823226

nice try OP next time put one in with 2.1ghz tegra 4.

maybe some marketshare too to remind iOS users that they are a minority.

>> No.36823232
File: 74 KB, 800x600, 20130917_195157_575px[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823232

Galaxy S4

>> No.36823247
File: 78 KB, 955x540, IMAG0072_575px[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823247

HTC One

>> No.36823264
File: 70 KB, 955x537, IMG_20130917_1823219261_575px[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823264

Moto X

>> No.36823279
File: 85 KB, 800x600, IMG_17011_575px[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823279

iPhone 5S low light

>> No.36823298
File: 88 KB, 800x600, 20130917_195209_575px[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823298

SGS4 Low Light

>> No.36823302

>Shilling this hard
>about the most recent phone released

jesus christ, nothing is "over", i'm sure samsung will copy apple, every one else will follow, and the world will go round

>> No.36823305
File: 84 KB, 955x540, IMAG0073_575px[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823305

HTC One Low Light

>> No.36823320
File: 77 KB, 955x537, IMG_20130917_1822343071_575px[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823320

Moto X Low Light

>> No.36823330

>>36823095
$5 says there will be an android phone that can beat it within 3 months

>> No.36823331
File: 16 KB, 194x259, 1377636459654.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823331

>>36823219
>>36823279
wow all that post sharpening added.

All of these images are sized down, what in the fuck do you think you are doing? Post 100% crops unedited.

>> No.36823342

>>36823331
its called shilling

its what jews do best

>> No.36823349

>>36823331
In addition, all EXIF data has been removed from these jpegs, so cite your source bro.

>> No.36823354

>>36823330
Didn't happen with the 4S, didn't happen with the 5, why now when Apple has put an ARMv8 chip in it two years before everyone else?

>> No.36823362

>>36823331
But full sized images would favor the iPhone even more.

Samsung took the sensor in the iPhone 4S/5 and shrunk the pixel size even further so they can advertise "13 megapixels".
The result was utter dogshit. You don't want to see the full sized images.

>>36823349
How can you not know about Anandtech?

>> No.36823385

>>36823298
>>36823279
>>36823232
>>36823219
The S4 shots have superior sharpness, less visible post sharpening, more micro detail resolution.

Aside from the missed white balance, which the photographer is responsible for, the S4 shots look better.

>> No.36823396
File: 158 KB, 312x274, 1315593438285.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823396

>>36823331
>>36823349
Be warned, Android ones at full size is eye cancer.
http://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/3081#1

And some 5S shots outdoors
http://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/3082#2

>>36823385
hah

>> No.36823400
File: 31 KB, 358x361, 1362742750594.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823400

>>36823095
>Javascript

>> No.36823408

>>36823160
what's with all the missing phones here. Like the ones with better batteries than the iphone

I think your benchmarks are a little iffy

>lets ask some of the public if the pensions state should be put up
>wow, we asked 1000 people and 900 people said yes
>it is clear that 90% of the public want state pensions to go up
>ask 900 old people and 100 not so old people


I'm not an apple or non apple fanboy but the way you compare is just shit

>> No.36823413
File: 79 KB, 498x333, laughing girls.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823413

>>36823400
More like
>Java VM
>Android

>> No.36823424
File: 39 KB, 600x550, 58176.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823424

You sure are cherry picking these benchmarks from the anandtech review. What about this one?

>> No.36823430

>>36823362
>Samsung took the sensor in the iPhone 4S/5 and shrunk the pixel size even further
But thats wrong, and here is why.

You can't just "Shrink" a sensor. Doing so requires a nearly complete redesign of every component involved, including the hardware that manufactures the sensors.

So, while it is plausible that they may have used the sensor from the Iphone 4s as a starting point, there is no way that they simply "shrunk" the photosites to increase pixel density.

>> No.36823431

>>36823424
>triangle output, fragment lit

Yes, I'm sure the actual fps in the benchmark were cherrypicked, but the triangle output one is perfectly fine.

>> No.36823432

>>36823150
On Screen is an unfair test because they're not rendered at the same resolution.

>> No.36823450

>>36823424
I don't understand....Why would the 5S be worse off at this? I know Apple without Jobs is blundercity, but surely they can't stoop that low?

>> No.36823462

>>36823450
because it can't render things at 1080 x1920. it's not designed to do that.

>> No.36823477

>>36823462
But the iPhone 5 can?

>> No.36823491

How is the note 2 scoring so low? I thought I had a god tier phone.
>;_;

>> No.36823502

>>36823450
Because it's not an actual benchmark, it's like comparing the core clock of an Nvidia card vs an AMD card and declaring Nvidia the winner, or measuring compute performance between them and declaring AMD the winner.

The actual benchmark result was posted earlier.

>> No.36823505
File: 97 KB, 780x436, 20130917_195209.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823505

>>36823396
Are you THIS inept?

100% crop, SGS4 low light

>> No.36823515

And it only costs $1000 to do it.

Any Tegra 4 comparisons yet? Also, isn't there a new snap-dragon around the corner?

>> No.36823527

>>36823502
No, that's not a core clock. That's the number of Triangles the GPU can process per second. So that's a valid benchmark imho.

>> No.36823532
File: 53 KB, 536x310, IMG_17011.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823532

>>36823505
Iphone 5, 100% crop, low light

The SGS4 shot looks MUCH sharper, and the image is much more crisp. No, this is not because it has more megapickles, but because it has a sharper lens, and it applies less bullshit noise reduction.

>> No.36823542

>>36823491

why the fuck do you even care man? It's a fucking phone, how much performance do you really need on a god damn phone

>> No.36823547

>>36823095
>iOS
>4 inch screen
Now even if you overlook the price, this two factors make it absolute shit.

>> No.36823551
File: 67 KB, 342x335, photo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823551

>>36823424

>2 iPhones at the top

>> No.36823579
File: 58 KB, 1208x1048, 1306508305524.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823579

What's with all the butthurt in this thread anyway?

At first there was some guy saying Tegra 4 was going to be good, but that's okay, people always fell for Nvidia's marketing even though Tegra is 2 years behind in performance every time.

Now there's someone who thinks the Galaxy S4 has a good camera, or one comparable to the iPhone or Lumia, even though the shitty SGS4 uses the exact same IMX135 sensor with the pixel pitch scale down to 1.1µm, and all the pictures confirm that it is, indeed, shit.
Even worse, some dude thought it was the fault of Anandtech for taking bad photos.

How delusional are these people?
Is it Samsung's thousands upon thousands of shills or did /g/ really get this tech illiterate over the years?

>> No.36823595

>>36823579
/g/ has loads of samshills. HTC make the best android phones and Apple the best other phone on the market.

>> No.36823605
File: 2.85 MB, 1889x982, 2013-09-18 16_24_12-20130917_195209.jpg (JPEG Image, 4128 × 3096 pixels).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823605

>>36823396
would help if the phones had been in the same place.
but you can clearly see that the sg4 looks better, not because the camera is better but because it has better post processing than the iphone

>> No.36823612

>>36823579
camera on samsung s4 is far better than on the iphone 5. most reviewers said so

>> No.36823639
File: 25 KB, 320x320, Peace_Symbol_Vector_by_roxannemartin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823639

>>36823595
>HTC make the best android phones and Apple the best other phone on the market.
It depends on what a person wants. There are some phones that are better than iphones at some things and iphones are better than other phones at some things


Don't be silly, there is not #1bestthingateverytingever

>> No.36823647

>>36823579
Are you fucking serious?
See : >>36823505
>>36823532
If you think that the Iphone 5 takes better pictures than the S4, then I assume that you would say an LGL1300 fliphone takes better pictures than the Iphone 5, and that an even older camera phone takes better pictures than that.

>> No.36823655

Iphone reviews are my favorite. I like seeing how mad all the commenters are. Never change android fans.

>> No.36823664

>>36823639
>on /g/
>not rabidly defending one brand over others
Mate, it's like going on /v/ and telling them you're an actual gamer girl.

>> No.36823667

>>36823595
Ye, no micro SD is clearly best.

>> No.36823670

>>36823655
what one do you think is best

>>36823605

>> No.36823680

From daringfireball:

> the iPhone 5S beats my 2008 15-inch MacBook Pro by a small measure in the Sunspider benchmark (with the MacBook Pro running the latest Safari 6.1 beta)
Holy shit. ARM is improving fast. And Apple's getting very good at implementing it. Imagine an iPad with more RAM and the A7X. Imagine the fucking A8 next year.

>> No.36823695

>>36823680
What is benchmark optimizing.

>> No.36823696

>>36823670
The one on the right. Apple does it again!

>> No.36823707

>>36823612
The opposite happened though

I don't think any serious tech site ever claimed the SGS4 had a better camera than the iPhone 5

>> No.36823708

>>36823695
>this fandroid

>> No.36823722

>>36823708
>this 2/10 troll

>> No.36823723

>>36823670
>Comparing one image taken in different places.

>> No.36823724

>>36823707
>had a better camera
if you change that to
>produce better images

the sg4 wins

>> No.36823729
File: 20 KB, 600x426, 1292620604844.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823729

Relevant:
http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/12/a-photographers-take-on-the-iphone-5s-camera/

http://carpeaqua.com/2013/09/12/apple-will-never-lose-at-photography/

>> No.36823755

Why are you faggots even arguing over shitty phone cameras? Does it really matter if one is a bit less shitty than the other?

>> No.36823760

>>36823755
Yes, because the best camera is the one you have with you

>> No.36823776

>>36823729
>the sheer number of pixels is not as important as the quality of those pixels

hahahahahahahahaha

I like my iphone but...

>the sheer number of pixels is not as important as the quality of those pixels

i mean... oh god

>the quality of those pixels

>> No.36823784

>>36823760
My Olympus OM-2n with Portra 400?

>> No.36823785

>>36823117
>Even in benchmarks where Android typically had an advantage, like Google's own octane

My nexus 10 is almost 12 months old and gets 5219 in octane. That's not to say the iphone 5s SoC isn't impressive. Anandtech just constantly picks and chooses comparisons that make Intel and Apple products looks better of late.

>> No.36823792

>>36823776
What's wrong with that anon?

Just look at Samsung photos, their pixels are tiny so they can market 13 megapixels and the result is terrible.

You do know what the size of the pixels matters in cameras, right?

>> No.36823809

>>36823792
>quality of those pixels
>quality of those pixels
>quality of those pixels

>> No.36823813

>>36823785
Post a screenshot please. Because I highly doubt Exynos 5 Dual is twice as fast as the Snapdragon 800.

>> No.36823819

>>36823776
He's right you know. Do you even photography?

>> No.36823820

>>36823785
You convinced me random /g/ poster. Anand is omg apple biased but you know the truth

>> No.36823827
File: 72 KB, 547x550, iPad 4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823827

>>36823785
That's because you're comparing a tablet with a phone.

Tablets don't use the same SoCs, they use much more powerful and power hungry ones.

When Apple unveils their next iPads next month, it'll be a better comparison, assuming it also uses an ARMv8 64-bit SoC, which I personally think is unlikely. They just signed their deal with TSMC, I doubt they can fabricate enough for both iPhones and iPads.

>> No.36823831

>>36823776
>the sheer number of pixels is not as important as the quality of those pixels

This is actually true. As sensor makers increase the pixel density, the result is more noise produced by each pixel, as each pixel is taking in less light, since it covers a smaller area. A 40 megapixel sensor using the same generation technologoy as a 20 megapixel sensor will be more prone to high ISO noise, since it has to amplify each photosite's signal more to get the same level of exposure.

However, despite the S4 having more pickles, the images are STILL better than the Iphone 5.

>> No.36823860

>>36823831
>However, despite the S4 having more pickles, the images are STILL better than the Iphone 5.
Not even close

>> No.36823867

>>36823820
>Anand is omg apple biased but you know the truth
it is,
where are the comparisons between phones and the droid razr maxx or nokia 3110.
the don't review them because apple would lose hands down.

There are lots of phones that don't get benchmarked because they are better in some aspects than the iphone

>> No.36823872

>>36823860
Have you even LOOKED at the 100% crops?

>>36823605
S4 on the right.

>>36823532
5S low light

>>36823505
S4 low light

CLEARLY the S4 is better.

MUCH sharper.

>> No.36823879

>>36823867
>between iphones
***

>> No.36823894

>>36823867
They did compare the Razr Maxx, back when it was relevant

Who cares about a years old phone?

And the "lots of phones" that don't get benchmarked is because Anandtech takes a week or more to benchmark a phone, and it's not worth reviewing all the dozens of shitty Android phones that come out every week, only the relevant ones.

If you want to read shitty reviews done in one afternoon by some shitty pro-Samsung site bought with their marketing budget, there's plenty of other websites to read.

>> No.36823896

>>36823872
the s4 is on the left

>> No.36823902

>>36823867
Yea man, all tech sites are apple biased.

You are delusional.

>> No.36823916

>>36823894
>only the relevant ones.
but anandtech take relevant to mean worse than iphone.
That's the only selction that goes on. It''s not like they do it by buying trends or marketshare

>> No.36823924
File: 194 KB, 2560x1600, Screenshot_2013-09-19-01-46-01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36823924

>>36823813

The krait cores in s800 CPUs are weird, some tasks they seem to equal A15 cores, others they suck at and perform more like A9 cores.

>> No.36823934

>>36823916
If it meant worse than iPhone they would review EVERY Android phone out there.

They review all the important ones, they confirm that indeed there is no valid alternative to an iPhone by any metric, and go back to reviewing other things.

>> No.36823936

>>36823902
>all tech sites are apple biased.
where did i say that?

>> No.36823938

>>36823896
The S4 has more megapickles than the 5, which means that the larger image must be the S4.

>> No.36823954

>>36823924
Can somebody with a Snapdragon 800 or even 600 (eg. Nexus 4) do the test?

>> No.36823966

>>36823605
>>36823872
I don't know why you say that, the left image (5S) looks much better than the SGS4.

I mean the SGS4 can't even get the white balance right indoors, then again no Android phone can, only Lumias and iPhones handle it.

>> No.36823968

>>36823916
How about this. Name a better site than anand
One that isn't 'biased'

>> No.36823987

>>36823938
but no...
the S4 is on the left, i know. i put it there. from that screenshot you can't tell what size the images are.
>>36823966
>the left image (5S) looks much better than the SGS4.
left is the S4

>> No.36824001
File: 42 KB, 919x349, samsung ad dollars.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824001

Remember that while every other site is sucking Samsung's cock because of how much money they spend on advertising, and some (e.g. GSMArena) even started doing battery life tests for browsing with the screen turned off so the OLED disadvantage wouldn't show, Anandtech actually spotted Samsung detecting benchmark apps and overclocking their devices for them to "cheat" on benchmarks, and called them out on their bullshit.

>> No.36824017

>>36823987
Then why did you size down the S4 shot?

The S4 has more megapickles than the 5, which means that you either sized down the S4 shot, or you are lying.

>> No.36824022

Camera on S4 is better than on iphone 5

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/9219904986/shootout-samsunggalaxys4-vs-htcone-vs-iphone5-vs-lumia920

http://www.businessinsider.com/htc-one-galaxy-s4-iphone-5-camera-test-2013-4

http://bgr.com/2013/05/24/galaxy-s4-camera-test-iphone-5/

http://www.neowin.net/news/smartphone-camera-shootout-iphone-5-vs-lumia-928-vs-galaxy-s-iv

>> No.36824033
File: 38 KB, 512x384, 1289636510113.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824033

>>36823966
You said the yellow one is SGS4 here >>36823505
and the white one is 5S here >>36823532
Now you say otherwise?

Meanwhile, from the actual gallery, the yellow shitty one is SGS4
http://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/3081#10

>> No.36824034

>>36823934
>If it meant worse than iPhone they would review EVERY Android phone out there.
why are you so angry.
calm down.
Saying they don't review some phones is a valid point. They don't and what is it exactly that makes a phone "important"

You should really just take five minutes. count to ten and deal with the fact that
1) some people don't like iphones, they like other things more.
2) some things are better at some things than others.

>> No.36824042

>>36824001
You realize that Samsung produces fuckloads of stuff, not just phones and laptops like Apple, right?

>> No.36824048

>>36823827
>That's because you're comparing a tablet with a phone.
>Tablets don't use the same SoCs, they use much more powerful and power hungry ones.
>When Apple unveils their next iPads next month, it'll be a better comparison, assuming it also uses an ARMv8 64-bit SoC, which I personally think is unlikely. They just signed their deal with TSMC, I doubt they can fabricate enough for both iPhones and iPads.

Samsung already have quad core exynos5s in the korean market S4.

>> No.36824057

>>36824022
>businessinsider
>neowin
>bgr
Really? See >>36824001

>> No.36824069

>>36824057
So nobody is sucking Apples cock? Nice one.

>> No.36824083

>1 ms speed difference
>huge

you physically won't be able to see the difference

>> No.36824091

>>36824017
>The S4 has more megapickles than the 5, which means that you either sized down the S4 shot, or you are lying.
they are both 100% then cropped

i didn't size down anything. it's impossible to tell how big an image is from a cropped image.

>> No.36824092

>>36824057
It's so cute how you ignored the most important review among all reviews in the internet

>> No.36824111

>>36824083
>you physically won't be able to see the difference
as opposed to? seeing it in what other way?

>> No.36824146

>if I take one benchmark from 5 different android phones and compare to iphone then Android wins!

>> No.36824157

>>36823134
Something is not right. How come no Android phone is over the Moto X, even though it runs mid-end hardware?

>> No.36824168

>>36823954
>Can somebody with a Snapdragon 800 or even 600 (eg. Nexus 4) do the test?
I also have a xperia Z, it gets 1586 in octane. My very old core 2 duo mac mini gets 2053.

>> No.36824184

>STILL using toy phones that track you like a fucking animal
Are you idiots?

>> No.36824191

>>36824033

>>36823505
>>36823532
Here, I am not : >>36823966


The one that has the off white balance, the yellow, is the S4. The white balance was off because the photographer failed to set it properly in camera on the S4. White balance is easily editable in post, and is not a function of image quality, but of photographer quality.

Despite the image having a thrown off white balance, the image of the S4 is much clearer than the Iphone.

If you think that the image being yellow makes the camera worse, or is the camera's fault, you know nothing about photography and should not be judging images.

The S4 images are the yellow ones. The S4 images are sharper, and look much clearer and better overall.

>> No.36824204

>>36824157
Because Android is written in Java and runs in a fucking Java VM. Moto X is probably the most optimized phone right now in the gigantic pile of unoptimized android shit.

This is the real reason iPhone takes a total shit on android in the benches, the phone is actually optimized and built around a single phone every year.

>> No.36824218

>>36824091
No, it is not.

If you do two 100% crops of two images, both taken of the same thing at the same distance from the thing, then the camera that had more megapixels will have a larger image than the one with less megapickles.

Eg : the items in the picture will appear larger, more zoomed in.

>> No.36824233
File: 25 KB, 250x250, TS250x0~cms_posts_9219904986_samsunggalaxys4_20130422_115824b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824233

galaxy s4

>> No.36824236
File: 89 KB, 1027x660, Screen Shot 2013-09-19 at 2.07.47 AM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824236

>>36824168
1.4GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook Air.
Using Chromium 31.

Got 6700.

>> No.36824240

>>36823968
Still waiting for this one. LOL

>> No.36824252

>>36824218

>at the same distance from the thing,
>implying these images were taken at the same distance

>> No.36824253
File: 22 KB, 250x250, TS250x0~cms_posts_9219904986_iphone5_IMG_7586b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824253

iphone 5

>> No.36824262

>>36824253
what's the point of this?

>> No.36824273

>>36824253
>>36824233
nice full size images

>> No.36824279
File: 10 KB, 251x251, 1313417311787.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824279

>>36824262
Taking a crop of phones with different megapixel cameras is good for paid reviews.

It's a Samsung favorite.

Remember, their shills are everywhere.

>> No.36824280

>>36824262
OP is declaring his homosex

>> No.36824295

>>36824252
Yea, the person holding the cameras totally fucked up.

Anyway, see : >>36823505
>>36823532
I tried to get the same amount of stuff in each crop. The S4 shot is a larger size because it has more megapixels. If I had done a 500x500 crop of both images, then the S4 shot would have a more zoomed in look, with less stuff in the shot than the Iphone shot.

If you do a 100% crop of basically the same image taken on two differen cameras, the one with more megapixels will appear more "zoomed in", since the original image was larger.

>> No.36824297

>>36824233
>>36824253
They're both shit.
I'd rather buy a decent camera.

>> No.36824307
File: 127 KB, 527x299, Screenshot from 2013-09-18 22:10:47.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824307

>>36824262
>>36824273
>>36824279

see

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/9219904986/shootout-samsunggalaxys4-vs-htcone-vs-iphone5-vs-lumia920

Samsung takes better pics

>> No.36824316

>>36824295
wither it appears zoomed in or not doesn't affect the quality

>> No.36824327

>>36824168

How can the Xperia Z get such a low score ? My stock Galaxy S3 gets 1840 ?

>> No.36824330

>>36824191
H-h-hey guise the Samsung photos all look like shit because the photographer sucks!

What the hell do you think was the whole point of the shoot out? Both phones on AUTO SETTINGS, just like how 99% of the market with their amateur photography skills takes their damn photos.

>> No.36824337
File: 1.91 MB, 480x270, spin.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824337

>>36824307
Oooooohh yeahhhhhhhh

>> No.36824338
File: 20 KB, 126x115, 1298986274385.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824338

>>36824307
Are you posting a review from some Samsung affiliate like the BGR article before, or is it just a site filled with Samsung ads this time?

>mfw some Samsung shill site had a camera comparison with ONE picture to declare SGS4 the winner even though it has the exact same sensor with much smaller pixels

>> No.36824340
File: 142 KB, 525x294, Screenshot from 2013-09-18 22:14:33.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824340

>> No.36824345

>>36824327
my razr i gets 2323.
what does this test mean.
Do i win now?

>> No.36824352
File: 271 KB, 1187x862, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824352

>>36824236
i5-3570K

>> No.36824358
File: 18 KB, 298x296, 1351629208576.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824358

It's actually funny that we all are subconciously convinced that Apple is so far ahead we're comparing last year's iPhone model (iPhone 5) with this year's Android flagship (SGS4)

>> No.36824364

>>36824316
Actually it does.

A camera with more megapixels can capture more data than one with less. The downside generally being that there is more noise. However, in the case of the S4 vs Iphone, the S4 does not have any more of a noise problem than the Iphone.

>> No.36824381

>>36824345
>razr i
No, you'll never win anything.

>> No.36824383
File: 1.05 MB, 2994x2439, 1372259608964.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824383

>>36824338
> even though it has the exact same sensor with much smaller pixels
This is literally impossible.

>> No.36824393

>>36824364
>However, in the case of the S4 vs Iphone, the S4 does not have any more of a noise problem than the Iphone.

This is a lie, even Anandtech has demonstrated this, and even reminded people about it recently too.

>> No.36824394

>>36824381
>implying it's bad

it's great.
It feels great to hold, i think it looks nice and it's fast

>> No.36824400

>>36824358
Nice try paid Apple troll.

Also, all phones are shit. I can't believe this fucking horrible "technology" has taken off as it has. I KNOW LET'S SHRINK OUR COMPUTERS DOWN TO MICROSCOPIC FUCKING SIZE SO IT'S A PAIN IN THE GODDAMN ASS TO DO ANY FUCKING FUNCTION ON IT. ALSO LET'S LOCK THAT SHIT DOWN, THEN TRACK PEOPLE WHEREVER THEY GO EVEN IF THEY'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG SO WE CAN HAVE A PROFILE ON THEM.

Great idea, morons.

>> No.36824401

>>36824338

>dpreview
>samsung shill site

haha, look at this retard

here is an apple fan site cites the same source as bgr

http://www.iclarified.com/30449/samsung-galaxy-s4-outscores-iphone-5-in-camera-test-chart

>> No.36824408
File: 208 KB, 1280x800, Screenshot_2013-09-19-02-16-33.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824408

>>36824168
Tried it on my 1st gen Galaxy Note, got 2339.

Try it again on Google Chrome. The Xperia Z can't be slower than a 2 year old phone.

>> No.36824419

>>36824400
any phone tracks you. smart or dumb or just a bit silly. they can still be used to track you

>> No.36824429

>>36824401
Yes, they all cite the same source. No matter how many sites you post going back to a Samsung affiliate, it doesn't make the source any more relevant.

Remember >>36824001

>> No.36824431

>>36823302
>copy apple
>apple uses webkit

>> No.36824436

>>36824393
Anandtech's own test gallery proves than the S4 does not have a noise problem compare to the 5s. Did you even look at the images?

>> No.36824450
File: 151 KB, 520x286, Screenshot from 2013-09-18 22:21:18.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824450

>> No.36824474
File: 147 KB, 525x292, Screenshot from 2013-09-18 22:22:37.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824474

>> No.36824478

When will the public stop giving a fuck about megapickles and realize that i could get a better shot with an 8 mp camera with good light sensors than they could get with a 40 pickle camera with shit all else

>> No.36824493
File: 123 KB, 585x236, Screenshot from 2013-09-18 22:23:56.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824493

>> No.36824495
File: 1.78 MB, 3264x2448, IMG_01061[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824495

iPhone 5S

>> No.36824497

>>36824408
for me google chrome is slower, tried again on dolphin and got a better result

>> No.36824500

>>36824400

It's not just Apple's phone.

Per the law and FCC rules, if the phone has GPS on it, any phone, it gives your location for E-911. Because that's the easiest way for telcos to comply with the law.

Dumbphones are triangulated, which is less accurate.

>> No.36824507
File: 975 KB, 2688x1520, IMAG0071.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824507

Galaxy S4.

From a non-shill site for once.

>> No.36824512
File: 116 KB, 598x243, Screenshot from 2013-09-18 22:25:19.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824512

>> No.36824519

>>36824478
>When will the public stop giving a fuck about megapickles and realize that i could get a better shot with an 8 mp camera with good light sensors than they could get with a 40 pickle camera with shit all else

It's all about the glass.

>> No.36824525

>>36824495
we've all seen the images

>>36824507
>From a site wear they can't even put the camera in the same place

>> No.36824528
File: 256 KB, 549x425, Samsung Black Clipping.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824528

>>36824507
>>36824495
>Samsung

Didn't the other guy say that Samsung's smaller pixels do not produce more noise?
Are their shills in this thread?

>> No.36824539

>>36824512

>jpg

No.

>> No.36824544

>>36824528
I like how one phone's pic is taken in a room with the lighting dimmed, while the other one isn't and has a shit ton of reflections

>> No.36824545

>>36824525
>where

>> No.36824547
File: 23 KB, 252x249, 6108-dubs-guy-taking-a-picture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824547

>>36824307
>>36824340
>>36824450
>>36824474
>>36824493

more like 100% crap

>> No.36824556
File: 226 KB, 529x298, kjws.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824556

dpreview is much more authoritative than anandtech when it comes to camearas and their test demonstrated that S4 beats iphone

>> No.36824565
File: 1.75 MB, 3264x2448, IMG_01071[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824565

iPhone 5S, again, from a non-shill site

>> No.36824572

>>36823095
gr8b8m8

>> No.36824586

>>36824572
brb masterb8

>> No.36824591

>comparing shitty pics of shitty cams
Both are perfectly fine for snapping a pic of your hamburger and both suck for anything relevant, why are you still trying?

>> No.36824598

>pay $1000 for Iphone
>get 2% better performance

>> No.36824601
File: 1.43 MB, 2688x1520, IMAG0072[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824601

Galaxy S4, from a non-shill site

>> No.36824609

>>36824497
Weird, my Note only got 1531 in Dolphin.
Not a reliable benchmark for CPUs especially between platforms.

>> No.36824628

>>36824598
>$199 on contract as always
I don't understand why people get butthurt about Australian unlocked prices

>> No.36824645

>>36824628
that's $200 initial price
then comes the $1000+ buttfuck price that you pay off over the months

>> No.36824655

>>36824645
Which you pay on any other phone if you want a contract with data and such

>> No.36824658

>>36824408
>Tried it on my 1st gen Galaxy Note, got 2339.
>Try it again on Google Chrome. The Xperia Z can't be slower than a 2 year old phone.

Best I can get is 2192 with the latest chrome beta. Octane just runs poorly on krait based snapdragons. My xperia z beats my nexus 10 in benchmarks that favour snapdragons like the 3d mark physics test

>> No.36824661

>>36824628
Because you don't end up paying even more like that. Are you really this stupid?

>> No.36824668

>>36824655
Or get pay as you go

like a smart person

>> No.36824675
File: 146 KB, 600x412, sm-MotoX-160559965[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824675

Also, some bonus, Moto X artifacts on patterns.

Google fucked up hard, Anand explained it.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7235/moto-x-review/10

Although all those shill sites somehow forgot to mention that. It's like they didn't even test them.

>> No.36824705

>>36824675
Didn't Anandtech also find that Samsung cheats on benchmarks?
And no other site discovered it, for some miraculous reason.

Almost reminds me of all the tech sites gloating about the SAMOLED screen on the Galaxy S and Anandtech being the only one to mention the whole PenTile issue, which at 800x480 was pretty fucking visible

>> No.36824781

Apple iPhone 5s can do 64-bit, but can it render my name?

>> No.36824782

>>36824705
didn't Anandtech miss the fact that most places don't let you return an iphone if you remove the cellophane wrapping because apple are dicks about it.

>> No.36824803

>>36824507
MOTION BLUR? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Those images are fucking fail. Fuck that review site.

>> No.36824823

>>36824781
Go away muhammad

>> No.36824830

>>36823095

> A mobile OS is finished because Javascript runs slower on it
> Implying anyone gives 3 fucks about Javascript

>> No.36824865

Battery life on the Web Browsing benchmark went down ~1 hour so there's compromise.

>> No.36824891

>>36824507
why is it dark and kinda blurry

>> No.36824893

>>36824865
Not on LTE

>> No.36824905

>>36824891
Because they crammed 13 megapixels in a tiny sensor so they can market it better.

Tiny pixels = more noise, shitty low light performance, shit overall

When Apple said "bigger pixels = better picture" they weren't being retarded, it's actually real in cameras

>> No.36824922

>>36824905
then why does the s4 produce better images?

>> No.36824928

>>36824830
there's a reason android is referred to as javadroid 'round these parts, player

>> No.36824934
File: 74 KB, 1108x872, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36824934

>JavaScript

Not an iPhone owner nor an android device owner (Symbian OS masterrace), but JS performance entirely depends on the implementation. I would like to see the same browser (Opera Mobile for example) running on all phones.

Pic related, internet explorer (left) and Firefox (right) on the same machine.

>> No.36824945

>>36824905
but samsung takes better shots

>> No.36824949

>>36823095
jesus… these numbers are impressive as fuck. and you know they'll optimize the hell out of it in the coming year (I bet they spent most of the dev time on compatibility/security/new features etc).

>> No.36824950

>>36824945
>>36824922
It does not

>> No.36824955

>>36824950
it does though

>>36823605

>> No.36824957

>>36824893
I still want to know how they get an iPhone 5 to last that long on LTE. The one I was testing only had a screen on time of 6 hours and 21 minutes berfore it finally succumed and shut off. That was approximately 40 minutes after the Optimus G did.

Doing anything other than web browsing I get even less than that too. Test was done with a signal average of about -90dbm on my part.

>> No.36824964

>>36824950

take a look

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/9219904986/shootout-samsunggalaxys4-vs-htcone-vs-iphone5-vs-lumia920

>> No.36824972

DOWNLOADING NOW! IT'S HAPPENING!

>> No.36824980

>>36824964
Non shill sites please.

>>36824955
The iPhone looks better though, I'm pretty sure we all agreed that Samsung can't even get the white balance right.

>> No.36824994

>>36824980
>here's some proof
>HURR DURR SHILLS SHILLS LALALALA I CAN'T HERE YOU
you right now

>> No.36824995

>>36824781
That bug is fixed in iOS 7. Sorry.

>> No.36824996

>>36824964
Shills love to post those same reviews don't they

>> No.36824998

>>36824980
so which one do you think is better?


>white balance
>relevant to camera quality
hahaha

>> No.36825014

>>36824998
>all the indoor shots are yellow, noisy and unfixable
>hahaha
Not very funny if you're stuck with a shitty plastic phone that can't take a decent picture though

>> No.36825019

Y is the iprawn 5 so much faster than so many newer phones

>> No.36825027

>>36825014
what did you like more.
left or right

>>36823605

>> No.36825039

>>36825027
Left of course, how is this even a question?

>> No.36825047

>>36825019
Because Android is a (very customizable) steaming pile and since there's no standardized framework for what components should be used in Android devices, serious optimization is impossible given the timeframe between phone releases.

>> No.36825048

>>36825039
but i thought you liked the iphone more?

>> No.36825063

>>36825027
Not him but I think the left looks better.

>> No.36825072

>>36825048
But the left is the iPhone, see >>36823279 and >>36823298
or see >>36823505 and >>36823532

>> No.36825084

>>36825072
but the left is the s4
see
>>me
i was the one that took the screen shot.

>> No.36825137

>>36825019
Ic. Those numbers surprise me tho. All that shit appl got for not doing more with their new phones.
"But nigga our shit from lass year is faster than yo new shit."

>> No.36825146

>>36824980
if you seriously think dpreview is a samsung shill site you are clueless about photography

a review from an authoritative site shows that S4 takes better pictures than iphone. get over it

>> No.36825187

I find it hilarious that a year old dual core iPhone can wipe the floor with a brand new quad-core S4

Google, step up your game and mandate a standard architecture for android devices and optimize the fuck out of it already

>> No.36825254
File: 9 KB, 299x111, _2013-09-18_20-14-35.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
36825254

Quick question, is this bad ?

>> No.36825293

>>36825254
yes

>> No.36825348

>>36825254
Absolutely not, your hard drive is about to "go critical" which is industry speak for the end of the break in period.

Expect better performance imminently.

>> No.36825467

>>36825254
Your rotational velocidensity is increasing dramatically, it is going to severely damage your mp3 music files.

Also Samsung has good cameras.

>> No.36825492

>>36824408
So how does this Octane Score thing work? Just tested it on my Chinadroid, it is scored it as 1564.

What exactly does this mean?

>> No.36825512

>>36825492
It's a very inconsistent benchmark, look through the thread.

Try SunSpider or Browsermark instead, those are much more consistent.

>> No.36825576

>>36825293
fugg D:

>>36825348
yay me :3

>>36825467
no prob, my mp3 is on the other drive

>> No.36825616

>>36825512
Benchmark for what, exactly? My score is higher than the iphone 5 here:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6324/the-iphone-5-performance-preview

Based on the same test. But in the end it's still a phone. Are people stupid enough to care about this shit? Apple charges an absurd about for their shitty products. They should be scoring through the room any any and all text, across the board, as standard.


I just don't get people. It's bad enough that fuckwits in this thread alone are arguing about phone cameras, as though anyone serious about photography would use a fucking phone to shoot with.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action