Egypt benchmark results

The Motorola Droid 3 has shown up in some GLBenchmark 2.0 online results, and they are looking good.  Right off the bat -- I don't think benchmark tests are the true mark of user experience (perhaps you've read this?).  You can only get the real picture by holding and using the device the way you would normally use it.  Having said that, the numbers are pretty impressive, and show just how well the OMAP 4 and PowerVR SGX 540 can crunch those triangles. 

In the Egypt benchmark (it's one of the most demanding GL benchmarks in the GLBenchmarks testing suite) the Droid 3 was only beaten out by the Optimus 3D and its "Tri-dual" technology.  In a less demanding benchmark that allows software to have more influence, the Droid 3 still performs well, landing right among the latest and greatest from other manufacturers.  That graphic is after the break.

The hardware looks like it can do the job.  Let's hope the software can keep up, and we have a real 3G powerhouse for Verizon this summer.

Source: Anandtech via Droid matters

Droid 3 benchmark results


Reader comments

Motorola Droid 3 shows up in online benchmark results


Egypt runs at native resolution, so higher resolution displays (qhd and better) are at a disadvantage. The fact that the OMAP scores as well as it does on that test is impressive.

Also, I can't wait for Dickyarrell to come in screaming about the EVO 3D saying to "Stop the MADNESS" & how the EVO is going to be the "best phone on the market until the next EVO comes out in 2012".

It's #5 on the top list & couldn't even outperform the Fascinate (which didn't even get "Droid" branding on VZW nearly a year ago)!

Well that's not fair. You can't compare Samsung hardware with HTC. Samsung is miles ahead of the competition in hardware. The Fascinate did better because it's using the PowerVR SGX540 and it also has a lower resolution. Just to give you an idea of how powerful it is, TI is now using the same GPU on their new Dual cores .
You also have to take into account that the EVO 3D/Sensation have a weaker CPU than other dual cores. The 1.2ghz Snapdragon they use is based on a Cortex A8, as opposed to a Cortex A9 like the rest of the dual cores. Granted it's closer to a Cortex A9 than an A8, but the Exinos found on the GS2 has an enhanced Cortex A9... making it even faster.
However, when it comes to the UI (User Interface), nothing can touch Sense 3.0.

You would have to run the EVO 3D at 1.5 ghz for it to beat the Tegra 2. The Cortext A9 has about 25% more power, so an A9 1ghz = A8 1.2ghz (roughly). You can also overclock the Tegra 2 and make it run much faster.
Whatsmore, Tegra 2 does not outpeform the Exinos. You can watch many reviews of the GS2 vs Atrix, X2, G2X and others. You will see that the GS2 performs faster, specifically in web browsing.

The cpu in the EVO 3D/Sensation is not slow, it just isn't up to par with others. A review even said that the Sensation felt like a fast single core, but not a dual core.

BTW I'm wasn't dissing on the EVO 3D, I was just trying to explain its peformance in comparison to others. For most people the performance difference will be minimal, and it'll come down to looks and feel of the device.

I know you do. Which is why I linked that website and said what I did.

The Evo will also be able to overclock. Remember, I said it was underclocked to 1.2 from its RATED 1.5. So that link I put in my last reply doesnt mean its overclocked if thats the speed its rated for. I would expect OC speeds of 1.7 (at least) or so for the 8660 once its all said and done.

That (also from the same source) shows tegra 2 beating exynos overall.

We arent talking about phones either so the Atrix vs Lg or what have you is meaningless. We are talking about chips and in the end the overall winner is the 8660.

Things like resolution, ui, underclocking (like in the evo) can make it SEEM as if worse chips are better thus it doesnt matter what phone *looks* better at face value when trying to debate chip power.

I agree with it being able to overlcok to 1.7 - 1.8 ghz w/ no problem. However you can also overclock the GSII to 1.5ghz, and the Mali400 is way more powerful than the Adreno 220. You also have to keep in mind that the GS2 has a cap of 60 fps, so you can't benchmark the full potential of the GPU. Whatsmore you can overlclock the GPU in the GS2 as well. One more thing, the test is comparing the Exinos at 1ghz not 1.2ghz

Or are you going to tell me that an overclocked Cortext A8 is more powerful than an overclocked A9? You can say that the chip has more potential, but if you can't see the results, then what's the point?

To me it's like this:
My friend's G2 is overclockable to 1.8 ghz I think. Yet my Galaxy S at 1.3ghz runs emulators way smoother than his phone (thanks to the GPU).

At the end of the day, if you honestly had to pick one, which one would it be? I sincerely doubt you would pick the 8660/Adreno 220 over the Exinos/Mali-400MP.
But I guess to each it's own.

I know you can overclock the GSII as well thus I never said you couldn't. Like I said. In the end it will come to which one can OC higher in terms of their pinnacle performance. Both are close though in terms of CPU but the 8660 CREAMS the Mali-400.

I have yet to read ANYWHERE that the mali-400 beats the Adreno 220. Actually the exact opposite. It seems as though the Adreno 220 DEMOLISHES the 400.

"Also, a team known as Anandtech has done several tests on Adreno 220 GPU. One of them was the GLBenchmark 2.0, which records the performance of OpenGL ES 2.0 compatible devices such as Mali™-400 MP using two long suites that include a combination of different effects such as direct lighting, bump, environment, radiance mapping, soft shadows, texture based on the use of vertex shader, deferred multi-pass rendering, texture noise, etc. and the test showed that Adreno 220 GPU was 2.2 times faster than the other existing devices such as Mali-400 MP GPU."

"You can say that the chip has more potential, but if you can't see the results, then what's the point?"

Oh I'm not arguing this with you. You simply stated that the CPU on the EVO 3D wasn't up to par with the rest. Which is the sense that everything shows its superior to the rest. I have linked like 3 sources showing everything I claim so far as well.

"I sincerely doubt you would pick the 8660/Adreno 220 over the Exinos/Mali-400MP."

I sincerely say you're wrong. Everything I know about both would easily incline me towards the Adreno 220.

This has helped me learn a little more, so thanks for that. However I still say that the Mali400 on the GS2 has better performance. If it comes to stats, than the Adreno is ahead of the Mali. However going by benchmarks you can see that the Mali clearly outperforms it. IMHO the Mali400 is not the best GPU out there, but it is the fastest.
They'be been debating the same thing over at XDA, and while the Adreno 220 has everything to be more poweful, it simply isn't. I'm not sure if I'm getting my point across?
If you run a game or emulator on both phones, you will see that the GS2 pulls more FPS which translate to smoother gameplay. Also try running a flash video on both, the difference is clear.
On paper the Adreno 220 is "better", but in reality the Mali400 performs faster even if it's a "bad" choice for a GPU.

There is a bug currently that means the Mali doesnt always upclock from its idle speed when a game/benchamrk runs. It can be fixed with the Tegrak overclock app. Im currently running the GL Benckmark app to see what scores i get with the GPU correctly upclocked.

It seems odd that the mali is slower in this app, but kills everything in Nenamark 2.0

Ok i get 59.9FPS on the SGS2, thats hitting the 60fps limit..

Thats on all the Egypt tests with or without FSAA. The Mali is seriously fast!

It really is. The Anandtech benchmark he's refering to is an old one. It was done back when the GS2 was running Android 2.3.1 and at 1ghz. It wasn't consumer ready jet, and it now runs significantly faster. No matter how you slice it, the GPU on the GS2 performs faster.

Qhd has something like 30 percent more pixels to push than wvga. There are only two Qhd phones above the 3go on the list and one of them has the same chipset.

And these are just GL benchmarks (graphics), it says nothing about general processing power, I/O speed, or anything else.

Interesting that the Pro benchmark (second chart) shows the Droid 3 being beaten by the Evo 3D and Sensation and Optimus :)

Anandtech is my favorite hardware site. I love that they put their in depth review skills towards smart phones. They've been digging deep for what about 15 years now.

That said you guys at AndroidCentral are more fun. ;)

Why build such a great piece of hardware for verizon and not to put the best 4G radio in it. No LTE is going to kill sales.

Can someone clarify the suspected 512RAM on the Droid3?

How do you interpret that?
Is it 512MB dedicated to systems and/or 512MB Internal Memory? making it a 512MB+512MB? or is it 256MB+256MB (like the D1) making it a 512MB?

or is this 512MB number purely on handling system processing and the internal storage capacity is still unyet known? Why is it so hard to get this info? Especially since the D3 is already unleashed on the eastern hemisphere?

You're confusing RAM with internal memory. The 512 RAM on the Droid3 is specifically for RUNNING programs. It will have separate internal memory which is expandable with an SD card. For example, the original Evo has 512 MB RAM and 512MB internal storage (that's where the OS is installed) leaving something around 385MB internal storage available to the user.

Having insane amounts of RAM will allow you to have a million apps open at once without slowing down the phone, but then the phone has to be constantly powering all that RAM which will suck battery. Since Android sucks at multitasking (admit it, as those who came over from WebOS, like myself, will be quick to tell you) I don't really see much use for a ton of RAM. IMO, the 768MB available in phones like the MyTouch 4G and Sensation is the sweet spot.

The reason people are confused is because people, and articles, and ads keep referring to "storage" incorrectly as "memory". Oh well.

Separate from the RAM, the internal memory is listed at 16 gigs over at Droid Life. Is that enough for ya? :D

that is actually superb. How did I miss that info? Ive been hanging on to every single repetitive post of the D3 across mutliple tech blogs.

thanks for the clarification.
You just became the hottest girl I know. .. for today.
(just in case the lady @ home get's TOO upset abt that)
sorry if that disturbs you, hahaha

I don't care anymore for this phone. The OMAP4 is like the A5, you can bake it all you want with instructions to cheat benchmarks, but junk is still junk.

Its like the Exynos, it isn't even close to being faster then Tegra 2 and its very apparent.

Not to mention the fact in the end when it comes to graphics, if it isn't Tegra, it doesn't matter. All the high end games are coming out and they only work on Tegra.

So in other words guys: it may or may not be baked benchmarks, but nVidia doesn't care about OpenGL ES, they are going for a better standard and it only works on their hardware.

ok, Tegra 2 is good but games only made for tegra 2 do not only work on tegra 2 like Nvidia wants u to think. they are greedy and want you to buy there device. I guess you havent herd of Chainfire 3D yet, it is a app from the market you can download free after rooting your phone to make games think your phone is either quallcomm, SGX VR, or Tegra device's and so i did this and presto im playing Rip tide at full graphics on my samsung facinate sgx 540 and it runs smooth! sorry if you were fooled into buying a tegra 2 device to play games that acually still play on higher end phones such as SGX 540. so to say the least i was happy when i found this out. Best regards and never stop looking for the truth and getting the most out of your devices ;) if you have any questions email me

Its hardly noticeable and the effects can be done in other ways, its just that the Tegra has its own.. strengths and weaknesses. Its just nvidias way, they tried this in the PC industry years ago and it nearly killed the market completely.

Wrong, the Exynos is getting 53.1FPS on this test! look it up on their website. Mine got 59.9, which means its hitting the fps lock.

the reason i phone 4 is on the bottom of list is becuase it has one of the highest reselution screens out there and you have to compensate when looking at the graphics chip , the higher the res the harder it is to push triangles. if you had two phones with the same gpu but one had high res screen and other had lower res screen, the lower res screen would score higher

I hope people don't look at this and think their user experience with the phone will be affected at all based on this. I doubt you would be able to tell a difference in browsing, playing Angry Birds, or whatever else you do day to day on an EVO vs even the Optimus 3D. Benchmarks look pretty and are great for promoting the fanciest newest technology but it isn't going to change your user experience as drastically as it would seem.

I would take an EVO or iPhone for example and probably have a better experience than the The Droid 3 or whatever the best phone is that uses Motorola's Blur.

Don't buy a phone based on benchmarks.

The Samsung Galaxy S2 is getting and average of 53.1fps.. Mine is getting 59.9fps.. So much for the others eh?

Check on the GLbenchmark website if you need convincing.

I font think you all understand that the gpu in ANY smart phone is not a stand alone graphics source. Every gpu on the market as of now ,in a phone or tablet its directly dependant on the cpu also. To be honest I think the cpu/gpu combination its more of an mpu. With out one. The other is useless. Also there is no benchmark for graphics that is not impacted by the resolution of the display.
The iphone 4 scored low because it s cpu may be faster then the 3, but still uses the same gpu. And drives 4x the pixel count. That being said, I'm let down by the phone 4 when most people think its all powerful.
The low/mid range gpu and under clocked cpu make for better battery life and lower heat. But make it already kind of put dated spec wise (like most apple products)
The droid 3 also behind. A 1.1ghz omap 4440. Or a 1.5ghz omap 4460 with the power vr sgx 54X/MPX The first x standing for a 0,2, or 5 and the second x standing for a 2,4,8-or ultimately 16 is more future proof. But with each step up in numbers you have to account for battery drain. Leading to an overall huge phone that gets really hot. Also i would think that you would ned more ram to drive each cpu/gpu combo step up. Wich will in turn draw more power and craft more heat. That's why we are using the tech we are. I am almost certain that until we find the max clock speed allowed for the cpu that is combined with each the sgx340, mali 400, and the ULP (ultra low power) geforce. We will only find that at the 1 ghz dual core clock they are all pretty e evenly matched. All the way to the max clock speed. Wich I assume each is capable of being stable at 1.5

If you were to take the gs2 over the d3, it should be because the d3 uses a crappy screen and the gs2 uses a much better one.