Galaxy S2 or Evo 3D

[DjentleGiant]

Hey guys Its my first post here, so excuse my nooby-ness

I have narrowed down a bunch of android phones, in particular the GS2 and Evo 3D. They cost about the same on the service provider I'm planning to go with (Crazy John's Australia)

As I'm a poor student , I only have about $40 a month to spend on my phone. Which brings me to a point - If I get the GS2, I will have to go on a lower priced plan, If I get the Evo, I can go on the high plan (more credit).

I personally like the fact that the GS2 comes with 16gb internal memory, a 8mp camera, and a super nice screen. Where as the Evo 3D probably makes up for it with the higher res screen, although not as nice imo. I also have a feeling the Evo 3D won't be as future proof as the GS2 (Long story short, I'm using a Nokia 5800, pretty horrible phone, I'd like something futureproof for 2 years).

I'd like to hear what you guys think!

Cheers!

Eddy

 

[chanchan05]

Just my take: SGS2

1. The screen resolution difference aint that great, and coming from a 5800, it wont matter which one you take. Both have overkill resolution for current apps, so they're future proof for at least 1 year and a half. Heck even a plain SGS is future proof for about more than a year (by that time it would have specs equal to mid-range phones).

2. Not sure if the Evo 3D has gorilla glass, but I'd take the SGS2 which sure has it, scratch proof and harder to break than normal glass panes used on phones.

3. Galaxy S2 has a 32gb version, but either way, you get at least 15gb more space on it maxed out than the Evo 3D can ever hope for.

4. 3D imaging and videos on a small screen is just pure gimmick to me. Doesnt matter if it looks good, as I wont be spending my time ogling my 3D screen for hours on end. I'd rather take the excellent 8mp camera of an SGS2.

5. Exynos>Qualcomm chipset processor if i remember correctly. Doesnt matter if they're both clocked at 1.2Ghz dual core, SGS2 processor is faster. However GPU is a bit iffy here. The Adreno 220 on the Evo3D is better than the Mali 400 on the SGS2 head to head, but the bigger resolution on the Evo will put some heavier load on it than the SGS2 screen puts on its own GPU. However, since the SGS2 also has the better processor, so its real hard to say which one would be better. Probably everyday use will feel the same IMHO. Some games will just run better on one or the other.

6. Talking about future proof, if NFC does become a future standard on phones, SGS2 has NFC support, Evo 3D doesnt.

 

[DjentleGiant]

Just my take: SGS2

1. The screen resolution difference aint that great, and coming from a 5800, it wont matter which one you take. Both have overkill resolution for current apps, so they're future proof for at least 1 year and a half. Heck even a plain SGS is future proof for about more than a year (by that time it would have specs equal to mid-range phones).

2. Not sure if the Evo 3D has gorilla glass, but I'd take the SGS2 which sure has it, scratch proof and harder to break than normal glass panes used on phones.

3. Galaxy S2 has a 32gb version, but either way, you get at least 15gb more space on it maxed out than the Evo 3D can ever hope for.

4. 3D imaging and videos on a small screen is just pure gimmick to me. Doesnt matter if it looks good, as I wont be spending my time ogling my 3D screen for hours on end. I'd rather take the excellent 8mp camera of an SGS2.

5. Exynos>Qualcomm chipset processor if i remember correctly. Doesnt matter if they're both clocked at 1.2Ghz dual core, SGS2 processor is faster. However GPU is a bit iffy here. The Adreno 220 on the Evo3D is better than the Mali 400 on the SGS2 head to head, but the bigger resolution on the Evo will put some heavier load on it than the SGS2 screen puts on its own GPU. However, since the SGS2 also has the better processor, so its real hard to say which one would be better. Probably everyday use will feel the same IMHO. Some games will just run better on one or the other.

6. Talking about future proof, if NFC does become a future standard on phones, SGS2 has NFC support, Evo 3D doesnt.

Thanks for the reply!

How would battery life be? I usually use my iPod for alot of my doodling on the internet at home, so I guess I'd only use the GS2/Evo outside.

 

[GoldenBulletXD]

When are you going to use 3D on a phone? SG2 all the way

 

[Shocky]

If you really want 3D get the Evo, otherwise get the Galaxy S2.

Just my take: SGS2

1. The screen resolution difference aint that great, and coming from a 5800, it wont matter which one you take. Both have overkill resolution for current apps, so they're future proof for at least 1 year and a half. Heck even a plain SGS is future proof for about more than a year (by that time it would have specs equal to mid-range phones).

I would agree resolution difference here doesnt really matter, it's something allot of users just won't notice. Users are allot more likely to notice the deeper blacks, vibrant colours and viewing angles on the OLED screen.

5. The Adreno 220 on the Evo3D is better than the Mali 400 on the SGS2 head to head,

No, Mali 400MP in the Galaxy S II is allot faster than Adreno 220, it's not even close.

Read this, note the off screen test the Galaxy S II still scores more then the Adreno 220 with a higher resolution.

AnandTech - Samsung Galaxy S 2 (International) Review - The Best, Redefined

 

[chanchan05]

No, Mali 400MP in the Galaxy S II is allot faster than Adreno 220, it's not even close.

You misunderstand. The Adreno 220 itself is faster than a Mali-400, what made the SGS2 differ is in the SoC chipset itself: Exynos vs Qualcomm. In entirety, Exynos>>>Qualcomm, as shown by your link, where they pitted an SGS2 with Exynos chipset against the Qualcomm run phones. Your link doesnt show the quality of the GPUs themselves against each other, they are pitting entire chipsets on the phones in which case the tests is also hampered by other stuff not entirely related to the chipsets and GPU alone.

But if we're talking about the GPU themselves alone, Adreno 220 is better. Benchmarks do not necessarily translate to reality. Not to mention that Adreno supports more games than the Mali, for which you still need Chainfire.

Its like when you get a PC with i7 and a 512gb VRAM GPU, then let it run against a normal dual core PC with 1gb VRAM GPU, both CPU running at same clock. The i7 will still be faster and better than the dual core.

EDIT: Another thing, Samsung's lower res screen than an Evo 3D's will always lead to better frame rates (thus higher scores in benchmarks), but it doesnt necessarily mean than Mali is better. Its like comparing the FPS rates of 2 computers with one running on high settings while the other is running on medium.

 

[Shocky]

You misunderstand. The Adreno 220 itself is faster than a Mali-400, But if we're talking about the GPU themselves alone, Adreno 220 is better.

Mali 400MP is faster than Adreno 220 is this case, benchmarks show this. I don't know why you think otherwise, if you can provide numbers to back that up then do so otherwise your just wasting my time and original posters.

EDIT: Another thing, Samsung's lower res screen than an Evo 3D's will always lead to better frame rates (thus higher scores in benchmarks), but it doesnt necessarily mean than Mali is better. Its like comparing the FPS rates of 2 computers with one running on high settings while the other is running on medium.

I already commented on that, if you bothered to read the article Mali 400MP scored higher even at 720p.

 

[B2L]

Mali 400MP is faster than Adreno 220 is this case, benchmarks show this. I don't know why you think otherwise, if you can provide numbers to back that up then do so otherwise your just wasting my time and original posters.



I already commented on that, if you bothered to read the article Mali 400MP scored higher even at 720p.

I can back you up on this, I have seen several stories comparing the two GPU's. The Mali 400MP outperforms it by quite a bit, and I can also provide links.

To the OP my vote is definitely for the GS2.

 

[chanchan05]

I already commented on that, if you bothered to read the article Mali 400MP scored higher even at 720p.

Again I repeat, the article you posted isnt much use in comparing Mali 400 and Adreno 220 THEMSELVES ONLY for the mere fact that the two GPU's are on different chipsets, with the Adreno 220 sitting on a worse SoC than the one the Mali is on (Exynos vs Qualcomm). It however proves that the SGS2 is better than the Evo 3D in the graphics department. To clarify what I am saying, in the same link you posted, there are about 5 phones that use the same GPU (SGX540) but all get different scores, at times even wildly different and removed scores from others with same GPU simply because of the different chipsets.

I would use the same link you posted: The Adreno 220 beats the Mali 400 in millions of triangles per second. Thats the only thing needed to look at really IMO when comparing GPUs alone. The other parts of the test are affected by the other parts of chipsets (processing power, SoC architecture, etc) AFAIK, which is why I wont really dig much into those benchmarks in comparing GPUs, no matter how good these things are, performance may be enhanced or hampered depending on how well the manufacturers of the SoC made them. The benchmarks are useful in seeing how well the devices would work in stress situations though.

The true reason why the SGS2 aced those tests in the link you show is not the Mali 400, its the Exynos chipset architecture. The Evo 3D is still using the Scorpion core by qualcomm, which is quite outdated, giving performance comparable to a cortex A8. Samsung's Exynos however is giving cortex A9 performance.

In raw power, yes, I believe that the Mali 400 is greater than the Adreno 220. But its not just about power, there is also quality of rendering to think about. The graphics rendered by Adreno 220 would be smoother and better than the Mali 400, despite the Mali being to render it faster. To quote tolis626 from XDA:

"When you buy a car what do you check first?Quality or horsepower?
If you are a horsepower guy,go for the Mali mp400.If you want quality,then go for the GeForce of the Tegra 2.If though you want a good balance between the two,you should go Adreno 220.It's more powerful than the GeForce but less powerful than the Mali.It also plays more games than the Mali but not as many as the GeForce does."

How do you rate a GPU? By the quality of its output (Adreno 220), or by how fast it churns them out (Mali 400)? You decide I guess.

 

[Shocky]

chanchan05, theres more to performance than triangles per second, if that's all that matters why does Mali 400MP do so well in the tests actually designed to represent gaming performance?

Your putting all the blame for these results on the CPU, this is a graphics benchmark, the CPU doesnt make much difference at all. Your talking nonsense.

At the end of the day you have to backup what your saying, anyone can make performance claims. Until you can do that I'm not going to take you seriously, walls of text won't make it so.

 

[chanchan05]

chanchan05, theres more to performance than triangles per second, if that's all that matters why does Mali 400MP do so well in the tests actually designed to represent gaming performance?

Your putting all the blame for these results on the CPU, this is a graphics benchmark, the CPU doesnt make much difference at all. Your talking nonsense.

At the end of the day you have to backup what your saying, anyone can make performance claims. Until you can do that I'm not going to take you seriously, walls of text won't make it so.

Considering that XDA concensus that Adreno 220 is better, I'd rather believe them.

I'm not blaming CPU. CPU is not equal to chipset, nor is GPU equal to chipset, not is chipset performance equal to GPU performance. As I said, the very link showing test results which you claim to represent the Mali 400's better performance is already flawed, and is actually showing itself to be inaccurate for basis of GPU performance to anyone who looks.

 

[Shocky]

Considering that XDA concensus that Adreno 220 is better, I'd rather believe them.

Well I'm hoping you've learned something from this but I doubt it, don't believe everything you read from users on forums, even from XDA. If they can't back up claims with something substantial move on, which is what I'm going to do now.

 

[chanchan05]

Well I'm hoping you've learned something from this but I doubt it, don't believe everything you read from users on forums, even from XDA. If they can't back up claims with something substantial move on, which is what I'm going to do now.

Haha. One thing I've learned long before is that benchmarks only reflect the performance of the phone itself, not the GPU, nor the CPU. Considering that The Exynos chipset architecture already blows the Snapdragon away: multiple channel DDR3 interfaces compared to qualcomm's single channel DDR2, even if you switch graphics chips, the Exynos would still eat the Snapdragon. Again I repeat, when the link you post cant even measure the GPU according to capabilities correctly (same GPU different scores), its not a good basis for comparison of GPUs as it is a basis for comparisons of chipsets.

Each to his own on what to believe. I simply believe that the whole (chipset) is not equal to the sum of its parts (CPU, chipset, memory drivers, etc).

 

[Roze]

I'm in the same boat...I prefer the SGS2. Only issue I have is the SGS2 LTE that my carrier is releasing won't have the Exynos chip set but the qualcomm chip set *cries*

 

[chanchan05]

I'm in the same boat...I prefer the SGS2. Only issue I have is the SGS2 LTE that my carrier is releasing won't have the Exynos chip set but the qualcomm chip set *cries*

T-Mo? Well it would still be better than the Evo's version of the Qualcomm processor. Its almost identical but will be clocked to 1.5Ghz instead of 1.2Ghz.

 

[Roze]

T-Mo? Well it would still be better than the Evo's version of the Qualcomm processor. Its almost identical but will be clocked to 1.5Ghz instead of 1.2Ghz.

I'm with Rogers (Canada). My old Nexus1 had the Qualcomm chipset and I was not too happy with the performance. I feel that the Tegra2 would have been better than the Qualcomm.

 

[Roze]

I'm with Rogers (Canada). My old Nexus1 had the Qualcomm chipset and I was not too happy with the performance. I feel that the Tegra2 would have been better than the Qualcomm.

So I was reading TMo's SGS2 for its 4G network and a commenter explains why it is using Qualcomm:

I think the author of this article was going out of his way to portray T-Mobile negatively.

Any ounce of research would indicate that T-Mobile requested their version of the Galaxy S II to support HSPA+ 4G all the way up to 42mbps. The Exynos processor does not support this so Samsung had to use a processor that does.

Evidently the Qualcomm can handle a higher 42 Mbps HSPA+ .. the Exynos maxes out at 21 ... As you know T Mobile has been upgrading their network, this gives them a phone that can use it.. Will be interesting to see how the rest of the software performs in comparison.

The SGS2 will be an LTE device, so I guess it makes sense that it'll have Qualcomm.