The OMAP 4330 by TI is no slouch whatsoever - and they borked the GPU id - it's the PowerVR SGX540 (TI's site is down, I wanted to confirm that at the source - if incorrect, I'll repost on that one).
Also, MelissaM did a GREAT job on clarifying the 8660 Cortex A8 issue, so I'll just quote her:
Except the Qualcomm 8660 is not A8. It's Qualcomm's own modified ARM architecture, Scorpion. Now if A9 & Scorpion are both running 1.2GHz, the A9 may still be slightly more powerful, but it's not as clearcut as A8 v A9. And processor power aside, it sounds like S II has GPS issues along with other QC problems. Who knows, the 3D/Sensation may have their own QC issues, but unfortunately we won't know until they are released (hopefully soon).
: "The third contender in 2011 is Qualcomm’s Scorpion core. Scorpion is a dual-issue, mostly in-order microprocessor architecture developed entirely by Qualcomm. The Scorpion core implements the same ARMv7-A instruction set as the Cortex A8 and A9, however the CPU is not based on ARM’s Cortex A8 or A9. This is the point many seem to be confused about. Despite high level similarities, the Scorpion core is not Qualcomm’s implementation of a Cortex A8. Qualcomm holds an ARM architecture license which allows it to produce microprocessors that implement an ARM instruction set. This is akin to AMD holding an x86 license that allows it to produce microprocessors that are binary compatible with Intel CPUs. However calling AMD’s Phenom II a version of Intel’s Core i7 would be incorrect. Just like calling Scorpion a Cortex A8 is incorrect."
The little I know:
What sets the OMAP series apart from others is their superior glue logic between cores. So, it's not just the CPU or GPU that needs calling out - it's how to get that data in and out of the various processor cores and that's traditionally been an area where the OMAP architecture excels.
Also - it's important to ferret out the other cores, because benchmarks don't really get it for that, from what I've seen (and I could be wrong on that). In addition to cpu and gpu cores, each of the SoCs in question also have cores for image processing or digital signal processing. (Qualcomm has locked out the sources I used to use for citations on what they really had inside except for developers and TI is always changing their site, so I don't know if I'll be able to get the architectural diagrams for the OMAP 4 like I did for the 3 last year (I'm constrained to using only publicly-available source material)).
One big advantage that the Snapdragons have held in the past is a 128-bit wide bus where others used 64 - a different but worthy approach to moving data around quickly within a core or between cores, as opposed to superior glue logic circuitry.
The takeaway - I'd be happy with either processor, and I'd care only a little about core-only benchmarks on these because they're truly designed as system devices and need to be evaluated with real-world system-use cases.
I've read in a number of places, but haven't been able to confirm, that the 3vo will only do 24 fps when recording 3D at 720p, and 30 fps for 1080p.
For real comparison capabilities, I'll be watching for (confirmed) metrics like that for both phones - that might be very telling indeed as it would bridge from a bunch of buzzwords to how the beasts stack up in the end.
And I will say this about the LG's 3D performance - one of the Apple blogs really tore into it as just completely terrible, so it's likely to be quite good.