Most people that have an understanding of the purpose of a benchmark. Such as Ars Technica and Anandtech.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Samsung Again Caught Inflating Benchmarking Scores, Phil Schiller Calls 'Shenanigans'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Most people that have an understanding of the purpose of a benchmark. Such as Ars Technica and Anandtech.
I think now it is painfully clear, that in your reoccurring defense of Samsung, (probably in your strange quest to be provide some sort of counter balance in this forum
) you have *absolutely* no clue what you are talking about. You have no idea about Samsung, its position and influence in South Korea, etc. Greetings from Asia.
I think now it is painfully clear, that in your reoccurring defense of Samsung, (probably in your strange quest to be provide some sort of counter balance in this forum
Greetings from Asia.
I'm sorry - are you suggesting that there are companies that aren't corrupt in one way or another
Further - can you not sense that I was speaking tongue-in-cheek/in hyperbole.
Please don't pretend to know why I post what I post or what I do or do not know about any company. You have no idea what I know or don't know.
Eyeroll indeed.
What suggests you that "most people that have an understanding of the purpose of a benchmark" are those 2 websites?
What right do those 2 websites have in order to judge negatively a company like Samsung, which operates following its own choices, in a field where there are no standards at all outside hardware specifications?
I'd like to know also, what are you referring to as "purpose of a benchmark", and what makes individuals knowledgeable of it?
Also, where do those 2 websites suggest that Samsung's way is not the correct way, since you're citing them as saying exactly that?
As I said, no one can objectively judge what is the best approach at benchmarks. Different companies can choose different approaches, and have all the rights to do it.
No, I suggest that those two sites are knowledgeable examples.
The same right anyone has to express their opinion based on facts and experience.
Common sense and a dictionary for a start.
Ars Technica: "we can confidently say that Samsung appears to be artificially boosting the US Note 3's benchmark scores with a special, high-power CPU mode that kicks in when the device runs a large number of popular benchmarking apps."
Anandtech: "The State of Cheating in Android Benchmarks"
Sure you can. Not cheating would be one thing to consider.
You stated, "Most people that have an understanding of the purpose of a benchmark."
Two "knowledgeable examples" are not "most people". They are just two knowledgeable examples, so your claim is not backed up by anything.
I agree. So both Anandtech and Ars Technica's views on Samsung's way to consider benchmarks are just as valuable as any other source that claims the opposite. Still don't see how their opinions would hold any importance in a judgement toward Samsung, being missing any norm or standard in those kind of benchmarks. Samsung can choose to behave however they want in terms of benchmarking.
So, "common sense" is all you're basing on as for "purpose of a benchmark".
Hopefully you're aware of how objective and scientific "common sense" is.
There is no negative attitude in what Samsung is doing. That is just a questionable statement describing a process. It is questionable because the term "artificial boosting" can be quite malicious, without any need for it. Samsung lets hardware work at full potential within a benchmarking application, while competitors choose not to. Samsung is not faking results, they are letting their hardware run at its maximum.
Again, that is not supporting what you have stated. No one is saying Samsung's way is not correct, simply because there are no norms in benchmarking. There is no reference, so no approach can be correct or not.
I could state that Apple is technically cheating, because their approach is different from Samsung's.
And it would be correct, since every company can make their own rules on this.
Well if you post a link to that story because I haven't read anything about then I can provide you with my views. Ok?
Seems staged to me, I can't seriously see an exec throwing someone elses iPhone or any mobile phone to the floor, I never knew about the story so I am not hypocritical, I don't read Nokia forums, do you? If you don't then you must be a hypocrite too then?
But if that was genuine then it's equally as sad for another high end exec to act so unprofessionally.
By relative I mean that if the same Geekbench version is used to (honestly) score several devices, I can figure out the which will run better in my usage. That's what I mean by relative vs seeing it as an absolute - especially for people that the absolute scores don't mean much if anything to.
I think now it is painfully clear, that in your reoccurring defense of Samsung, (probably in your strange quest to be provide some sort of counter balance in this forum
Greetings from Asia.
South Korea would be nothing without Samsung. Samsung is the reason why South Korea is the leader in component technology. Almost every electronics device you see around you is powered by Samsung technology.
Sure, Samsung's CEO engaged in tax dodging once, but the benefit that Samsung gives to the South Korean economy far outweighs a few million in taxes.
Apple has not been shown (recently; there was the G5/P4 episode a while back) to make their hardware perform differently for benchmark programs than it will for any other program.
This isn't even a case of Samsung running some benchmarks on their own phone and several others, and doing so in a way that they know will leverage their own phone's strong points.
Last edited:
It's on the front page. It's after the original samsung cheating article, but before the chart of who was cheating they just posted (still full-size showing)
LostSoul80 said:
If a device has one of the latest, most powerful mobile CPUs available on the market, 3 GB of Ram, etc, and yet is suffering from stuttering animations, unresponsivess (like so many of its predecessors) and takes 2 minutes (!!!) to open a simple Gallery App, one starts to wonder about the relevance of these benchmark tests anyway.
No wonder a few months ago the HTC One was described in reviews as the more responsive, brisker phone compared to the GS4, despite having lower benchmark figures.
You stated, "Most people that have an understanding of the purpose of a benchmark."
Two "knowledgeable examples" are not "most people". They are just two knowledgeable examples, so your claim is not backed up by anything.
I agree. So both Anandtech and Ars Technica's views on Samsung's way to consider benchmarks are just as valuable as any other source that claims the opposite. Still don't see how their opinions would hold any importance in a judgement toward Samsung, being missing any norm or standard in those kind of benchmarks. Samsung can choose to behave however they want in terms of benchmarking.
So, "common sense" is all you're basing on as for "purpose of a benchmark".
Hopefully you're aware of how objective and scientific "common sense" is.
There is no negative attitude in what Samsung is doing. That is just a questionable statement describing a process. It is questionable because the term "artificial boosting" can be quite malicious, without any need for it. Samsung lets hardware work at full potential within a benchmarking application, while competitors choose not to. Samsung is not faking results, they are letting their hardware run at its maximum.
Again, that is not supporting what you have stated. No one is saying Samsung's way is not correct, simply because there are no norms in benchmarking. There is no reference, so no approach can be correct or not.
I could state that Apple is technically cheating, because their approach is different from Samsung's.
And it would be correct, since every company can make their own rules on this.
Like I said, you have to start with an understanding of the purpose of the benchmark. Evidently, you don't have that if you believe there is no right or wrong between the two approaches.And if the purpose of the benchmark was to compare the maximum performance of the processor, that would be fine. But it's not. It's to compare the relative performance of the phones for certain tasks.
I'm surprised by the sluggishness of the gallery app. Never imagined that will be so slow, how can anybody accept that?
I remember when I saw the first iPhone / iPod Touch, I was so amazed by the speed of the photo app and the responsiveness of the pinch to zoom etc. I thought that every smartphone after the iPhone will mimic this but apparently I was wrong.
Android users accept a lot of things. Even if you can't be as good as Apple, I still don't get how companies that stuff so much hardware into their devices can be THAT bad.
Since the purpose of benchmark is based on common sense, as you stated, there is no right or wrong between the two approaches.
Unless you can show me a standard, or normative, where there is an accepted description of how benchmarks should be performed, both Samsung and Apple are behaving correctly.
What says that, common sense?
That is your own opinion. Two systems can be compared by their maximum performance. That's, in fact, the entire idea behind benchmarks.
Also, would you mind explaining what a "relative performance" is? You have stated that the purpose of benchmark is not to compare the maximum performance of the processor. You can compare the maximum performance of two systems, and have a relative measurement out of it.
Oh, and didn't you know? Geekbench is all about the performance of the processor. Rather, the maximum performance of the processor.
This thread is revealing the emotional attachment so many people have to anything they percieve as a threat to Apple. Too bad they refuse to step back, look at the big picture & just laugh this off. It's nothing, but it's been made into a big deal because one of Apples rock star execs addressed it. Oh my what a travesty
It isn't nothing, it's dishonesty on the part of Samsung which could mislead consumers. Yes once can find many examples on Apple's part but that is no reason not to call attention to these things no matter who does them.
Looks like nearly all of the top manufacturers are rigging their phones, not just Samsung.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/3/4797926/samsung-htc-lg-asus-caught-
inflating-android-benchmark-scores
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/3/4797926/samsung-htc-lg-asus-caught-
inflating-android-benchmark-scores
No, I stated you could start with common sense and a dictionary.
You are trying to create ambiguity where there is none. Samsung and others are cheating. If they included an extra battery that was only accessible during battery tests, that's cheating. If they including extra pixels in the screen that are only turned on for screen tests, that's cheating. If they filled the device with helium to decrease its weight when it is weighed, that's cheating. If they remove a portion of the case when it's measured, that's cheating.Kaffee: Corporal, would you turn to the page in this book that says where the mess hall is, please.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, Lt. Kaffee, that's not in the book, sir.
Kaffee: You mean to say in all your time at Gitmo you've never had a meal?
Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.
Kaffee: I don't understand. How did you know where the mess hall was if it's not in this book?
Cpl. Barnes: Well, I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.
Kaffee: No more questions.
Yep. That's just not purpose of benchmarking smartphones. Overclocking the processor specifically for benchmarks at a speed not available to the apps that the customer would use is cheating. It is intended to deceive the people who are comparing the relative performance of various smartphones.
Absolutely. But, again, that requires everyone to be aware that's what is being compared.
one thing i know for sure. u are obsessed with siding samsung samcraig..on almost every occassion I have seen in this forum (maybe i see only the negative ones from u but thats my perspective)
It's safe to assume all android benchmark scores are a scam and not to be trusted.
I'd like to see Anandtech use some type of in house benchmarking suite that only they have access to these scams from happening.
I'd like to see Anandtech use some type of in house benchmarking suite that only they have access to these scams from happening.