8/11/2023 0 Comments Geekbench 4 cameraIn comparison, the Galaxy A54 scored 1,010 and 2,761 points when we ran the Geekbench test on it. On the Geekbench test, it returned a single-core score of 991 and a multi-core score of 2,551. The smartphone comes in a single 8GB RAM + 256GB storage variant. This is the same chip that powers the more expensive Galaxy A54 ( review ). Powering the Galaxy F54 is Samsung’s in-house Exynos 1380 SoC. Samsung Galaxy F54 review: Performance and Cameras The Galaxy F54 does not get an IP rating either. The lack of a stereo speaker does hurt a bit, especially at this price point. We were satisfied with the viewing angles on offer. The image quality is sharp and the punchy colours bring the videos to life. The 1080 x 2400p display provides HDR support for apps like Netflix and YouTube. Watching content on the Samsung Galaxy F54 was an enjoyable experience. Samsung rarely ever misses when it comes to displays. It is extremely fluid to use and the touch response is absolutely stellar. The Super AMOLED display has a refresh rate of 120Hz. The punch hole cutout for the selfie camera is slightly larger than what we are typically used to, but it is an improvement over the waterdrop notch any day. The 6.7-inch Super AMOLED display is surrounded by slim bezels on all sides. Samsung Galaxy F54 does not have stereo speakers. The hybrid SIM slot has been placed on the left edge of the smartphone and a secondary microphone has been mounted up top. On the bottom edge, you will find the microphone, a USB Type-C port, and the speaker grille. This power key also doubles as a fingerprint scanner. The right edge of the frame houses the volume rocker and the power key. The plastic back panel is a bit of a fingerprint magnet but there’s nothing a quick wipe of a micro fibre cloth can’t fix. Galaxy F54’s frame is sleeker than its A series counterparts. The curved back along with the curved edges give the device a nice in-hand feel. Sure, it is entirely made out of plastic, but the material used here feels a cut above the Galaxy A34 (which is priced similarly). The Galaxy F54’s form factor makes the best use of this design. The smartphone gets the all-too-familiar vertical array for the three cameras at the back. In either case, these results paint a competitive picture for the desktop PC space soon, one in which price (and supply in light of the shortages) will be exceedingly important.If you’ve been paying attention to Samsung releases this year, you’d have noticed a uniform design language across all of the products. We expect more mature BIOS revisions will be headed out before launch. This is but one benchmark, though, and several factors could influence the score, including early firmware with the Core i9-11900K. Strangely though, the 5800X pulls ahead of the 11900K in the multi-core department by 17%, which is a larger delta than we expected because these are both eight-core chips. Here the 11900K pulls ahead of the 5800X by a mere 4.4%. Increased IPC truly floats all boats.īut against the 5800X, the single-core results are much closer, naturally, with Zen 3's much higher IPC performance. That's actually pretty impressive, though: The ten-core Core i9-10900K has two more cores than the eight-core Core i9-11900K, so we expected a much larger advantage in favor of the chip with two extra cores. However, looking at the multi-core results, the inverse happens and the 10900K is 6.5% faster due to its higher core count. The Core i9-11900K was ~15% faster than its predecessor, the 10900K, in the single-core tests. Intel claims a 19% increase in IPC for the Rocket Lake chips, and that appears to be roughly accurate in this test. The big takeaway here - don't look too deeply into the overall Geekbench 5 test results. In fact, Geekbench's developer has stated that the AVX-512 testing disparity will be addressed in the Geekbench 6 benchmark that's due out later this year. Geekbench 4 isn't perfect either, but its lack of AVX-512 support makes the test much more accurate when gauging per-core performance without using an exotic SIMD instruction (AVX-512) that has no meaningful uptake in mainstream desktop PC software. This can lead to an inaccurate picture that makes Rocket Lake appear better in relation to AMD's competing chips, not to mention Intel's previous-gen models. In turn, this inflates Rocket Lake's overall Geekbench 5 scores against all other processors that don't support AVX-512. We've encountered strange phenomenons with Geekbench 5, where its use of AVX-512 can widely skew the results in the encryption subtest. In a nutshell, you shouldn't trust Geekbench 5's overall scores as an accurate measure of Rocket Lake's performance, and there's a technical reason why.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |