GFXBench 3.0: A Fresh Look At Mobile Benchmarking

High-Level Test Results: Manhattan

Manhattan is a complex OpenGL ES 3.0-based test that takes place in a city at night. Its graphics pipeline is based on deferred shading. The geometry pass employs multiple render targets (MRTS). Diffuse and specular lighting is calculated for more than 60 lights. And the test also features cube map reflection and emission, triplanar mapping, and instanced mesh rendering. There's even a cool Theora-based video playback system that leverages asynchronous texture streaming.

As you might have guessed, of GFXBench's components, this one is the most modern.

The Manhattan test uses a combination of traditional forward and more modern deferred rendering processes in separate passes, along with bloom and depth of field added in the post process pass. The rendering order is as follows:

GFXBench 3.0 Manhattan Render Pipeline Diagram (Select To Enlarge)GFXBench 3.0 Manhattan Render Pipeline Diagram (Select To Enlarge)

It’s important to note that only some of our devices can run Manhattan due to its OpenGL ES 3.0 requirement, which means at least iOS 7 and Android 4.3.

On-Screen

Let’s see how our devices handle Manhattan at their respective native screen resolutions.

Apple's iPhone 5s easily walks away with the crown, turning in more than double the rendered frames as Google's Nexus 5. Clearly, its native sub-720p resolution is a huge advantage.

Of the Android-based devices, the Nexus 5 finishes in the lead with a substantial advantage over the larger Nexus 7. That's unsurprising, considering its Adreno 330 GPU tends to finish at the top of the charts. The 2013 Google Nexus 7 puts in a decent showing with a slower Adreno 320 implementation and a 1920x1200 native resolution. Samsung's Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 is the real disappointment, as its ARM Mali-T628MP6 GPU falls to last place. A native QHD resolution of 2560x1600 does the tablet no favors.

Off-Screen

At a fixed resolution of 1920x1080 rendered off-screen, we get a better sense of each SoC's performance, separate of the device's display.

The order changes slightly, but Apple's iPhone still enjoys a substantial lead. The Nexus 5 takes second place once again as well, though it renders fewer frames than the previous test. That's strange since its target resolution is the same. Perhaps there is some overhead associated with rendering off-screen. Samsung's Galaxy Note 10.1” 2014 Edition and Google's Nexus 7 swap places, with less than 10% separating them. Unfortunately, their performance is quite modest.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
21 comments
    Your comment
  • I was just about to write "why not WP", but then I remember WP games run on DirectX.
    0
  • Its cool u guys put so much effort into this but tbh most of the benchmark results seem to be completely random. Phones with faster SoC's performing slower and vice versa. I think there is no point at all benching a phone because 1. The benchmarking software is a POS and unreliable and 2. The phone OS's and apps are all complete POSs and act completely random in all kinda situations. I'd say just buy the phone with a fast SoC that looks the best to u and when it starts acting like a POS (which they all start doing in the end) buy a new one.
    -2
  • You show those dumb nay sayers, Apple.
    -1
  • What kind of bs is this? Force 720p on all devices and you'll see what happens to your precious 5s. Even my Zl murdered it.
    -6
  • Why No mention about MX3 and Note beat iphone 5s?
    -2
  • The only relevant benchmarks are the first two because they are full-fletch 3D graphics, which is won by the most portable device; The iPhone. The rest of the benchies are just primitive 2D graphics which is irrelevant. Android devices won all those in flying colours.
    -1
  • Well I have a smart phone but that is so I can receive business emails on the go, I have a tablet because it is great for watching movies on the go. Do I want to find out if there are any faster devices to do those things, not really while what I got is sufficient. I leave all the heavy tasks to the computers.
    -1
  • Quote:
    The only relevant benchmarks are the first two because they are full-fletch 3D graphics, which is won by the most portable device; The iPhone. The rest of the benchies are just primitive 2D graphics which is irrelevant. Android devices won all those in flying colours.
    If those are the only two benchmarks relevant to you, then I wonder why you are using a phone and not a 3DS or something. But seriously, most of the other devices have more than a million more pixels then the iPhone, so this benchmark is not so telling. It was mentioned before, but it would be nice to test at a given resolution, although as suppose applications don't give you an option on the phone.
    2
  • Quote:
    Quote:
    The only relevant benchmarks are the first two because they are full-fletch 3D graphics, which is won by the most portable device; The iPhone. The rest of the benchies are just primitive 2D graphics which is irrelevant. Android devices won all those in flying colours.
    If those are the only two benchmarks relevant to you, then I wonder why you are using a phone and not a 3DS or something. But seriously, most of the other devices have more than a million more pixels then the iPhone, so this benchmark is not so telling. It was mentioned before, but it would be nice to test at a given resolution, although as suppose applications don't give you an option on the phone.
    It does give the option to force some specific resolution. Don't know why this "review" didn't do it. That's what I've been trying to say from the start.
    2
  • Quote:
    Quote:
    The only relevant benchmarks are the first two because they are full-fletch 3D graphics, which is won by the most portable device; The iPhone. The rest of the benchies are just primitive 2D graphics which is irrelevant. Android devices won all those in flying colours.
    If those are the only two benchmarks relevant to you, then I wonder why you are using a phone and not a 3DS or something. But seriously, most of the other devices have more than a million more pixels then the iPhone, so this benchmark is not so telling. It was mentioned before, but it would be nice to test at a given resolution, although as suppose applications don't give you an option on the phone.
    It does give the option to force some specific resolution. Don't know why this "review" didn't do it. That's what I've been trying to say from the start.
    0
  • 1588084 said:
    Quote:
    Quote:
    The only relevant benchmarks are the first two because they are full-fletch 3D graphics, which is won by the most portable device; The iPhone. The rest of the benchies are just primitive 2D graphics which is irrelevant. Android devices won all those in flying colours.
    If those are the only two benchmarks relevant to you, then I wonder why you are using a phone and not a 3DS or something. But seriously, most of the other devices have more than a million more pixels then the iPhone, so this benchmark is not so telling. It was mentioned before, but it would be nice to test at a given resolution, although as suppose applications don't give you an option on the phone.
    It does give the option to force some specific resolution. Don't know why this "review" didn't do it. That's what I've been trying to say from the start.

    ... you guys realize that the off-screen tests render at 1080p, right? That's the whole point, to make direct performance comparisons regardless of a devices display resolution. It's also explained in the performance results.

    On a different note, I find it amazing how consistently and predictably the community on this site tries to discredit an objective review when the performance results favor an Apple device in any way. This isn't exactly breaking news for anyone who's familiar with SOC performance. Please try to set aside your childish biases and just accept the results for what they are. The A7 is a powerful SOC, get over it.
    4
  • Looks like imagination techs powervr and the radeon..I mean adreno own.
    0
  • Quote:
    1588084 said:
    Quote:
    Quote:
    The only relevant benchmarks are the first two because they are full-fletch 3D graphics, which is won by the most portable device; The iPhone. The rest of the benchies are just primitive 2D graphics which is irrelevant. Android devices won all those in flying colours.
    If those are the only two benchmarks relevant to you, then I wonder why you are using a phone and not a 3DS or something. But seriously, most of the other devices have more than a million more pixels then the iPhone, so this benchmark is not so telling. It was mentioned before, but it would be nice to test at a given resolution, although as suppose applications don't give you an option on the phone.
    It does give the option to force some specific resolution. Don't know why this "review" didn't do it. That's what I've been trying to say from the start.
    ... you guys realize that the off-screen tests render at 1080p, right? That's the whole point, to make direct performance comparisons regardless of a devices display resolution. It's also explained in the performance results.On a different note, I find it amazing how consistently and predictably the community on this site tries to discredit an objective review when the performance results favor an Apple device in any way. This isn't exactly breaking news for anyone who's familiar with SOC performance. Please try to set aside your childish biases and just accept the results for what they are. The A7 is a powerful SOC, get over it.
    I love people like you who claim to be some proffesinal "SoC experts" online while we the rest of us don't know nothing.A7 is a powerful SoC but the GPU is the same powervr as many other devices have. Apple tweaked the cpu cores only (at least going by the news).You talk about the off-screen tests which show exactly that the Android powered devices clearly pull back into the game with the A7, only one's the iPhone gets are the on screen tests which the iPhone runs at 720 and the androids run at 1080 - million(s) of more pixels to process then of course the load on the gpu is bigger therefor slower results. That's exactly why this review needs to force 720 on everything which you can easily do in the app itself on android.The two cores in an A7 are tweaked so much it keeps up with quad-core SD's etc, I got to give them that. But don't come rushing in telling that you know it all and everyone else are just dumb.
    -1
  • apple has a good phone with the iPhone5s....not bad, considering how small it is....powerful indeed
    0
  • Why don't they do a chart that includes scores changed to the same resolution? I understand why they have these original charts that show performance on the devices screen, but why don't they have a chart with that shows real hardware performance?
    -1
  • Nexus 5 is slowest example of snapdragon 800. Why didn't you use Note 3?
    -1
  • ART or Dalvik on the KitKat Androids?
    0
  • Hmm well just did tests of the first two benches with my stock Nexus 4 running ART runtime and the scores were - 525 for Colossus1388 for TRex.Virtually the same as the Nexus 5 with a slower phone.Right okayyyy..
    0
  • The low levels were - ALU at 1800 / Alpha at 4534 / Driver at 406 / Fill at 2672.So looks like running ART can be a boost for older Android kit maybe.This was a straight install of the benchmark. No rebooting or shutting down of other apps and services.
    0
  • Fundamentally flawed benchmarking because the resolutions were not taken into consideration. Of course the Apple A7 processor is able to beat all the other processors because it has the least amount of graphics processing overhead. In comparison, the Nexus 7 @ 1920 x 1080 has to process 2.85 times (or 285%) more pixels per clock cycle versus the Apple A7 (1136 x 640). The benchmark scores would be nearly even (or even worse) if Apple A7 processor had to output a simliar resolution.
    -1