The tests on this page are JavaScript- and HTML5-heavy selections from our Web Browser Grand Prix series. Such tests are extremely meaningful to mobile devices because so much of the in-app content is served via the platform's native Web browser. These tests not only offer a view of each device's Web browsing performance, but since these tasks are traditionally so CPU-dependent, browser benchmarks (especially JavaScript-heavy tests) are a great way to measure SoC performance among devices using the same platform and browser.
In order to keep the browser version even across all Android devices, we're employing a static version of the Chromium-based Opera on that operating system. Due to platform restrictions, Safari is the best choice for iOS-based devices, while Internet Explorer is the only game in town on Windows RT.
Browsermark 2.0
Rightware's Browsermark 2.0 is a synthetic browsing benchmark that tests several performance metrics, including load time, CSS, DOM, HTML5 Canvas, JavaScript, and WebGL.

The Tegra Note 7's score allows it to hold a substantial lead over what is regarded as the gold standard for Web-capable tablet devices, Apple's iPad Air. It's even crazier that the Note 10.1 (2014) Wi-Fi finishes just behind it. We're taking this one with a grain of salt, however, since the Note 10.1 (2014 Edition) Wi-Fi doesn't feel nearly as smooth as the iPad Air during browsing. The Note 10.1 (2014 Edition) LTE finishes about 150 points behind, and the Nexus 7 (2013) follows.
JSBench
Unlike most JavaScript performance benchmarks, JSBench could almost be considered real-world, since it utilizes actual snippets of JavaScript from Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Yahoo.

JSBench gives what is arguably the most accurate depiction of Web performance based on our experience; none of the Android tablets come even close to the iPad Air in score. With a finishing time of 52.5 seconds, every other tablet takes at least five times longer. The Tegra Note 7 and Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014 Edition) Wi-Fi finishes in just under five minutes, while the Snapdragon 800-based Note 10.1 (2014 Edition) LTE finishes shy of six. The older, more budget-friendly Nexus 7 finishes in slightly over eight minutes.
Peacekeeper 2.0
Peacekeeper is a synthetic JavaScript performance benchmark from Futuremark.

The results of Peacekeeper 2.0 continue to reinforce the iPad Air's dominance as the go-to Web consumption device. Samsung's Exynos-based Note 10.1 (2014 Edition) Wi-Fi holds its own against the Tegra Note 7, while the LTE version of the Note 10.1 (2014 Edition) again falls significantly behind its Wi-Fi counterpart.
WebXPRT 2013
Principled Technologies' WebXPRT 2013 is an HTML5-based benchmark that simulates common productivity tasks that are traditionally handled by locally installed applications, including photo editing, financial charting, and offline note-taking.

WebXPRT 2013 follows the same trend as the other tests, with the iPad finishing ahead of the Android tablets, which by and large don't even come close to matching the score of Apple's flagship.
All of the Web benchmarks place the LTE model far behind the Wi-Fi model of the Note 10.1 (2014 Edition). It should be noted that both systems were tested on the same Wi-Fi network, and both used the same copy of Opera 19. We can't say for sure why this is occurring (particularly since the Snapdragon 800 consistently beats the Exynos 5 Octa in nearly every other performance metric), but it yet again lends some insight as to why the Exynos is so popular among makers of ChromeOS devices, where Web browsing over a Wi-Fi connection is essentially the paramount performance consideration.
- Samsung's S Pen Attack On The Full-Size Tablet Market
- Look And Feel
- Camera, Display, And Speakers
- TouchWiz: Samsung's Take On Android
- Samsung's Galaxy Note Enhancements
- Benchmark Suite And Test System Specs
- Results: CPU Core Benchmarks
- Results: GPU Core Benchmarks
- Results: Web Benchmarks
- Brightness, Black Level, Contrast Ratio, And Gamma
- Results: Battery Life
- Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014) Wi-Fi Or LTE?
Your bar graph "MobileXPRT 2013" seems to be in error.
For example, the text says, "Note 10.1 (2014 Edition) Wi-Fi leads with 300 points . . ."
but the bar is the shortest and indicates less than 150 points.
Samsung's Exynos-based Note 10.1 (2014 Edition) Wi-Fi holds its own against the Tegra Note 7, while the LTE version of the Note 10.1 (2014 Edition) again falls significantly behind its Snapdragon 800-powered Wi-Fi counterpart.
And this happens all throughout. The LTE is a Snapdragon, the Wifi is an Exynos. Keep repeating that to yourself as you re-write the descriptions and it will make this easier to read.
Your bar graph "MobileXPRT 2013" seems to be in error. For example, the text says, "Note 10.1 (2014 Edition) Wi-Fi leads with 300 points . . ." but the bar is the shortest and indicates less than 150 points.
This benchmark's sub-tests produce scores in seconds (lower is better), and the overall score is given as a typical higher-is-better score, so the lowest bar indicates the fastest completion. Sorry about the confusion, I'll look into other ways to represent this test.
Samsung's Exynos-based Note 10.1 (2014 Edition) Wi-Fi holds its own against the Tegra Note 7, while the LTE version of the Note 10.1 (2014 Edition) again falls significantly behind its Snapdragon 800-powered Wi-Fi counterpart.
And this happens all throughout. The LTE is a Snapdragon, the Wifi is an Exynos. Keep repeating that to yourself as you re-write the descriptions and it will make this easier to read.
Good catch, thanks! Fixed.
Actually, you'd think this has been phased out, but it's the current 10-inch Galaxy "Note" product, meaning it has the S Pen. The Galaxy "Tab" S does not - still unclear to me what makes the "S" stand out. I believe Samsung is literally attempting to offer an alternative product to every single other device in existence - complete mobile domination. I lost count of their current "Galaxy" line at 11 products, and that was awhile back.
The duo of Note 10.1 (2014)'s came in very handy both as comparison data in other articles and as testbeds for compiling our benchmark suite. Unfortunately, the article had to be pushed back several times, but the huge hardware difference between products carrying the same name was always something we wanted to illustrate, initially for the chipset-vs-chipset angle, but later for the optimization aspect as well. We're currently working through a small backlog of mobility articles, but each will be more timely than the last. My apologies.
It is a good review for apples to apples on the Samsung hardware options.
Would you suggest that this is "as-good-as-it-gets" for the few who prefer pen-based tablets? Any foresight in other pen based tablets?
Ninjawithagun,
Tablets are not modular like a pc... whilst it may have been good for the author the resolution issue with these benchmarks, an apples to apples comparison of the individual components would NOT help the user decide which unit as a whole is the fastest as indeed, they are NOT modular.
Ninjawithagun,
Tablets are not modular like a pc... whilst it may have been good for the author the resolution issue with these benchmarks, an apples to apples comparison of the individual components would NOT help the user decide which unit as a whole is the fastest as indeed, they are NOT modular.
Not true. Most (not all) tablets are in fact modular in that the CPU and GPU operate independently of one another. Case in point, the Apple A7 uses a dual-core 64-bit SOC processor and PowerVR G6430 graphics chip. The Samsung uses the Exynos 5 Octa processor with a Mali-T628 MP6 graphics chip. Your definition of modular is fundamentally flawed in that you think it pertains to physical ability for individual items to removed/replaced. Modular infers to the actual architecture of the system in that several different parts from different manufactures are integrated together to function as a whole unit.
Ninjawithagun,
Tablets are not modular like a pc... whilst it may have been good for the author the resolution issue with these benchmarks, an apples to apples comparison of the individual components would NOT help the user decide which unit as a whole is the fastest as indeed, they are NOT modular.
Not true. Most (not all) tablets are in fact modular in that the CPU and GPU operate independently of one another. Case in point, the Apple A7 uses a dual-core 64-bit SOC processor and PowerVR G6430 graphics chip. The Samsung uses the Exynos 5 Octa processor with a Mali-T628 MP6 graphics chip. Your definition of modular is fundamentally flawed in that you think it pertains to physical ability for individual items to removed/replaced. Modular infers to the actual architecture of the system in that several different parts from different manufactures are integrated together to function as a whole unit.
This does not argue to the point. Here's a fact and the crux of the matter... An apples to apples comparison of gpu's and processors does NOT tell the user how apps will perform on tablet x when constrained by their other components be it amount of ram, screen res, gpu, cpu etc.
i.e. benchmarks are not "fundamentally flawed" (nor is my understanding and use of the term modular)
FYI, the KitKat update makes the SD card practically useless. Rooting these tablets is frustrating at best, and the KNOX system is the most terrible idea Samsung ever came up with.
Looking back, I should have gotten a Nexus.
FYI, the KitKat update makes the SD card practically useless.
How can it be useless having 128 gb for music and videos/pictures? Maybe you can afford spotify and paying 15 dollars every month for an upgraded dropbox account, but many people don't, or even if they do, they do not have a reliable LTE signal 24/7.