GeekBench v2

Beyond the speeds and feeds, how do the performance of Qualcomm's Scorpion and Krait cores differ? GeekBench can help us out with a general assessment.
| GeekBench Scores | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| SoC | Integer | Floating-Point | Memory |
| Nvidia Tegra 3 (T30L) (Four Cortex-A9 Cores @ 1.3 GHz) | 1298 | 2288 | 1222 |
| TI OMAP 4430 (Two Cortex-A9 Cores @ 1 GHz) | 750 | 1298 | 853 |
| Apple A5/A5X (Two Cortex-A9 Cores @ 1 GHz) | 691 | 921 | 830 |
| Qualcomm S3 (APQ8060) (Two Scorpion Cores @ 1.2 GHz) | 594 | 708 | 946 |
| Qualcomm S4 Plus (MSM8960) (Two Krait Cores @ 1.5 GHz) | 964 | 2251 | 1666 |
| Qualcomm S4 Pro (APQ8064) (Four Krait Cores @ 1.5 GHz) | 1400 | 3292 | 1276 |
According to our numbers, Krait nearly triples the performance of its predecessor, with the biggest gain seen in floating-point performance. Also interesting is the comparison between Krait and Nvidia's Tegra 3, which drives tablets like the Nexus 7 and Transformer Pad.

Strong floating-point performance is a notable boon for game developers, and we hope that Qualcomm's strength in this discipline serves to further the work being done in mobile gaming. Google's own Android documentation recommends judicious use of floating-point math, since it's about 2x slower than integer math on Android-based devices. And yet, we see TI's OMAP 4430 outmaneuver Apple's A5/A5X in GeekBench's floating-point metric, despite the fact that they both employ dual Cortex-A9 cores at 1 GHz. So, what's that say about performance under iOS?
Although software developers are still tied to programming for multiple hardware platforms, some faster and some slower, it's entirely possible that, in some situations, Krait-based devices will offer the best performance currently available.
SiSoft Sandra, Android Edition

Sandra is one of those diagnostic tools that lets us dig a little deeper on the desktop, isolating specific performance characteristics in a granular way. SiSoftware eventually plans to release an Android-specific version of the software, but the company granted us exclusive access to an early beta copy for our story today.
| SiSoftware Sandra Aggregate Performance | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OMAP 4430 | Tegra 3 (T30L) | S3 (APQ8060) | S4 Plus (MSM8960) | S4 Pro (APQ8064) | |
| CPU | Two Cortex-A9 Cores @ 1 GHz | Four Cortex-A9 Cores @ 1.3 GHz | Two Scorpion Cores @ 1.2 GHz | Two Krait Cores @ 1.5 GHz | Four Krait Cores @ 1.5 GHz |
| Native Arithmetic (MOPS) | 463 | 1133 | 365 | 593 | 1194 |
| Native Multi-media (kPix/s) | 2301 | 5912 | 3297 | 5067 | 9642 |
| Java Arithmetic (MOPS) | 90 | 225 | 86 | 171 | 278 |
| Memory (MB/s) | 603 | 968 | 1265 | 3308 | 4104 |
Naturally, the quad-core architectures are at an inherent advantage in any threaded workload. So, we also run aggregate performance-per-core tests to zero in on the capabilities of each computational building block.
Again, the S4 Pro platform's Krait processor takes a commanding lead over the Cortex-A9- and Scorpion-based competition.

| Aggregate Performance-Per-Core | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OMAP 4430 | Tegra 3 (T30L) | S3 (APQ8060) | S4 Plus (MSM8960) | S4 Pro (APQ8064) | |
| CPU | Two Cortex-A9 Cores @ 1 GHz | Four Cortex-A9 Cores @ 1.3 GHz | Two Scorpion Cores @ 1.2 GHz | Two Krait Cores @ 1.5 GHz | Four Krait Cores @ 1.5 GHz |
| Native Arithmetic (MOPS/Thread) | 231.5 | 283.2 | 182.5 | 296.5 | 298.5 |
| Native Multi-media (kPix/s/Thread) | 1150.5 | 1478.0 | 1648.5 | 2533.5 | 2410.5 |
| Java Arithmetic (MOPS/Thread) | 45.0 | 56.2 | 43.0 | 85.5 | 69.5 |
| Memory (MB/s/Thread) | 301.5 | 242.0 | 632.5 | 1654.0 | 1026.0 |
- Qualcomm's Fourth-Generation Snapdragon Family Gets A Flagship
- Qualcomm's Snapdragon S4 Line-Up: Krait CPUs And Adreno Graphics
- Performance From Scorpion To Krait: What A Difference One Generation Makes
- Nitty Gritty: CPU Core Performance, Per Clock
- Graphics Performance: Adreno 320 Under GLBenchmark 2.1 And 2.5
- S4 Pro Puts Qualcomm Back In The Fight
Why isn't the exynos quad in the comparison?
Well, it'd be a start. I wouldn't go nearly as far as all is forgiven.
The Adreno320 is more refined and optimised arch. Trying to get the most performance from least silicon area. It is still being refined. Hence, it will do well in future applications.
Please be as exaustive as possible
The cortex A15 DMIPS/MHz should read above the A9. Around 3.5 DMIPS/MHz from the rumblings.
In fact, they seem to suggest only a very small improvement over A9, if any at all.
Why isn't the exynos quad in the comparison?
You might want to fix (bold) the 'Aggregate Performance Per Core' chart; note the Plus & Pro numbers.
No. PowerVR holds some very specific advantages over there competition... Such as shader-driven tile-based deferred rendering (TBDR) architecture.... and their GPUs are actually MORE efficient than their competition. Not less.
It's still very impressive what Qualcomm's done... I'm just not thinking they'll dethrone PowerVR anytime soon as the mobile graphics performance leader.
When Tegra and Snapdragon devices are available at the same time I'd bet that Tegra will handily beat Snapdragon. I wouldn't say Qualcomm is back in the fight, I would say this is Qualcomm's last desperate attempt to stay relevent
Google, please allow the next nexus to be powerful, and have expandable memory.
Enough imitating apples cloud dreams, we want local storage!!!!
64GB microsd card is $48 on pace to be $36 by next year.
BTW , why are the Exynos4 and the A6 missing from the review ? I think they are the most relevant competition to the S4 .