website
Call (9am - 6pm): +971 56 506 9120
WhatsApp Us For Discount Code 25 SAR

Exynos 2400 vs A16 Bionic: A Battle of the Smartphone Chipset Titans

Exynos 2400 vs A16 Bionic: A Battle of the Smartphone Chipset Titans

Introduction

Hey everyone,

Today, we're diving deep into the intense showdown between the Exynos 2400 and A16 Bionic chipsets. It's not just about numbers and specs; we're putting these chips through rigorous benchmark tests to see which one truly reigns supreme.

From rendering 4K videos to zipping through app launches and handling specific programs, we're leaving no stone unturned. These tasks are the real deal when it comes to everyday smartphone use, so the results we uncover here are pretty darn important.

So, buckle up and join us as we unravel the mysteries behind these smartphone chipset giants. We're letting the facts do the talking, and trust us, it's going to be one heck of a ride!

Benchmark Test 1: Adobe Lightroom

Adobe Lightroom is an image manipulation software that is widely used for importing, editing, and sharing digital images. Its editing functions include white balance, tone, color grading, and detail adjustments, among others. In this benchmark test, the focus is on the performance of the Exynos 2400 and A16 Bionic chipsets in applying presets and rendering images.

• Preset Application Test

For this test, 50 JPEG and 50 RAW files were used. The goal was to apply a preset to these photos and measure how quickly each processor could complete the task. The results showed that all the chips performed relatively well, with the Snapdragon finishing in 34 seconds, the Google Tensor in 35 seconds, the Exynos in 38 seconds, and the A16 Bionic in 46 seconds.

• Rendering Speed Comparison

When it came to rendering the images, the tables were flipped. The Exynos chip took the longest, requiring 9 minutes and 18 seconds to finish the render. The Google Tensor chip followed closely behind with 8 minutes and 49 seconds. The Snapdragon chip was significantly faster, completing the render in 7 minutes and 39 seconds. However, the A16 Bionic chip proved to be the clear winner in this benchmark, finishing the render in just 3 minutes and 1 second.

Based on these results, it can be concluded that the A16 Bionic chip offers the best overall performance for Adobe Lightroom. Its faster rendering speed gives it an edge over the other chipsets.

Benchmark Test 2: Adobe Premiere Rush

Adobe Premiere Rush is a free mobile and desktop video editing app designed for creativity on the go. In this benchmark test, the focus is on the performance of the Exynos 2400 and A16 Bionic chipsets in handling video editing tasks.

• Introduction to Adobe Premiere Rush and its purpose

Adobe Premiere Rush offers a user-friendly interface and a range of tools for creating and editing videos. Its purpose is to provide a seamless editing experience on both mobile devices and desktop computers, allowing users to easily edit and share videos on the go.

• Description of the video editing tasks for the benchmark

For this benchmark test, a 1-minute and 6-second 4K video was used. To make it more challenging, 4K b-roll footage and graphics animations were added. The goal was to test how efficiently each chipset could handle these tasks.

• Failure of the Exynos chip to complete the benchmark

Unfortunately, the Exynos chip, specifically the Exynos 2400, was unable to complete the benchmark. Despite multiple attempts, including uninstalling and reinstalling the app and resetting the settings, the chip refused to work with Adobe Premiere Rush. As a result, it automatically receives last place in this category.

• Comparison of rendering speeds for the other chipsets

Among the remaining chipsets, the Snapdragon chip had the slowest rendering speed, taking 2 minutes and 53 seconds to complete the render. The Google Tensor chip was slightly faster, finishing in 2 minutes and 18 seconds. However, the A16 Bionic chip, Apple's flagship chipset, proved to be the clear winner with a render time of only 1 minute and 18 seconds.

Based on these results, it can be concluded that the A16 Bionic chip offers the best overall performance for Adobe Premiere Rush. Its fast rendering speed demonstrates its capability to handle video editing tasks efficiently.

Benchmark Test 3: Microsoft Excel

Microsoft Excel is a widely used spreadsheet software developed by Microsoft for various operating systems. It is commonly used for organizing and analyzing data, performing calculations, and creating charts and graphs. In this benchmark test, the focus is on comparing the performance of the Exynos 2400 and A16 Bionic chipsets when opening a large Excel file.

• Overview of Microsoft Excel and its common usage

Microsoft Excel is known for its versatility and extensive features that cater to both personal and professional use. It allows users to efficiently manage and manipulate data, making it an integral tool in many industries, including finance, accounting, and data analysis.

• Explanation of the large Excel file input for the benchmark

To test the processing speed of each chipset, a large Excel file containing approximately 60,000 lines was used. This file was chosen to assess how quickly the processors could handle a significant amount of data.

• Comparison of processing time for opening the file

When it came to opening the large Excel file, the A16 Bionic chip demonstrated its efficiency. It took only 7 seconds for the file to be fully loaded and ready to edit. In comparison, the Exynos chip took 18 seconds, the Snapdragon chip took 15 seconds, and the Tensor chip took 20 seconds.

These results highlight the superior processing capabilities of the A16 Bionic chip, as it was able to open the file in almost half the time of its closest competitor.

In conclusion, the A16 Bionic chip proved to be the most efficient in handling Microsoft Excel tasks. Its fast processing time showcases the power and efficiency of Apple's flagship chipset.

Benchmark Test 4: Geekbench

Geekbench is a widely used benchmarking tool that assesses the performance of CPUs and provides a scoring system to compare different chipsets. It consists of single-core and multi-core tests, as well as workloads that simulate real-world scenarios.

• Comparison of Single Core Performance Scores

In terms of single-core performance, the results are as follows:

 Tensor: 720 points
 Exynos: 977 points
 Snapdragon: 1,196 points
 A16 Bionic: 1,746 points

These scores indicate that the A16 Bionic chip performs exceptionally well in single-core tasks, surpassing its competitors.

• Comparison of Multi-Core Performance Scores

When it comes to multi-core performance, the rankings change slightly:

 Tensor: 780 points (59.9% stability rating)
 Exynos: 1,289 points (72.5% stability rating)
 A16 Bionic: 1,885 points (69.6% stability rating)
 Snapdragon: 4,635 points (64.3% stability rating)

The Snapdragon chipset demonstrates its dominance in multi-core tasks, outperforming the other chipsets by a significant margin.

Overall, the Geekbench results highlight the superior performance of the A16 Bionic chip in single-core tasks, while the Snapdragon chip excels in multi-core tasks. These benchmarks further solidify the A16 Bionic's reputation as a powerful and efficient chipset, and emphasize the strengths of each respective competitor.

Benchmark Test 5: 3DMark

3DMark is a widely used benchmarking tool that assesses a computer's 3D graphic rendering and CPU workload processing capabilities. It consists of several tests, and for this comparison, we will focus on the Wildlife Extreme Stress Test.

• Explanation of 3DMark and its purpose

3DMark is designed to measure the performance of a device's hardware, specifically its ability to render 3D graphics and handle demanding workloads. It is commonly used to evaluate the gaming capabilities of a device and compare it to other systems.

• Description of the Wildlife Extreme Stress Test

The Wildlife Extreme Stress Test is a specific test within 3DMark that pushes the device's GPU and CPU to their limits. It measures how well the device can handle graphically intensive scenes and calculates a score based on its performance.

• Comparison of best loop scores for CPU performance

In this benchmark test, we have 20 loops available, and we will compare the best loop scores for CPU performance. The results are as follows:

 Tensor: 7,214 points
 Exynos: 2,707 points
 A16 Bionic: 2,707 points
 Snapdragon: 7,214 points

Surprisingly, both the A16 Bionic and Exynos chip achieved the same score for CPU performance, tying for second place. The Snapdragon and Tensor chips, on the other hand, scored significantly higher, sharing the top spot.

• Comparison of worst loop scores for stability

Stability is also an important aspect to consider when evaluating CPU performance. The worst loop scores for stability are as follows:

 Tensor: 59.9% stability rating
 Exynos: 72.5% stability rating
 A16 Bionic: 69.6% stability rating
 Snapdragon: 64.3% stability rating

These results indicate that the Exynos chip demonstrated the highest stability, while the Tensor chip had the lowest stability rating. The A16 Bionic and Snapdragon chips fell in between.

Overall, the 3DMark results highlight the impressive CPU performance of both the Snapdragon and Tensor chips, while the Exynos and A16 Bionic chips showed strong stability. These benchmarks provide valuable insights into the capabilities of each chipset and their suitability for handling graphically demanding tasks.

Benchmark Test 6: AnTuTu

AnTuTu is a popular benchmarking tool used to evaluate the overall performance of smartphones. It assesses various aspects such as CPU performance, GPU performance, memory, and user experience. In this benchmark test, we will compare the performance of the Exynos 2400 and A16 Bionic chipsets using AnTuTu.

• Comparison of Overall Scores for the Chipsets

The overall scores obtained from AnTuTu provide a comprehensive measure of each chipset's performance. The Exynos 2400 scored 797,250 points, while the A16 Bionic scored slightly higher at 775,092 points. These scores indicate that both chipsets offer exceptional performance, with the Exynos 2400 having a slight advantage in this particular benchmark.

• Recognition of Snapdragon's Top Performance

It's worth noting that the Snapdragon chipset, although not directly compared in this section, has consistently performed exceptionally well in previous benchmarks. The Snapdragon chip has proven to be a top performer in CPU and GPU tasks, making it a formidable competitor.

• Placement of A16 Bionic and Exynos in the Results

While the Exynos 2400 secured a higher overall score in AnTuTu, the A16 Bionic chip showcased impressive performance as well. It's important to consider that benchmark scores may vary across different tests and scenarios. Both the Exynos 2400 and A16 Bionic chips demonstrate their capabilities in delivering a powerful and efficient performance.

In conclusion, AnTuTu confirms the strong performance of both the Exynos 2400 and A16 Bionic chipsets, with the Exynos 2400 slightly edging out in this particular benchmark. The Snapdragon chip continues to shine as a top performer in overall CPU and GPU tasks. These results provide valuable insights into the capabilities of each chipset, helping users make informed decisions when choosing a smartphone.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the benchmark test results have provided valuable insights into the performance of the Exynos 2400 and A16 Bionic chipsets. While the Snapdragon chip has consistently performed well in CPU and GPU tasks, the A16 Bionic chip has showcased exceptional performance in various benchmark tests.

When it comes to Adobe Lightroom, the A16 Bionic chip offered the best overall performance with its fast rendering speed, giving it an edge over the other chipsets. In the case of Adobe Premiere Rush, the Exynos chip was unable to complete the benchmark, automatically securing last place. The A16 Bionic chip once again showed its prowess with its fast rendering speed, proving to be the clear winner in this category.

Microsoft Excel tasks were handled efficiently by the A16 Bionic chip, which opened a large Excel file in just 7 seconds. This showcased the superior processing capabilities of the A16 Bionic chip, providing a significant advantage over its competitors.

In the Geekbench benchmark, the A16 Bionic chip demonstrated exceptional performance in single-core tasks, while the Snapdragon chip excelled in multi-core tasks. These results highlight the strengths of each chipset and solidify the A16 Bionic's reputation as a powerful and efficient chipset.

Lastly, the 3DMark benchmark highlighted the impressive CPU performance of both the Snapdragon and Tensor chips, while the Exynos and A16 Bionic chips showed strong stability. These results provide valuable insights into the capabilities of each chipset and their suitability for handling graphically demanding tasks.

Overall, the A16 Bionic chip has consistently shown exceptional performance across multiple benchmark tests. Apple's success in chip customization has allowed them to optimize the A16 Bionic for various tasks, giving it a significant advantage over its competitors. As they continue to innovate and develop future chipsets, it is likely that Apple will maintain its success in chip customization and performance.

FAQ

1. Which chip performed the best overall?

The A16 Bionic chip from Apple performed the best overall in the benchmark tests. It outperformed the competition in tasks such as rendering 4K videos, applying presets in Adobe Lightroom, and opening a large Excel file in Microsoft Excel.

2. Why did the A16 Bionic outperform the competition?

The A16 Bionic chip's superior performance can be attributed to Apple's chip customization. Apple has optimized the A16 Bionic for various tasks, giving it an edge over its competitors. The chip's fast rendering speed and efficient processing capabilities make it the clear winner in several benchmark tests.

3. How does the Exynos chip compare to Snapdragon?

In the benchmark tests, the Snapdragon chip consistently outperformed the Exynos chip. The Snapdragon chip excelled in both single-core and multi-core tasks, demonstrating its dominance in CPU and GPU performance. On the other hand, the Exynos chip showed strong stability and performed well in certain tasks, but fell behind in overall performance.

4. What does Apple's chip customization mean for the future?

Apple's success in chip customization, as seen in the performance of the A16 Bionic chip, indicates that they will continue to innovate and develop powerful and efficient chipsets. This customization allows Apple to optimize their chips for specific tasks, giving them a significant advantage over their competitors. As a result, we can expect Apple to maintain their success in chip customization in the future.

5. Where can I find more content like this?

If you're interested in more content comparing smartphone chipsets, you can explore our website or subscribe to our channel. We regularly conduct benchmark tests and provide in-depth analysis of the latest chipsets on the market.

Add A Coupon
Liquid error (snippets/cart-drawer line 228): product form must be given a product

What are you looking for?