News:

Willkommen im Notebookcheck.com Forum! Hier können sie über alle unsere Artikel und allgemein über Notebook relevante Dinge disuktieren. Viel Spass!

Main Menu

Post reply

Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Missingxtension
 - Yesterday at 21:38:21
Its okay if it doesn't score to the moon, what matters is that it's priced correctly.
This pro bs is bad for everyone because there is nothing pro about pro. It doesnt come with ecc ram, enterprise grade storage, rugged endurance, or anything to make phones professional
 Its just a up market strategy, like stone counter tops on a house. 
Knowing googlw they wont hit any of the real pain points of phones today, glass backs, fragile fronts, HDMI out, external storage, headphone jacks or anything that has made the smart phone so user hostile.
Posted by StevieTRolls
 - Yesterday at 20:52:20
Is this article written by AI?

"The new flagship fails to impress, as it only manages a CPU score of 313,500. The Pixel 9 Pro XL curiously scores 181,033"

So the new flagship phone is better no?
Posted by Worgarthe
 - Yesterday at 13:25:20
Quote from: Ricci Rox on Yesterday at 13:15:46
QuoteIt's unclear what the issue is with the benchmark results,
Oh, but it's very clear - in the linked source the guy said, I'll quote the words: "Yeah my personal pixel 9 pro xl and retail store demo 10 pro xl ima be setting up in a few days"
So an irrelevant benchmark + a demo unit + older software on that 10PXL. The phone is not out yet. Again - demo unit.
Posted by Ricci Rox
 - Yesterday at 13:15:46
Quote from: Worgarthe on Yesterday at 13:00:26Why does anyone care about benchmarks? It doesn't have 285K + 5090, oh terrible.

And even then, if you really care about stupid benchmarks so much, there right on that screenshot - the multi core score has improved for more than 100%, from 98,464 to 200,770. Such massive improvement is likely due to improvement in core architecture (from A720 to A725), frequency and a total number of those cores (from 3 to 5). On top of that add 3nm fab, allowing cooler temperatures for a more sustained peek performance. And the overall CPU score has gone from 181,033 to 313,500 compared to Tensor G4. In what world is such improvement "underwhelming"? Did you really expect it to be 698468% faster than the G4, instead of of this "disappointingly" "low" 60-100% increase?

Also - AnTuTu doesn't just test the CPU.


QuoteIt's unclear what the issue is with the benchmark results, as both the Pixel 10 Pro XL and the 9 Pro XL delivered scores inconsistent with historical data. The Pixel 9 Pro XL, for example, typically scores over 370,000 on AnTuTu 10's CPU test but barely manages half of that this time.
Posted by Worgarthe
 - Yesterday at 13:00:26
Why does anyone care about benchmarks? It doesn't have 285K + 5090, oh terrible.

And even then, if you really care about stupid benchmarks so much, there right on that screenshot - the multi core score has improved for more than 100%, from 98,464 to 200,770. Such massive improvement is likely due to improvement in core architecture (from A720 to A725), frequency and a total number of those cores (from 3 to 5). On top of that add 3nm fab, allowing cooler temperatures for a more sustained peek performance. And the overall CPU score has gone from 181,033 to 313,500 compared to Tensor G4. In what world is such improvement "underwhelming"? Did you really expect it to be 698468% faster than the G4, instead of of this "disappointingly" "low" 60-100% increase?

Also - AnTuTu doesn't just test the CPU.
Posted by Redaktion
 - Yesterday at 12:07:27
The Google Pixel 10 Pro XL has now been tested on AnTuTu ahead of its August 20 launch. The phone and its Tensor G5 disappoint, with CPU and GPU scores worse than what last year's Pixel 9 Pro XL typically delivers.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Tensor-G5-underwhelms-in-iffy-Google-Pixel-10-Pro-XL-hands-on-benchmarks.1089573.0.html