The Galaxy S7 is known for its blazing fast speeds and raw specs that ooze power but after initial testing, there seems to be a significant problem in the handset that threatens to damage the reputation of the phone.
That problem is speed and graphical performance. Samsung has opted to fit the Galaxy S7 and S7 edge with a snapdragon 820 SoC that will be available in the united states and china. The rest of the regions will receive the Galaxy S7 which will be powered by Samsung’s own Exynos 8890 chipset.
Now while comparing the performance of both the variants of the phone, Forbes has indicated that the CPU performance is 5% faster on the snapdragon variant and the GPU performance is 32% greater than the Exynos 8890 variant.
This could cause significant trouble for the Exynos variant. While the day to day tasks aren’t affected, the difference in performance is rattling. Both the variants of the phones are blazing fast and have superior gaming skills. In fact, the phones have so much raw power that no game on the market can utilize the graphical performance of the phones to its maximum potential. yet The problem will arise as the phone ages and games become graphically more intense.
2 years down the line, the games that play smoothly on the snapdragon variant will struggle to run on the Exynos variant. Naturally, people who have knowledge about this performance difference will prefer the snapdragon variant. But to lay hands on one is quite difficult. Samsung is using the Exynos 8890 in most of the markets and the only option to get the 820 variant is to buy it in the grey market for an inflated price.
Samsung has also opted to remove the quick charge 3.0 from its phones because the Exynos variant would not support this feature even though the snapdragon variant could support it. This feature could have charged up your phone faster than 2.0 version that is currently in use on the S6 family and the Note 5.
Despite knowing about the difference in performance, Samsung has opted to use different chipsets in these phone. This information would definitely not go down too well with consumers.