The benchmarks are hard coded into the OS. Sorry but how devious and underhand can you get

Eh?

No they aren't! The code simply allows the device to perform at it's absolute maximum while the test is being run. It's not adding anything to the benchmark!

The relevant info is here they are hard coded when the app was rebuilt with a different package name the performance dropped by 20% for the exact same app.

Samsung switch off processor's power save mode when a programme with a certain package name is running. By "coincidence" they are all benchmark programmes. Testers repackaged a benchmark programme using a name not on the Samsung list and they got different (worse) results, because power save mode kicked in this time.

In my world it's called "not playing by the book", while nothing wrong with showing the capabilities of a phone, they should make it perfectly clear that these figures are not attainable in "real world settings" and then publish the actual "real world" figures.

seems like a lot of trouble to go to for a replacement of an already working phone.

So it's just coincidental that the only apps that can tap into this "maximum performance" are known benchmarking apps which serve no purpose other than to provide numbers which can be compared to competitors products?

And it's just coincidental that only Samsung has been caught doing this? Twice!

No, I think the title is appropriate. It's a cynical tactic to mislead consumers into believing their phones are significantly more powerful than those of their direct competitors.

"They are without honour" - Worf

^^^ agree it's bloody dodgy and unfair, I suppose to use the car thing again would be for BMW to claim there 3 Series can top 180mph, then actually say well the M3 can.

But Samsung aren't generally providing the benchmarks. That's left to reviewers who won't know that their results have been 'doped'... until now.

^^true, but Samsung must run these benchmarks too, what's to stop them handing over a phone with a totally mad processor, get the benchmarks, then change the processor for the full production model, which in a way is what they are doing.

More likely for someone (an American probably) to buy one just so they can have a punt at suing Samsung, claiming they only did so purely based on the benchmarking scores.

they still wouldn't be able to 'sue their ass off'

^^^ no but the Americans do love a "class action" as seen with Microsoft and the Xbox 360

Whats the point in running at full pelt when you are reading tweets? If Samsung made their phones that ran a full pelt all the time, the battery would last around 5 hours and be dead. What good is that to anyone? It seems what Samsung have done, is make the choice at what apps run at full pelt, which is a sensible way of doing things.

Not sure why you think its a Samsung issue, like I said earlier all companies do it, including Apple. Its nothing new. Funny seeing people grab at straws to have a pop at Samsung. The words glass, houses and stones come to mind.

Good luck finding a company with honour. Care to let me know of one? I cant think of one, that makes smartphones.

^^ Do Apple fudge benchmarks, I've not seen a 70 page thread on that yet, there must be one if you say they do, every other Apple Thread gets the treatment.

You know what the outcome of this seems to be?

It is that the hyped up Snapdragons are more than a bit crap.
We already had Samsung limiting Exynos to allow the Snapdragon and Exynos S4s to work at the same speed.

This amplifies everything even further. Or behold, is it a case of the exact same?

What...?

Qualcomm are not crap.

Samsung want to have their processor and eat it. First with big fanfares they announce a mad 8-core processor, then it turns out that a four is a new eight. Then they say they use special multicore processor that can switch to a power save mode and save battery. There's only a small problem, benchmarks are worse, because waking up the processor from power save mode is not for free. No problem, turn it off for benchmarking. This is not so harmless as some state here. There's enough people who take benchmarks into consideration when choosing their phones. Phones nowadays are mostly very good and one has to decide based on something, why not the benchmarks, especially if Samsung phones are way ahead of the competition. IMO it's quite dodgy.

I found one on "5S show it wipes floor with S4 and HTC One" but simply cannot find the Safari one.

I was thinking of that time when Safari benchmarks were recording an early finish time, thus increasing reported speed.

if mobile benchmark tests actually did model real world user usage and then samsung came along and spoiled the test then it'd be right to call foul.

But they don't, they never have. they tend to throw excessive amounts of calculations/polygons at the processors, far more than would ever be encountered in normal daily use, and count how long it takes. Given its not real world cases, there's nothing wrong with manufacturers *optimising* their devices for the benchmarks, because that's really all that's happening. There's no secret overclocking going on, or "set the engnes to 110% captain" or "if benchmark then unlock secret superfast mode".

But wasn't Samsung shuffling benchmarks to make the two S4's look identical speed.

I'm sort of baffled as to why this is not some of the same.
We have the cheating benchmark mantra and have moved away from reasoning.

Can't believe some people think it's ok to hack your OS so it over clocks when all the well known benchmark apps are run.

Has this been done by other companies, well probably but that doesn't make it OK for Samsung to do it.

Clear fraud on Samsung's behalf.

I thought it was actual default underlocking which was prevented.

What is the overlock?

Don't care. I'll be having one regardless.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_3
Oh look, just like the S4 there is both the Exynos and the Snapdragon chipsets.

Like I said, they are making the Snapdragon look less crap.
Yes, I overplay the word 'crap' but that counteracts the hype of those last generation ARM CPUs.