In keeping with tradition Samsung once again introduced two hardware variants of its flagship Galaxy S9 phones. Most of the world gets units powered by Samsung's own Exynos 9810 chip, while US and China receive Snapdragon 845 chips instead.

That's been the case for a few years now and with the previous generation - the Galaxy S8 duo and the Galaxy Note8 - the Exynos chip seemed to have more processing power if not much different real-life performance. Spoiler alert - this time around, however, the Snapdragon 845 flexes a bit more muscle overall, compared to the Exynos 9810 Octa.

Before we get to the charts, a few specifics first. On paper, the pair doesn’t really look all that different. Both are based on an efficient 10nm development process and use pretty similar CPU core setup: 4x2.7 GHz Mongoose M3 & 4x1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 on the Exynos and 4x2.7 GHz Kryo 385 Gold & 4x1.7 GHz Kryo 385 Silver on the Snapdragon, respectively. So, there shouldn't be much of a CPU performance difference on paper, right?

Well, not exactly. GeekBench gives a pretty noticeable edge to the Exynos, especially under single-core synthetic loads. Interesting, still, the sheer number variance seems to be a lot bigger than the one observed between the Snapdragon and Exynos versions of the Galaxy S8+ and the Galaxy Note8.

GeekBench 4.1 (single-core)

Higher is better

Apple iPhone X

4256

Samsung Galaxy S9+

3771

Sony Xperia XZ2

2454

Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)

2199

Samsung Galaxy Note8

1987

Samsung Galaxy S8+

1986

OnePlus 5T (Oreo)

1974

Google Pixel 2 XL

1915

Huawei P20 Pro

1907

LG V30

1901

Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)

1862

Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)

1832

The gap is a lot smaller when looking at multi-threaded loads. We area also happy to see the long-standing variance between general CPU performance in the iOS and Android realm get smaller and smaller. That being said, however, these are still nothing more than synthetic scores. Unless you really need to shave a few seconds off some odd complex calculation or massive file compression task, you just happen to frequently run on your phone, the real world difference is negligible.

GeekBench 4.1 (multi-core)

Higher is better

Apple iPhone X

10215

Samsung Galaxy S9+

8883

Sony Xperia XZ2

8466

Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)

8349

Samsung Galaxy Note8

6784

OnePlus 5T (Oreo)

6759

Samsung Galaxy S8+

6754

Huawei P20 Pro

6679

Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)

6590

Google Pixel 2 XL

6428

LG V30

6365

Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)

6301

Plus, even if you are the type of person to take benchmark scores to heart, there is a much broader performance picture to explore, one that includes metrics on other hardware, like the GPU and memory speed, to name a couple.

What it lack in CPU prowess, the Snapdragon 845 clearly makes up in the GPU department. The Adreno 630 is simply hands-down more powerful than the Mali-G72 MP18.

Basemark X

Higher is better

Sony Xperia XZ2

44097

Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)

44013

Samsung Galaxy S8+

43862

Samsung Galaxy S9+

42134

Samsung Galaxy Note8

40890

Google Pixel 2 XL

39143

OnePlus 5T (Oreo)

38248

Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)

37211

LG V30

36704

Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)

34951

In pure pixel-churning terms, the Adreno can roughly pump out 30%, or so, more frames than its Mali rival.

GFX 3.1 Manhattan (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)

61

Sony Xperia XZ2

55

Samsung Galaxy S9+

47

Apple iPhone X

44

Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)

43

Samsung Galaxy S8+

42

Samsung Galaxy Note8

42

Google Pixel 2 XL

42

LG V30

41

Huawei P20 Pro

40

OnePlus 5T (Oreo)

40

Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)

39

GFX 3.1 Car scene (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)

35

Sony Xperia XZ2

35

Samsung Galaxy S9+

28

OnePlus 5T (Oreo)

26

Samsung Galaxy S8+

25

Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)

25

Samsung Galaxy Note8

25

Google Pixel 2 XL

25

LG V30

24

Huawei P20 Pro

23

Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)

23

Interestingly enough, the difference is clearly evident in on-screen tests as well. You can actually get up to 10 frames more in certain test scenarios. Again, that doesn’t necessarily translate in better visuals or higher fps in today's mobile games, thanks to optimization and constantly improving engines. Still, if you game a lot and indent to stick to the S9+ for a while, the Snapdragon 845 variant might be a more futureproof option.

GFX 3.1 Manhattan (onscreen)

Higher is better

Apple iPhone X

51

Sony Xperia XZ2

51

Huawei P20 Pro

37

OnePlus 5T (Oreo)

37

Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)

34

Samsung Galaxy S9+

24

Samsung Galaxy S8+

23

Samsung Galaxy Note8

23

Google Pixel 2 XL

21

Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)

20

LG V30

19

Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)

18

GFX 3.1 Car scene (onscreen)

Higher is better

Sony Xperia XZ2

33

OnePlus 5T (Oreo)

24

Huawei P20 Pro

21

Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)

20

Samsung Galaxy S9+

14

Samsung Galaxy S8+

13

Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)

13

Samsung Galaxy Note8

13

LG V30

13

Google Pixel 2 XL

13

Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)

12

For an even broader hardware assessment, there is Basesemark OS 2.0. If we assume it to be a more accurate representation of the overall fluidity of the experience, then there might just be some reason to believe the US Galaxy S9+ is a bit snappier than its international sibling.

Basemark OS 2.0

Higher is better

Apple iPhone X

4708

Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)

4196

Sony Xperia XZ2

3859

OnePlus 5T (Oreo)

3458

Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)

3424

Google Pixel 2 XL

3379

Samsung Galaxy S9+

3354

Samsung Galaxy Note8

3333

Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)

3319

Samsung Galaxy S8+

3298

Huawei P20 Pro

3252

LG V30

2705

AnTuTu tells pretty much the same story.

AnTuTu 7

Higher is better

Samsung Galaxy S9+ (SD 845)

264044

Sony Xperia XZ2

259244

Samsung Galaxy S9+

246660

Huawei P20 Pro

209884

OnePlus 5T (Oreo)

207072

Google Pixel 2 XL

203119

Samsung Galaxy Note8

201065

LG V30

182374

While our own real-life experience isn't really quantifiable, we did observe an indistinguishably fluent and nearly hiccup-free experience on both devices. So, regardless of the chipset, you should still end up with a supremely, if not exactly equally smooth UX, either way.

When you think about it, this is not a new trend either and one that has a perfectly valid explanation. Samsung has always done its best to optimize and equalize its experience, across the board, regardless of the long-standing, market-specific chipset difference.

Still, that is not necessarily an entirely positive thing, since its has been known to necessitate some artificial hardware feature limiting in order to achieve parity. The Galaxy S9+ is no different in this respect. Generally speaking, it's a back and forth affair when comparing most nitty-gritty hardware aspects of the Exynos 9810 and the Snapdragon 845. A higher DirectX version here, a few different bands there - nothing that can really tip the scale one way or the other. All except one major detail, that is. Technically, the Exynos 9810 is capable of recording video at up to 4K@120fps, while for the Snapdragon 845, that limit is 4K@60fps. Naturally, for the sake of feature parity, both models got caller at 60fps.

This might not be such a big deal, now that Samsung has caught up to Apple in this department, but looking at the broader picture, quickly unearths that the Galaxy S8+ and the Galaxy Note8 are still limited to 4K@30fps for the very same reason. Despite the fact that their Exynos 8895 versions are perfectly capable of 4K@120fps encoding as well. But, we digress.

That's just the Samsung way of doing things and it's not likely to change any time soon. Plus, for the first time in a while, Qualcomm actually brings a potentially compelling performance edge to the Galaxy table. Still, however, there is the matter of battery endurance.

Whether it is somehow tied to the extra performance, or it is simply due to a different possible and/or achieved level of optimization, the Snapdragon 845 drains noticeable more battery in the S9+ than the Exynos 9810.

Looking at the numbers themselves, we still have to give it to Qualcomm for making it's X20 LTE modem that extra bit more efficient. When it comes to web and local video playback performance, however, our standard tests are meant to isolate as many additional variables as possible. SO, the difference you are looking at all boils down to better software optimization.

So, to put things into perspective here, after spending quite a bit of time with with both an Exynos 9810 and a Snapdragon 845 Galaxy S9+ unit, we can safely say that Samsung has managed to guarantee a consistently and nearly indistinguishably fluent experience on both.

Most users are unlikely to ever detect a meaningful difference between the two in that respect. Having said that, if you do find yourself in a position to choose either chipset variant freely, the Exynos should last a bit more away from the charger on average. That's a little bonus we can get behind. Then again, if performance is your main concern, surprisingly, this year, the Snapdragon 845 looks like the better and more futureproof option.