Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 Benchmarks: Comparing CPU and GPU Performance with the Kirin 990, Snapdragon 855, and Snapdragon 845

We may earn a commission for purchases made using our links.

Nearly two weeks ago, Qualcomm invited tech journalists to Maui for the 2019 Snapdragon Tech Summit. At the event, the company unveiled its latest high-end SoC for mobile devices: the Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 mobile platform. Qualcomm says the new Snapdragon 865 boasts a 25% CPU performance increase and a 20% GPU performance increase over the previous generation Snapdragon 855. Also, the new SoC supports LPDDR5 memory and is manufactured on a newer 7nm process. Qualcomm’s latest silicon will make its way to 2020 flagships like the Xiaomi Mi 10, OPPO Find X2, and many other high-end smartphones.

But just how much faster is it than the previous generations? We benchmarked Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 865 reference device at the event to find out. We pit the new SoC against the Snapdragon 855+, the Snapdragon 855, the Snapdragon 845, and the Kirin 990 from Huawei’s HiSilicon. We would have loved to test the Snapdragon 865 against the MediaTek Dimensity 1000 or Samsung Exynos 990, but sadly, there aren’t any devices with the new MediaTek and Samsung SoCs. Once we get our hands on real devices with the Snapdragon 865, we’ll be testing the real-world performance outside of benchmarks, too.

Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Snapdragon 855, Snapdragon 845, and Kirin 990 Specifications

Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 HiSilicon Kirin 990 (4G) CPU 1 Kryo 585 ‘Prime’ (ARM Cortex-A77-based), up to 2.84GHz

3 Kryo 585 ‘Performance’ (ARM Cortex-A77-based), up to 2.4GHz

4 Kryo 385 ‘Efficiency’ (ARM Cortex-A55-based), up to 1.8GHz 25% Performance improvement over the previous generation 1 Kryo 485 ‘Prime’ (ARM Cortex-A76-based), up to 2.96GHz

3 Kryo 485 ‘Performance’ (ARM Cortex-A76-based), up to 2.42GHz

4 Kryo 385 ‘Efficiency’ (ARM Cortex-A55-based), up to 1.8GHz 1 Kryo 485 ‘Prime’ (ARM Cortex-A76-based), up to 2.84GHz

3 Kryo 485 ‘Performance’ (ARM Cortex-A76-based), up to 2.42GHz

4 Kryo 385 ‘Efficiency’ (ARM Cortex-A55-based), up to 1.8GHz 45% Performance improvement over the previous generation 4 Kryo 385 ‘Performance’ (ARM Cortex-A75-based), up to 2.8GHz

4 Kryo 385 ‘Efficiency’ (ARM Cortex-A55-based), up to 1.8GHz 25% Performance improvement over the previous generation 2 ARM Cortex-A76, up to 2.86GHz

2 ARM Cortex-A76, up to 2.09GHz

4 ARM Cortex-A55, up to 1.86GHz GPU Adreno 650 20% Performance improvement over the previous generation Adreno 640 (15% overclocked ) Adreno 640 20% Performance improvement over the previous generation Adreno 630 25% Performance improvement over the previous generation Mali-G76MP16 Memory 4x 16bit, 2133MHz LPDDR4X 4x 16bit, 2750MHz LPDDR5 4x 16bit, 2133MHz LPDDR4X 4x 16bit, 2133MHz LPDDR4X 4x 16-bit, 1866MHz LPDDR4X 4x 16-bit, LPDDR4X-4266 Manufacturing Process 7nm (TSMC N7P) 7nm (TSMC) 7nm (TSMC) 10nm LPP (Samsung) 7nm (TSMC)

Quick Overview of Each Benchmark

Benchmark explainer by Mario Serrafero

AnTuTu : This is a holistic benchmark. AnTuTu tests the CPU, GPU, and memory performance, while including both abstract tests and, as of late, relatable user experience simulations (for example, the subtest which involves scrolling through a ListView). The final score is weighted according to the designer’s considerations.

: This is a holistic benchmark. AnTuTu tests the CPU, GPU, and memory performance, while including both abstract tests and, as of late, relatable user experience simulations (for example, the subtest which involves scrolling through a ListView). The final score is weighted according to the designer’s considerations. GeekBench : A CPU-centric test that uses several computational workloads including encryption, compression (text and images), rendering, physics simulations, computer vision, ray tracing, speech recognition, and convolutional neural network inference on images. The score breakdown gives specific metrics. The final score is weighted according to the designer’s considerations, placing a large emphasis on integer performance (65%), then float performance (30%) and finally crypto (5%).

: A CPU-centric test that uses several computational workloads including encryption, compression (text and images), rendering, physics simulations, computer vision, ray tracing, speech recognition, and convolutional neural network inference on images. The score breakdown gives specific metrics. The final score is weighted according to the designer’s considerations, placing a large emphasis on integer performance (65%), then float performance (30%) and finally crypto (5%). GFXBench : Aims to simulate video game graphics rendering using the latest APIs. Lots of onscreen effects and high-quality textures. Newer tests use Vulkan while legacy tests use OpenGL ES 3.1. The outputs are frames during test and frames per second (the other number divided by the test length, essentially), instead of a weighted score.

GFXBench Subscore Explanations. Click to expand. Aztec Ruins : These tests are the most computationally heavy ones offered by GFXBench. Currently, top mobile chipsets cannot sustain 30 frames per second. Specifically, the test offers really high polygon count geometry, hardware tessellation, high-resolution textures, global illumination and plenty of shadow mapping, copious particle effects, as well as bloom and depth of field effects. Most of these techniques will stress the shader compute capabilities of the processor. Manhattan ES 3.0/3.1 : This test remains relevant given that modern games have already arrived at its proposed graphical fidelity and implement the same kinds of techniques. It features complex geometry employing multiple render targets, reflections (cubic maps), mesh rendering, many deferred lighting sources, as well as bloom and depth of field in a post-processing pass.

: Aims to simulate video game graphics rendering using the latest APIs. Lots of onscreen effects and high-quality textures. Newer tests use Vulkan while legacy tests use OpenGL ES 3.1. The outputs are frames during test and frames per second (the other number divided by the test length, essentially), instead of a weighted score. Speedometer, Jetstream : Javascript, core language features and performance on various operations; Javascript math, crypto, and search algorithm performance.

: Javascript, core language features and performance on various operations; Javascript math, crypto, and search algorithm performance. 3DMark (Sling Shot Extreme OpenGL ES 3.1/Vulkan) : The test runs on a mobile-optimized rendering engine using OpenGL ES 3.1 and Vulkan (on Android) or Metal (on iOS). It comes with two subscores, each in turn featuring multiple subscores, all of which ultimately use frames per second as their metric across multiple testing scenarios. This benchmark will test the full range of API features, including transform feedback, multiple render targets and instanced rendering, uniform buffers, and features such as particle illumination, volumetric lighting, deferred lighting, depth of field and bloom in post-processing, all using compute shaders. Offscreen tests use a fixed time step between frames, and rule out any impact caused by vertical sync, display resolution scaling and related OS parameters. The final score is weighted according to the designer’s considerations.

: The test runs on a mobile-optimized rendering engine using OpenGL ES 3.1 and Vulkan (on Android) or Metal (on iOS). It comes with two subscores, each in turn featuring multiple subscores, all of which ultimately use frames per second as their metric across multiple testing scenarios. This benchmark will test the full range of API features, including transform feedback, multiple render targets and instanced rendering, uniform buffers, and features such as particle illumination, volumetric lighting, deferred lighting, depth of field and bloom in post-processing, all using compute shaders. Offscreen tests use a fixed time step between frames, and rule out any impact caused by vertical sync, display resolution scaling and related OS parameters. The final score is weighted according to the designer’s considerations. PCMark 2.0 : Tests the device as a complete unit. It simulates everyday use cases that can implement abstract algorithms and a lot of arithmetic; the difference is that these are dispatched within an application environment, with a particular practical purpose, and handled by API calls and Android libraries common to multiple applications. The test will output a variety of scores corresponding to the various subtests, which will be detailed below; the composite, Work 2.0 score is simply the geometric mean of all of these scores, meaning all tests are weighted equally.

PCMark 2.0 Subscore Explanations. Click to expand. Web browsing 2.0 simulates browsing social media: rendering the web page, searching for the content, re-rendering the page as new images are added, and so on. This subtest uses the native Android WebView to render (WebKit) and interact with the content, which is locally stored — this means you can run it offline, but it does not simulate web browsing fully as it rules out internet connection factors (latency, network speed). It is specifically tracking frame rates and completion time across seven tasks, with their score being a multiple of their geometric mean. Video Editing simulates video editing performance: applying effects to a video using OpenGL ES 2.0 fragment shaders, decoding video frames (sent to an Android GLSurfaceView), and rendering/encoding the video in H.264/MPEG-4AVC at several frame rates and resolutions up to 4K. It is specifically tracking frame rates on the UI, except for a final test tracking the completion time of a video editing pipeline. Writing simulates general document and text editing work: adding or editing texts and images within a document, copying and pasting text, and so on. It uses the native Android EditText view as well as PdfRenderer and PdfDocument APIs. It will open compressed documents, move text bodies, insert images in the document, then save them as a PDF, to then encrypt and decrypt them (AES). It specifically tracks task completion times for the processes of opening and saving files, adding images and moving text bodies, encrypt/decrypt the file, and render the PDF pages on ImageViews. Photo Editing simulates photo-editing performance: opening images, applying different effects via filters (grains, blurs, embossing, sharpening and so on) and saving the image. It uses 4MP JPEG source images and manipulates them in bitmap format using the android.media.effect API, android.renderscript API’s RenderScript Intrinsics, android-jhlabs, and the native android.graphics API for drawing the process on the screen. This is an extremely comprehensive test in that it will be impacted by storage access, CPU performance, GPU performance, and it is dependent on many different Android APIs. The test specifically measures memory and storage access times, encoding and decoding times, task completion times . The various filters and effects come from different APIs. Data manipulation simulates database management operations: parsing and validating data from files, interacting with charts, and so on. It will open (date, value) tuples from CSV, XML, JSON files and then render animated charts with the MPAndroidChart library. It specifically tracks data parsing times as well as draws per second of each chart animation (similar to frame rate, but specific to the updating chart).

: Tests the device as a complete unit. It simulates everyday use cases that can implement abstract algorithms and a lot of arithmetic; the difference is that these are dispatched within an application environment, with a particular practical purpose, and handled by API calls and Android libraries common to multiple applications. The test will output a variety of scores corresponding to the various subtests, which will be detailed below; the composite, Work 2.0 score is simply the geometric mean of all of these scores, meaning all tests are weighted equally.

Source links for each benchmark can be found at the end of the article.

Test Devices

Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 HiSilicon Kirin 990 Device Name Qualcomm Reference Device (QRD) ASUS ROG Phone II Google Pixel 4 Google Pixel 3 XL Huawei Mate 30 Pro Software Android 10 (Qualcomm customized AOSP software) Android 9 (ZenUI 6.0 OEM software with October 2019 security patch) Android 10 (Google Pixel OEM software with December 2019 security patch) Android 10 (Google Pixel OEM software with December 2019 security patch) Android 10 (EMUI 10.0 OEM software with October 2019 security patch) Display 2880×1440 @ 60Hz 2340×1080 @ 60Hz 2280×1080 @ 60Hz 2960×1440 @ 60Hz 2400×1176 @ 60Hz Memory 12GB LPDDR5 8GB LPDDR4X 6GB LPDDR4X 4GB LPDDR4X 8GB LPDDR4X Storage 128GB UFS 3.0 128GB UFS 3.0 64GB UFS 2.1 64GB UFS 2.1 256GB UFS 3.0 Performance Mode Yes* No No No No

*Performance mode on the Snapdragon 865 QRD makes workloads appear 20% “heavier” to the scheduler. This means that a CPU that is loaded 80% will appear 100% loaded to the scheduler, ramping up clocks faster and migrating tasks from the little to the big cores faster. However, CPU clock speeds are NOT boosted.

Benchmark Results

Main Scores

Benchmark Version Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 HiSilicon Kirin 990 AnTuTu 8.0.4 565,384 425,963 386,499 278,647 389,505 Geekbench single-core 5.0.2 929 760 600 521 750 Geekbench multi-core 5.0.2 3,450 2,840 2,499 2,125 2,887 GFXBench ES 3.0 1080 Manhattan offscreen 5.00 126 110 92 82 104 GFXBench ES 3.1 1080 Carchase offscreen 5.00 50 48 40 35 38 GFXBench ES 3.1 1080 Manhattan offscreen 5.00 88 78 67 61 67 GFXBench ES 2.0 1080 T-Rex offscreen 5.00 205 185 164 152 105 GFXBench 1440p Aztec Ruins Vulkan (High Tier) Offscreen IFH 5.00 20 19 16 14 16 GFXBench 1440p Aztec Ruins OpenGL (High Tier) Offscreen IFH 5.00 20 18 16 14 18 Speedometer 2.00 80 36 53 49 65.4 JetStream – Geometric mean 1.10 123 116 98 85 95.8 PCMark – Work 2.0 2.0.3716 12,626 9,068 9,311 8,988 8,667 Androbench Sequential Read (MB/s) 5.0.1 1,459 1,398 873 659 1,451.09 Androbench Sequential Write (MB/s) 5.0.1 225 217 189 231 443.66 Androbench Random Read (IOPS) 5.0.1 50,378 41,315 37,600 32,376 53,114.78 Androbench Random Write (IOPS) 5.0.1 48,410 35,422 41,340 37,417 55,972.18 Androbench Random Read (MB/s) 5.0.1 195 161 147 126 207.47 Androbench Random Write (MB/s) 5.0.1 189 138 161 146 218.64 Androbench SQLite Insert 5.0.1 3,705 3,187 3,207 2,627 4,968.81 Androbench SQLite Update 5.0.1 4,014 3,931 3,996 3,333 6,090.65 Androbench SQLite Delete 5.0.1 5,037 4,964 4,558 4,081 7,664.88 3DMark Sling Shot Extreme Open GL ES 3.1 Overall Score 2.0.4646 7,008 6,201 5,174 3,431 5,677 3DMark Sling Shot Extreme Vulkan Overall Score 2.0.4646 6,449 5,339 4,339 3,273 4,303

Subscores

Benchmark Subscore Chart. Click to expand. Benchmark Subscore Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 AnTuTu CPU 182,101 118,473 117,500 77,245 CPU Mathematical Operations 47,555 33,101 35,852 19,449 CPU Common Algorithms 40,260 23,468 20,400 13,203 CPU Multi-Core 94,286 61,904 61,248 44,593 GPU 218,496 193,905 160,291 117,022 GPU Terracotta – Vulkan 54,634 49,080 40,874 33,176 GPU Coastline – Vulkan 77,022 68,847 49,274 36,549 GPU Refinery – OpenGL ES3.1+AEP 86,840 75,978 70,143 58,356 MEM 81,392 65,011 56,889 46,041 MEM RAM Access 37,450 27,154 25,031 19,153 MEM ROM App IO 4,876 4,785 4,914 4,539 MEM ROM Sequential Read 22,039 20,046 13,240 9,499 MEM ROM Sequential Write 3,513 3,309 2,891 3,328 MEM ROM Random Access 13,514 9,718 10,813 9,523 UX 83,396 48,573 51,818 38,339 UX Data Security 13,788 8,835 9,384 6,041 UX Data Processing 28,615 9,852 9,088 5,959 UX Image Processing 14,473 9,799 12,741 10,192 UX User Experience 26,520 20,088 20,605 16,147 3DMark Sling Shot Extreme Open GL ES 3.1 Graphics Score 8,158 7,092 5,631 3,384 Sling Shot Extreme Open GL ES 3.1 Physics Score 4,693 4,308 4,401 3,623 Sling Shot Extreme Vulkan Graphics Score 8,224 6,557 4,845 3,425 Sling Shot Extreme Vulkan Physics Score 3,674 3,246 3,177 2,835 PCMark Web Browsing 2.0 score 11,680 6,427 6,985 7,806 Video Editing score 6,575 5,894 5,611 6,638 Writing 2.0 score 14,389 11,475 10,945 9,364 Photo Editing 2.0 score 36,868 18,247 22,159 17,516 Data Manipulation score 7,880 7,732 7,361 6,902 Geekbench Single-core Crypto Score 1,435 1,055 873 838 Single-core Integer Score 878 736 578 513 Single-core Floating Point Score 956 762 604 488 Multi-core Crypto Score 5,594 3,874 3,746 3,703 Multi-core Integer Score 3,304 2,764 2,410 2,093 Multi-core Floating Point Score 3,412 2,831 2,482 1,930

Main Scores Comparison

Subscore Versus Snapdragon 865 Versus Snapdragon 855+ Versus Snapdragon 855 Versus Snapdragon 845 Versus Kirin 990 AnTuTu 1x 1.33x 1.46x 2.03x 1.45x Geekbench single-core 1x 1.22x 1.55x 1.78x 1.24x Geekbench multi-core 1x 1.21x 1.38x 1.62x 1.2x GFXBench ES 3.0 1080 Manhattan offscreen 1x 1.15x 1.37x 1.54x 1.21x GFXBench ES 3.1 1080 Carchase offscreen 1x 1.04x 1.25x 1.43x 1.32x GFXBench ES 3.1 1080 Manhattan offscreen 1x 1.13x 1.31x 1.44x 1.31x GFXBench ES 2.0 1080 T-Rex offscreen 1x 1.11x 1.25x 1.35x 1.95x GFXBench 1440p Aztec Ruins Vulkan (High Tier) Offscreen IFH 1x 1.05x 1.25x 1.43x 1.25x GFXBench 1440p Aztec Ruins OpenGL (High Tier) Offscreen IFH 1x 1.11x 1.25x 1.43x 1.11x Speedometer 1x 2.22x 1.51x 1.63x 1.22x JetStream – Geometric mean 1x 1.06x 1.26x 1.45x 1.28x PCMark – Work 2.0 1x 1.39x 1.36x 1.4x 1.46x Androbench Sequential Read (MB/s) 1x 1.04x 1.67x 2.21x 1.01x Androbench Sequential Write (MB/s) 1x 1.04x 1.19x 0.97x 0.51x Androbench Random Read (IOPS) 1x 1.22x 1.34x 1.56x 0.95x Androbench Random Write (IOPS) 1x 1.37x 1.17x 1.29x 0.86x Androbench Random Read (MB/s) 1x 1.21x 1.33x 1.55x 0.94x Androbench Random Write (MB/s) 1x 1.37x 1.17x 1.29x 0.86x Androbench SQLite Insert 1x 1.16x 1.16x 1.41x 0.75x Androbench SQLite Update 1x 1.02x 1x 1.2x 0.66x Androbench SQLite Delete 1x 1.01x 1.11x 1.23x 0.66x 3DMark Sling Shot Extreme Open GL ES 3.1 Overall Score 1x 1.13x 1.35x 2.04x 1.23x 3DMark Sling Shot Extreme Vulkan Overall Score 1x 1.21x 1.49x 1.97x 1.50x

Subscores Comparison

Benchmark Subscores Comparison Chart. Click to expand. Benchmark Subscore Versus Snapdragon 865 Versus Snapdragon 855+ Versus Snapdragon 855 Versus Snapdragon 845 AnTuTu CPU 1x 1.54x 1.55x 2.36x CPU Mathematical Operations 1x 1.44x 1.33x 2.45x CPU Common Algorithms 1x 1.72x 1.97x 3.05x CPU Multi-Core 1x 1.52x 1.54x 2.11x GPU 1x 1.13x 1.36x 1.87x GPU Terracotta – Vulkan 1x 1.11x 1.34x 1.65x GPU Coastline – Vulkan 1x 1.12x 1.56x 2.11x GPU Refinery – OpenGL ES3.1+AEP 1x 1.14x 1.24x 1.49x MEM 1x 1.25x 1.43x 1.77x MEM RAM Access 1x 1.38x 1.5x 1.96x MEM ROM App IO 1x 1.02x 0.99x 1.07x MEM ROM Sequential Read 1x 1.1x 1.66x 2.32x MEM ROM Sequential Write 1x 1.06x 1.22x 1.06x MEM ROM Random Access 1x 1.39x 1.25x 1.42x UX 1x 1.72x 1.61x 2.18x UX Data Security 1x 1.56x 1.47x 2.28x UX Data Processing 1x 2.9x 3.15x 4.8x UX Image Processing 1x 1.48x 1.14x 1.42x UX User Experience 1x 1.32x 1.29x 1.64x 3DMark Sling Shot Extreme Open GL ES 3.1 Graphics Score 1x 1.15x 1.45x 2.41x Sling Shot Extreme Open GL ES 3.1 Physics Score 1x 1.09x 1.07x 1.3x Sling Shot Extreme Vulkan Graphics Score 1x 1.25x 1.7x 2.4x Sling Shot Extreme Vulkan Physics Score 1x 1.13x 1.16x 1.3x PCMark Web Browsing 2.0 score 1x 1.82x 1.67x 1.5x Video Editing score 1x 1.12x 1.17x 0.99x Writing 2.0 score 1x 1.25x 1.31x 1.54x Photo Editing 2.0 score 1x 2.02x 1.66x 2.1x Data Manipulation score 1x 1.02x 1.07x 1.14x Geekbench Single-core Crypto Score 1x 1.36x 1.64x 1.71x Single-core Integer Score 1x 1.19x 1.52x 1.71x Single-core Floating Point Score 1x 1.25x 1.58x 1.96x Multi-core Crypto Score 1x 1.44x 1.49x 1.51x Multi-core Integer Score 1x 1.2x 1.37x 1.58x Multi-core Floating Point Score 1x 1.21x 1.37x 1.77x

Concluding Highlights

Analysis by Mario Serrafero:

For AnTuTu ’s final score, we observe a large 33% bump over the 855+ and a massive improvement of around 45% over the 855. The CPU subtests showcase massive improvements, with uplifts in each subscore ranging from 15% to 97%. These results are surprising given that Qualcomm posted a respectable 25% CPU performance uplift over the Snapdragon 855, yet we see all CPU subscores go up by over 40%, and even 70%. The GPU side of the subscores, however, sees a much more restrained increase of around 13% on average, compared to the 855+, or 24% to 56% compared to our 855 scores from the Google Pixel 4.

’s final score, we observe a large 33% bump over the 855+ and a massive improvement of around 45% over the 855. The CPU subtests showcase massive improvements, with uplifts in each subscore ranging from 15% to 97%. These results are surprising given that Qualcomm posted a respectable 25% CPU performance uplift over the Snapdragon 855, yet we see all CPU subscores go up by over 40%, and even 70%. The GPU side of the subscores, however, sees a much more restrained increase of around 13% on average, compared to the 855+, or 24% to 56% compared to our 855 scores from the Google Pixel 4. The popular PCMark 2.0 saw a massive jump of almost 40% in its “Work 2.0” final score, compared to the 855+. Looking at the subscores, it seems that most of the improvement lies in the Photo Editing 2.0 subtest, which nearly doubles in score, followed by a Web Browsing score improvement of around 80%. The final score is simply the average between all subscores, so these massive bumps end up being balancing out the more conservative figures of the other subscores, which remain constant or rise by less than 25%.

saw a massive jump of almost 40% in its “Work 2.0” final score, compared to the 855+. Looking at the subscores, it seems that most of the improvement lies in the Photo Editing 2.0 subtest, which nearly doubles in score, followed by a Web Browsing score improvement of around 80%. The final score is simply the average between all subscores, so these massive bumps end up being balancing out the more conservative figures of the other subscores, which remain constant or rise by less than 25%. Geekbench 5 subscores gave us a decent look into where the resulting ~20% increase in Single-core and Multi-core scores comes from. The crypto tests (which are weighted the least in calculating the final scores) had a performance increment of 36% and 44% (single and multi, respectively) compared to our 855+ results, whereas integer and floating-point performance only rose by about 19% to 25%, perfectly in-line with Qualcomm’s figures. The gap is much larger if we compare the 865 to our 855 results from the Pixel 4, as crypto goes up by 66% while integer and floating-point improvements sit over 50% for single-core tests and over 35% for multi-core tests. Given the 865 features the same clock speeds as the 855, we see a bump in integer and floating score performance per MHz.

subscores gave us a decent look into where the resulting ~20% increase in Single-core and Multi-core scores comes from. The crypto tests (which are weighted the least in calculating the final scores) had a performance increment of 36% and 44% (single and multi, respectively) compared to our 855+ results, whereas integer and floating-point performance only rose by about 19% to 25%, perfectly in-line with Qualcomm’s figures. The gap is much larger if we compare the 865 to our 855 results from the Pixel 4, as crypto goes up by 66% while integer and floating-point improvements sit over 50% for single-core tests and over 35% for multi-core tests. Given the 865 features the same clock speeds as the 855, we see a bump in integer and floating score performance per MHz. 3DMark scores also fall more-or-less in line with the expected 20% faster graphics rendering that Qualcomm boasted at the Snapdragon tech summit. The graphics and physics scores saw an increase of 15% and 11% (respectively) over the 855+ for the OpenGL ES 3.1 test, and 25% and 22% for the Vulkan test. This suggests the 865 is a healthy upgrade for gamers.

scores also fall more-or-less in line with the expected 20% faster graphics rendering that Qualcomm boasted at the Snapdragon tech summit. The graphics and physics scores saw an increase of 15% and 11% (respectively) over the 855+ for the OpenGL ES 3.1 test, and 25% and 22% for the Vulkan test. This suggests the 865 is a healthy upgrade for gamers. GFXBench only saw a performance boost of 5% to 15% over the 855+, though when comparing it against the regular 855 those numbers jump above the 20% year-on-year increments posted by the company.

Recommended Reading

Benchmark Sources

CPU, GPU, and Memory

CPU and Memory

System

GPU

Storage

Browser

Speedometer 2.0 ||| JetStream 1.1

Thanks to TK Bay for the featured image. Thanks to Max Weinbach for providing the Kirin 990 results from his Huawei Mate 30 Pro.