But Williams is now off the board, as the Dallas Cowboys reportedly signed him to a three-year, $24 million contract extension, with $16 million guaranteed.

That is a strong measuring stick for the Jets and Jaguars when it comes to what Hall and Etienne could command in free agency.

Hall is widely viewed as the most coveted pending free agent at the position thanks to his explosive skill set that makes him a home-run threat as a runner and pass-catcher.

Etienne has a stronger track record of production than Williams and Hall thanks to his three 1,000-yard seasons as compared to Hall’s and Williams’ one, and like those players, Etienne is an asset both in the ground and passing games.

Spotrac projects Etienne will receive a two-year, $13.6 million deal, which would come in under what Williams is getting annually. We believe Etienne will at least secure a contract closer to the $8 million per year Williams is getting.

As for Hall, Spotrac sees a four-year, $41.5 million deal. If Hall is as coveted as we believe he is, earning a double-digit annual average certainly isn’t out of the question.

Hall may never hit free agency, though, as ESPN’s Jeremy Fowler reports the Jets are leaving the door open to franchise tag Hall, but he also notes that the transition tag is a possibility, which would allow Hall to negotiate with other teams but still gives the Jets the opportunity to match.

The transition tag price is $11.7 million for running backs in 2026, so if the Jets go that route, it’s possible Hall could receive an offer that exceeds $12 million per.

Etienne, on the other hand, is highly unlikely to get tagged by the Jaguars and has a far better chance to hit the open market than Hall.

More NFL News

The post Jets and Jaguars Set Benchmark for Breece Hall and Travis Etienne Contract Negotiations appeared first on Jugo Mobile.

It was one of, if not the most insane and out of nowhere trades we’ve seen in any sport, ever. Never had we seen a 25-year-old superstar at the peak of his abilities shipped off in such swift and unceremonious fashion. 

Almost a year removed from that fateful Shams bomb, and although you can’t call it yet, it seems like there is already a clear winner in the trade. 

Dončić is averaging an unbelievable 33.5 PPG (1st in NBA), 8.7 APG (4th in NBA), and 8.6 RPG for the Purple and Gold this season and has carried them to the 5-seed so far despite their many problems. 

His scoring dominance has been so heavily on display that now, after just 74 games, Dončić finds himself as the franchise leader in this massive statistic. 

Dončić leads Lakers all-time in PPG

The Los Angeles Lakers are one of the most storied and revered organizations in all of sports. You don’t get to that point without having a few star players donning your jersey. 

Luka Dončić is an outstanding young player with Hall of Fame written all over him. His landing in LA is a match made in heaven, and in just his second season with the team, he’s already establishing himself as one of the greats. 

Luka Doncic vs Memphis:

34 PTS6 REB8 AST2 STL

Lakers all-time leader in PPG. pic.twitter.com/pUiJB5f2Xh

— StatMuse (@statmuse) January 3, 2026

There are five players in the NBA’s top ten all-time scoring list who have spent solid time as Lakers throughout their careers, including LeBron James, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Kobe Bryant, Wilt Chamberlain, and Shaquille O’Neal. 

Of all those names, Dončić currently reigns supreme. His time as a Laker is still fresh, so this record makes sense and is subject to change, but you could not be off to a better start as a Laker if you’re Luka Dončić.

More NBA News: 

The post Luka Dončić Sets New Benchmark as All-Time Leader in Key Stat for Los Angeles Lakers appeared first on Jugo Mobile.

Apple M4 vs Intel Lunar Lake: Specs Comparison

Apple M4 vs Intel Lunar Lake: Geekbench 6 CPU

In our first Geekbench 6 CPU test, the 10-core Apple M4 CPU delivers remarkable performance. It scores 3,781 in single-core and 14,858 in multi-core. In comparison, Intel’s Lunar Lake processor aka the 8-core Core Ultra 7 258V achieves 2,640 points in single-core and 10,754 in multi-core. Despite running the CPU at higher clock speeds, Intel couldn’t match Apple’s CPU performance.

In single-core tasks, the Apple M4 CPU is around 43% faster than the Lunar Lake CPU. And in multi-core tasks, the M4 CPU leads by 38%. While the x86-based Lunar Lake CPU is not bad, the Arm-based M4 CPU is in a different league altogether, both in terms of performance and efficiency.

Apple M4 vs Intel Lunar Lake: Cinebench 2024

In the Cinebench 2024 benchmark, the Apple M4 CPU gets 176 points in single-core and 972 in multi-core. Whereas, the Intel Lunar Lake CPU gets 119 points in single-core tasks and 596 in multi-core tasks. Here, the difference in single-core performance is in line with the Geekbench test. The M4 CPU leads by about 48% and in multi-core, the gap is even larger, with a difference of 63%.

Apple M4 vs Intel Lunar Lake: Geekbench 6 GPU

In the Geekbench 6 GPU test, the 10-core Apple M4 GPU scores 38,006 points while using the OpenCL API and the 8-core Intel Arc 140V GPU achieves 27,068 points on the same graphics API. In graphics performance, the M4 GPU delivers 40% faster performance than the Lunar Lake GPU.

On Apple’s own Metal API, the M4 GPU delivers superior performance, achieving a score of 58,082 points. On the Vulkan API, the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V GPU also does better and gets 37,096 points, but it’s still significantly behind the M4 GPU.

Apple M4 vs Intel Lunar Lake: 3DMark

In the graphics-intensive 3DMark Wild Life Extreme test, the M4 GPU gets 9,807 points whereas the Lunar Lake GPU gets 7,480 points. Basically, the M4 GPU is around 31% faster than the Intel Arc 140V GPU. However, in the Solar Bay test that evaluates the ray-tracing capability, the Lunar Lake processor does 5% better, scoring 15,152 points, and the M4 GPU achieves 14,312 points.

Apple M4 vs Intel Lunar Lake: Geekbench AI

Next, in the Geekbench AI test which evaluates the NPU/Neural Engine, the 16-core Apple M4 Neural Engine hits it out of the park. Be it Single precision, Half precision, or Quantized data types, the M4 Neural Engine delivers 60% to 80% faster performance than the Intel NPU on AI workloads.

Keep in mind, we ran the test on the OpenVINO framework for the Intel NPU. Put simply, for running on-device AI tasks, the M4 Neural Engine will offer you faster AI performance than the Intel NPU.

Apple M4 vs Intel Lunar Lake: Speedometer 3.0

Finally, in the browser benchmark Speedometer 3.0 test, the Apple M4 gets 33.2 points whereas the Intel Lunar Lake processor achieves 25.5 points. In this test, the M4 processor leads by 30%. Basically, for a fluid and responsive web browsing experience, the Apple M4 is better than the Lunar Lake chipset.

Apple M4 vs Intel Lunar Lake: The Verdict

It’s evidently clear that the Apple M4 chipset is miles ahead of Intel Lunar Lake aka the 2nd-gen Core Ultra processor. The M4 CPU offers lightning-fast performance, and the GPU delivers impressive graphics performance. The Neural Engine is again pretty solid. And all of this is done efficiently at lower clock speeds and power consumption.

While the Apple M4 chipset is indeed very powerful, Intel’s unique Lunar Lake processor should not be dismissed. After a long wait, Intel has developed an efficient x86 processor, putting the CPU, GPU, and NPU on a single compute tile. Not to mention, just like Apple’s M-series processors, it comes with on-package memory and is fabricated on TSMC’s 1st-gen 3nm process node.

In our Intel Lunar Lake vs Snapdragon X Elite comparison, we noted that Intel’s latest processor rivals Qualcomm’s PC chipset in battery life. It means that x86 chipsets can be designed for efficiency and Intel should continue the new design.

That said, new reports suggest that Intel might not move forward with the Lunar Lake design. In that case, we will have to see how the company tunes the processor for efficiency. To conclude, the Intel Lunar Lake chipset is quite promising, but it can’t match the Apple M4 in terms of performance or efficiency.

The post Apple M4 vs Intel Lunar Lake: An In-Depth Benchmark Showdown appeared first on Jugo Mobile.

Apple M4 vs Snapdragon X Elite: Specs Comparison

Apple M4 vs Snapdragon X Elite: Geekbench 6 CPU

Starting with the Geekbench 6 CPU test. Here, the Apple M4 performs exceptionally well. It scored 3,781 in single-core and 14,858 in multi-core. In contrast, the Snapdragon X Elite packing the first-gen Oryon CPU achieved 2,441 in single-core and 14,050 in multi-core.

In single-core tasks, the Apple M4 is around 54% faster than the Snapdragon X Elite. However, in multi-core, the Snapdragon X Elite significantly closes the gap due to 12 performance cores. Apple M4 has 10 CPU cores, of which four are performance cores and six are efficiency cores. Despite a lower core count, Apple M4 leads by 5% in multi-core performance.

Apple M4 vs Snapdragon X Elite: Cinebench 2024

Next, in the Cinebench 2024 CPU test, the Apple M4 scored 176 points in single-core and 972 points in multi-core. On the other hand, the Snapdragon X Elite gets 108 in single-core and 1,110 in multi-core. Here, the Apple M4 leads by a whopping 63% in single-core tasks. However, in multi-core, the 12-core Snapdragon X Elite outperforms the 10-core Apple M4 by 13%.

Apple M4 vs Snapdragon X Elite: Geekbench 6 GPU

To test the GPU, we ran the Geekbench 6 CPU test using the same OpenCL graphics API for better parity. The Apple M4 achieved 38,006 points while the Snapdragon X Elite could only muster 20,266 points. Basically, the 10-core Apple M4 GPU on the Mac Mini is almost 2x faster (87%) than the Adreno X1 GPU on the Snapdragon X Elite. That’s a big win for Apple.

Apple M4 vs Snapdragon X Elite: 3DMark

We also ran the graphics-intensive 3DMark Wild Life Extreme test on Apple M4 and Snapdragon X Elite to evaluate their GPUs. The Apple M4 10-core GPU again delivered stellar graphics performance. It scored 9,807 points with an average of 58.7 FPS. In contrast, the Adreno X1 GPU on Snapdragon X Elite achieved 6,461 points with 38.69 FPS. In this test, Apple M4 delivered 51% faster graphics performance which is huge.

Next, in the demanding 3DMark Steel Nomad Light test, the gap widens even further. The Apple M4 achieves 4,001 points with 29.6 FPS. And the Snapdragon X Elite gets 2,228 points with 16.50 FPS. Here, the Apple M4 outperforms the Snapdragon X Elite by 80% which is a remarkable feat.

Apple M4 vs Snapdragon X Elite: Geekbench AI

While Qualcomm has added support for its QNN backend on Geekbench AI, the Hexagon NPU on Snapdragon X Elite still lags behind the Neural Engine on Apple M4. In our test, Apple M4’s 16-core Neural Engine consistently delivered 2x to 3x faster performance than Qualcomm’s Hexagon NPU, be it Single Precision, Half Precision, or Quantized data type. It goes on to show that Apple is the leader in on-device AI computation.

Apple M4 vs Snapdragon X Elite: On-Device LLM Performance

We also did a practical test to assess the NPU/Neural Engine on both processors. We installed the LM Studio application that lets you run AI models locally. Sadly, LM Studio doesn’t leverage the NPU or Neural Engine on both chipsets. The app uses the CPU on the Snapdragon X Elite and GPU+CPU on the Apple M4.

Nevertheless, we loaded a 3B model (4-bit) on both devices and ran a few prompts. The Apple M4 generated response at 48 tokens per second whereas the Snapdragon X Elite could only achieve up to 24 tokens per second. In line with the Geekbench AI test, local AI inference on the Apple M4 is 2x faster than the Snapdragon X Elite.

Apple M4 vs Snapdragon X Elite: Speedometer 3.0

Finally, moving to Speedometer 3.0, a browser benchmark that evaluates web browsing performance and responsiveness of web applications. The Apple M4 once again hits it out of the park with a score of 33.2 points, while the Snapdragon X Elite achieves 27.2 points. Put simply, the Apple M4 delivers about 22% faster performance in web browsing than the Snapdragon X Elite.

Apple M4 vs Snapdragon X Elite: The Verdict

To conclude, the Apple M4 chipset is significantly better than the Snapdragon X Elite across the board, whether in CPU, GPU, or NPU performance. The M4 CPU is based on the newer Armv9 architecture whereas the Oryon CPU on Snapdragon X Elite is still on the older Armv8 design. In addition, the M4 CPU has SME units which makes it even more performant.

Apple has been refining its M-series processors for four years, leading to a mature platform with significant performance headroom. In contrast, Snapdragon X Elite is Qualcomm’s first PC chipset with the custom Oryon CPU. However, Qualcomm has teased that Snapdragon X Elite Gen 2 will pack third-gen Oryon CPU cores which promise a generational leap in performance and efficiency.

Perhaps, next year, we might see Qualcomm matching Apple in CPU performance and efficiency. As for the GPU, Apple’s in-house GPU is again 50% to 80% more powerful than the Adreno X1 GPU. There is a substantial difference in graphics performance. And the same goes for the Neural Engine/NPU. Apple delivers 2x faster performance in specialized AI workloads.

As things stand, Qualcomm lags behind Apple in laptop-grade chipsets. However, as we saw with the Snapdragon 8 Elite which brings massive improvements with the second-gen Oryon v2 cores, the chipmaker is quickly reiterating and improving performance and efficiency. We anticipate that next year, Qualcomm will be on solid grounds to rival Apple.

The post Apple M4 vs Snapdragon X Elite: A Comprehensive Benchmark Analysis for Optimal Performance appeared first on Jugo Mobile.

Snapdragon 8 Elite vs A18 Pro: Specs Comparison

Snapdragon 8 Elite vs A18 Pro: Geekbench 6 CPU

To test the CPU, we ran Geekbench 6 on Snapdragon 8 Elite and A18 Pro. In single-core tasks, the Snapdragon 8 Elite’s Oryon CPU scored 3,033 whereas the A18 Pro did 10% better, achieving 3,358 points. In multi-core tasks, the eight-core Snapdragon 8 Elite performed better, scoring 9,271 points and the six-core A18 Pro got 8,184 points. In multi-threaded tasks, the Snapdragon 8 Elite leads by 13%, largely due to the two extra cores.

Note that Snapdragon 8 Elite is based on the older Armv8 architecture and has no SME units whereas the A18 Pro is developed on the Armv9 architecture and takes advantage of SME. As a result, it scores slightly better on Geekbench 6.3.

That said, A18 Pro consumes power up to 6.5W whereas Snapdragon 8 Elite pushes the power envelope up to 7.5W to boost the clock speed further. In our testing, surprisingly, the Snapdragon 8 Elite was cooler than the A18 Pro, thanks to Realme GT7 Pro’s large VC chamber. Snapdragon 8 Elite touched 32.8 degrees C after the test, and A18 Pro rose to 35.1 degrees C.

In my assessment, Apple is still the leader in performance per watt as far as the CPU is concerned. However, Qualcomm has come really close to dethroning Apple in the CPU department with its second-gen Oryon cores.

Snapdragon 8 Elite vs A18 Pro: AnTuTu Benchmark

In the AnTuTu benchmark, the Snapdragon 8 Elite delivered impressive performance. It achieved 2,759,190 points whereas the A18 Pro got 1,816,016 points, leading by over 50%. In this test, the stark difference in performance is visible in the GPU department. Snapdragon 8 Elite’s Adreno 830 GPU scored 1,132,574 points, and A18 Pro’s six-core GPU got 728,942 points, resulting in a wide gap of 55%.

It also becomes clear that the Snapdragon 8 Elite enjoys access to much faster memory than the A18 Pro. Not to mention, the Snapdragon 8 Elite’s temperature remained around 36.7 degrees C, while the A18 Pro peaked at 38.3 degrees C.

Snapdragon 8 Elite vs A18 Pro: 3DMark

In the 3DMark Wild Life Extreme Stress test, the Adreno 830 GPU on the Snapdragon 8 Elite delivers remarkable performance. It gets the best loop score of 6,311 points and the lowest loop score of 5,258 points. Notably, the stability stood around 83.3% which is impressive.

A18 Pro’s six-core GPU, on the other hand, gets the best loop score of 4,574 points and the lowest loop score of 3,096 points, with a poor stability of 67.7%. As you can notice, the Snapdragon 8 Elite’s lowest score is even higher than the A18 Pro’s highest score. It means that the Adreno 830 GPU is far superior in graphics performance. Not only that, the temperature also remains nearly the same on both the devices.

In the 3DMark Solar Bay test that evaluates the ray-tracing capability, Qualcomm again outranks Apple. Snapdragon 8 Elite gets an overall score of 10,614 points with an average of 40.36 FPS. A18 Pro, on the other hand, achieves 7,985 points with an average of 30.4 FPS. Once again, the Snapdragon 8 Elite runs two degrees cooler than the A18 Pro.

Snapdragon 8 Elite vs A18 Pro: Geekbench AI

In our testing, the Snapdragon 8 Elite’s Hexagon NPU got poor scores on the Geekbench AI test due to the lack of the QNN framework. Hence, we have not included the scores in our comparison. However, we ran the test on the deprecated NNAPI framework using the CPU and it also didn’t do well. Nevertheless, you can check out the table below to see how both CPUs handle AI workloads.

The Verdict

To sum up, the second-gen Oryon CPU on Snapdragon 8 Elite is very promising, both in terms of performance and efficiency. It has access to a large pool of cache, and despite being on the older architecture, it comes really close to beating A18 Pro’s CPU.

While the A18 Pro’s CPU core is better on paper, due to the advanced cooling system on Android phones, the Snapdragon 8 Elite can sustain its peak performance for a longer period and stay cooler. It’s basically how well the entire system works together, not just the chipset.

As for the GPU, Qualcomm has knocked it out of the park with the new sliced architecture on the Adreno 830 GPU. Apple seriously needs to beef up its mobile GPU for future A-series chips. All in all, it’s an exciting time for Android users who want a flagship experience, on par with the latest and greatest iPhones.

The post Ultimate Benchmark Showdown: Snapdragon 8 Elite vs A18 Pro Performance Analysis appeared first on Jugo Mobile.

Snapdragon 8 Elite vs Dimensity 9400: Specs Comparison

Snapdragon 8 Elite vs Dimensity 9400: Geekbench 6 CPU

Starting with the Geekbench 6 CPU benchmark, the Oryon-powered Snapdragon 8 Elite scored 3,033 in single-core and 9,271 in multi-core. On the other hand, the Dimensity 9400 with Arm’s Cortex CPU cores achieved 2,618 in single-core and 8,291 in multi-core. Here, the Snapdragon 8 Elite leads by 15% in single-core performance and around 11% in multi-threaded tasks.

Snapdragon 8 Elite vs Dimensity 9400: AnTuTu Benchmark

In the AnTuTu benchmark, both Snapdragon 8 Elite and Dimensity 9400 performed along the same lines. Snapdragon 8 Elite scored 2,759,190 points and the Dimensity 9400 got 2,701,004 points. Surprisingly, the Dimensity 9400 performed better on the CPU benchmark and outranked Snapdragon 8 Elite in GPU performance too by a slight margin.

Snapdragon 8 Elite vs Dimensity 9400: CPU Throttling Test

Next, in the CPU Throttling test, it becomes clear that while Dimensity 9400’s CPU is powerful, it can’t sustain peak performance for an extended period. It may have to do with vivo X200 Pro mini’s small form factor, but in our 60-minute stress test, the Dimensity 9400 throttled to 62% of its max performance. In contrast, the Snapdragon 8 Elite throttled to 77%, sustaining peak performance for much longer.

Snapdragon 8 Elite vs Dimensity 9400: Geekbench 6 GPU

As we noticed in the AnTuTu benchmark, the Arm Immortalis-G925 MP12 GPU on Dimensity 9400 is really powerful. It not only rivals the Snapdragon 8 Elite’s Adreno 830 GPU but also narrowly beats it on both OpenCL and Vulkan graphics APIs on the Geekbench 6 GPU test.

Snapdragon 8 Elite vs Dimensity 9400: 3DMark Tests

Now, coming to the demanding 3DMark GPU test. In the 3DMark Wild Life Extreme Stress test, the Snapdragon 8 Elite got the best loop score of 6,311 points and the lowest loop score of 5,258 points. It also maintained an excellent stability of 83.3%.

Dimensity 9400’s GPU also got the best loop score of 5,839 points, but it quickly throttled the GPU, bringing the lowest loop score to 2,306 points. The stability stood at a dismal 39.5%. In my opinion, the GPU is being highly throttled to reduce the temperature on a small device like the vivo X200 Pro mini. We need to test the Dimensity 9400 on a larger Android phone to ascertain the GPU stability.

Next, in the 3DMark Solar Bay test, Dimensity 9400 again delivered slightly better ray-tracing performance. It averaged 41.62 FPS and maintained a lower temperature as well. In the intensive Steel Nomad Light test, Dimensity 9400 scored 2,405 points whereas the Snapdragon 8 Elite got 2,201 points.

Snapdragon 8 Elite vs Dimensity 9400: Geekbench AI

Now, coming to the Geekbench AI test that evaluates the NPU. Unfortunately, Snapdragon 8 Elite’s NPU driver stack is not ready, resulting in much lower scores. Hence, we have not included them in this comparison. That said, we ran the test on the CPU, and it seems Dimensity 9400 did better on AI workloads. Overall, we need to wait for Qualcomm to add support for its Hexagon AI engine so we can comprehensively compare both NPUs.

The Verdict

As far as the CPU performance is concerned, the custom Oryon core on the Snapdragon 8 Elite is better than Arm’s Cortex cores on the Dimensity 9400. The Oryon cores can scale to higher frequencies while keeping the temperature in check. It also consumes lower power compared to Dimensity 9400’s CPU.

On the GPU front, Dimensity 9400’s Immortalis-G925 GPU has impressed us with its remarkable graphics performance. In multiple tests, it beats the Adreno 830 GPU by a slight margin. That said, sustained graphics performance remains a concern, but to ascertain that, we need to check the stability on a larger device with better cooling system.

Overall, MediaTek has indeed developed a flagship chipset. I think premium Android phones will have unmatched CPU and GPU performance this year, which is excellent news for consumers.

The post Snapdragon 8 Elite vs Dimensity 9400: A Comprehensive Benchmark Showdown appeared first on Jugo Mobile.

Apple A18 vs A18 Pro: Specs Comparison

Apple A18 vs A18 Pro: Geekbench 6 CPU

In our first Geekbench 6 CPU test, the A18 scored 3,141 in single-core and 7,804 in multi-core. Whereas, the A18 Pro does slightly better due to a large cache size and achieves 3,358 in single-core and 8,814 in multi-core. The A18 Pro CPU is only about 5-7% faster than the A18 CPU which is pretty narrow. I would say both the chipsets deliver nearly identical CPU performance.

Apple A18 vs A18 Pro: AnTuTu Benchmark

In the AnTuTu benchmark, the A18 achieves a total score of 1,668,567 points. And the A18 Pro gets 1,816,016 points, offering an overall performance gain of around 8.8%. The A18 Pro CPU and GPU deliver around 8-10% faster performance than the A18.

Apple A18 vs A18 Pro: Geekbench 6 GPU

In the Geekbench 6 GPU test, the 6-core A18 Pro GPU scores 32,569 and the 5-core A18 GPU achieves 28,030 points. The test was done on Apple’s Metal graphics API. Here, the difference is substantial, where the A18 Pro GPU offers around 16% better graphics performance than the A18.

Apple A18 vs A18 Pro: 3DMark Wild Life Extreme Stress Test and Solar Bay

To test the GPU further, we ran the 3DMark Wild Life Extreme Stress test on both A18 and A18 Pro. The 5-core A18 GPU gets the best loop score of 3,600 points and the lowest loop score of 2,370 points, with a stability of 65.8%.

On the other hand, the 6-core A18 Pro GPU gets the best score of 4,574 points and the lowest score of 3,096 points, at 67.7% stability. Here, the performance difference comes down to a massive 30%. Besides having an extra GPU core, it seems the graphite substructure in the iPhone 16 Pro Max greatly helps the GPU to sustain its peak performance, even under sustained load.

In the 3DMark Solar Bay Unlimited test which puts the Ray Tracing units through its paces, the A18 gets an overall score of 7,068 with an average frame rate of 26.9 FPS. In contrast, the A18 Pro gets 7,985 points and achieves an average frame rate of 30.4 FPS. In Ray Tracing capability, the performance difference is around 13% between A18 and A18 Pro.

Apple A18 vs A18 Pro: Geekbench AI

In the latest version of Geekbench AI 1.1, the 16-core Neural Engine on both A18 and A18 Pro performs along the same lines. In fact, the A18 does slightly better in Half Precision (FP16) and Quantized (INT8) data types. Both Neural Engines have access to faster LPDDR5X memory (up to 7500 MT/s) which results in better performance. Simply put, A18 and A18 Pro are powerful enough to run on-device Apple Intelligence features for AI/ML tasks.

The Verdict

After comparing the A18 and A18 Pro chipsets on several benchmarks, we can conclude that the A18 chipset is a notch below the A18 Pro. Recent reports also show that both chipsets have different SoC designs. However, you get the same CPU cores, but the cache size has been halved on A18. And on the GPU side, you get one less GPU core.

Overall, the performance difference in CPU is somewhere between 5% to 8%. In the GPU department, the A18 trails by around 15-20%. As far as day-to-day usage is concerned, you won’t find much difference except in sustained gaming performance. In my book, both are flagship-level chipsets.

The post Apple A18 vs A18 Pro: Performance Benchmark Showdown appeared first on Jugo Mobile.

Tensor G4 vs A17 Pro: Specs Comparison

Tensor G4 vs A17 Pro: Geekbench 6 processor

In our first test that evaluates processor performance, the Google Tensor G4 doesn’t perform very well. scores 1,897 in the single-core test and 3,721 In the multi-core test, the Apple A17 Pro leads the market by a wide margin, achieving a single-core score of 2,897 (up 34%) and a multi-core score of 7,261 (a massive 49%). Mind you, Apple achieves this level of performance with only six cores, while the Tensor G4 has eight.

Related articles

Google Pixel 9’s AI Features, Ranked From Worst to Best

Anshuman Jain August 26, 2024

All iPhone 16 and 16 Pro camera specs leaked ahead of launch

Kanika Gogia August 23, 2024

Tensor G4 vs A17 Pro: AnTuTu benchmark

In the AnTuTu benchmark, the The G4 tensor gets 1,253,407 points points while the Apple A17 Pro achieves 1,628,672 points. Therefore, the overall performance difference narrows to 23%. In the GPU department, the gap becomes even wider where the A17 Pro’s GPU leads by 26%. Apple’s 6-core GPU easily beats the 7-core Mali-G715 GPU, but we ran more tests to verify this result

Related articles

Apple A17 Pro vs Snapdragon 8 Gen 2: Apple is back

Arjun Sha September 13, 2023

Tensor G3 vs Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 vs Apple A17 Pro: Google bets on efficiency

Arjun Sha October 4, 2023

Tensor G4 vs A17 Pro: Extreme Stress Test with 3DMark Wild Life

Next, in the intensive 3DMark Wild Life Extreme Stress test, the Tensor G4 underperforms again. The older 7-core ARM Mali-G715 GPU manages to achieve the best loop score of 2,590 points and the lowest loop score of 1,525 points. Stability remained at 58.9%.

The Apple A17 Pro, on the other hand, achieves the highest loop score of 4,110 and the lowest loop score of 2,820 with a stability of 68.6%. In this test, the A17 Pro’s GPU performs 36% better than the Tensor G4 GPU.

Tensor G4 vs A17 Pro: Geekbench AI benchmark

In the Geekbench AI benchmark, the A17 Pro’s 16-core Neural Engine absolutely crushes the Tensor G4’s TPU. Whether in single precision, half-precision, or quantized score, the A17 Pro outperforms the Tensor G4 by 6x to 10x in all of these tests.

Even considering AI performance on CPU and GPU, the Apple A17 Pro delivers multiple gains compared to the Tensor G4. Overall, for on-device AI tasks, the A17 Pro’s Neural Engine performs much better than Google’s mobile TPU.

Tensor G4 vs A17 Pro: 5G connectivity test

Now, let’s move on to our 5G speed test. The A17 Pro is powered by Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X70 5G modem, which translates to much better radio connectivity. It achieves a maximum download/upload speed of 468Mbps and 20.1Mbps, respectively.

The Tensor G4 now comes with the upgraded Samsung Exynos 5400 5G modem, which manages a maximum download speed of 174.8 Mbps and a maximum upload speed of 35.1 Mbps. For mobile connectivity, iPhones and Snapdragon-powered phones continue to offer better bandwidth than the Pixel 9 series.

Google Tensor G4 vs Apple A17 Pro: The Verdict

When it comes to raw performance, the Apple A17 Pro has the most powerful CPU of any mobile chipset on the market, not just the Tensor G4. Its 6-core GPU is also considerably more capable than the old Mali GPU in the Tensor G4. Not to mention that Apple’s Neural Engine is an order of magnitude faster than Google’s TPU in the Tensor G4.

Finally, when it comes to mobile connectivity, the A17 Pro also outshines the rest, as it packs Qualcomm’s 5G modem. In all segments, the A17 Pro outperforms the Tensor G4. So, to conclude, there is simply no competition between the A17 Pro and the Tensor G4 on paper or in the real world. If you want a smartphone with a powerful chipset, you should get an iPhone rather than a Pixel.

The post Google Tensor G4 vs Apple A17 Pro: Specs and Benchmark Comparison appeared first on Jugo Mobile.

Captured on PC

The official Black Myth Wukong: Reference Tool was launched early in the present day. As you may count on, it was particularly created to evaluate your system’s compatibility and {hardware} efficiency by rendering a sport scene in real-time. So you’ll be able to simply apply numerous graphics presets and run it to check the perfect settings for you.

However notice effectively that it’s This isn’t a playable demo of Black Delusion: Wukong. That is only a software that will help you know in case your PC is able to run the sport. I ran the benchmarks on my configuration (specs talked about within the image) earlier in the present day for “Cinematic Preset” with a really excessive RT and body era enabled. Listed below are the outcomes:

Captured on PC

By taking part in round with the totally different choices, I used to be capable of finding the optimum settings that I may use when the sport releases subsequent week. The ultimate outcomes principally match the really helpful specs for the sport that have been talked about by Game Science.

Nevertheless, you will need to notice that this doesn’t characterize the ultimate expertise of the sport. As acknowledged by the builders:

“As a result of complexity and variability of gaming situations, benchmark outcomes might not totally characterize precise gaming expertise and closing efficiency.”

Followers on the web are at the moment hailing the choice to supply the reference software to arrange gamers for the sport’s launch. For my part, the Black Delusion: Wukong reference software is an effective instance of symbiotic relationship.

So whereas players can simply mess around to seek out the proper graphics settings, builders can collect very important info from the previous’s platforms. That is after all an enormous benefit. I feel each studio can take inspiration from Game Science and provide you with their very own benchmark instruments for his or her upcoming video games, as a result of it finally stays helpful for each.

Nevertheless, some customers have reported that the software often crashes and they’re unable to run the benchmarks. Game Science has not launched any updates relating to this situation, so when you encounter any points throughout your take a look at, keep tuned for fixes.

That mentioned, when you’ve efficiently run the benchmarks, tell us how your setup carried out within the feedback beneath.

The post Black Delusion: Wukong Benchmark Device is obtainable; examine in case your PC is prepared appeared first on Jugo Mobile.

Note:
We performed the comparative tests on the Galaxy S24+ powered by Exynos 2400 and the iQOO 12 powered by Snapdragon 8 Gen 3.

Exynos 2400 vs Snapdragon 8 Gen 3: Geekbench 6

The Exynos 2400 performed along expected lines, as evident from the Geekbench CPU test. With a deca-core CPU in the Exynos 2400, it scored 2046 in the single-core test and 6687 in the multicore test. And the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 with eight cores scored a little higher, thanks to the increase in the maximum frequencies of all cores, it earns 2228 in the single-core test and 6858 in the multi-core test.

Both CPUs are quite powerful and the Exynos 2400 is coming close to the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3, which is quite a feat. However, with 10 CPU cores, Samsung should have scored higher in the multi-core test. It shows that TSMC’s 4nm manufacturing process is still ahead of Samsung Foundry’s 4nm LPP+ process node.

Exynos 2400 vs Snapdragon 8 Gen 3: CPU acceleration test

In the CPU acceleration test, the Exynos 2400 accelerated to 72% of its maximum performance while the 8 Gen 3 was throttled to 82% of its maximum performance. The Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 performed extremely well, even under sustained load, but the Exynos 2400 started throttling its CPU just after two minutes of heavy load.

Exynos 2400 overclocked its CPU to maintain the temperature under control but then it rebounded to its maximum performance. In our use the phone did not slow down, however it did get hot but not so keep that in mind.

Exynos 2400 vs Snapdragon 8 Gen 3: AnTuTu Benchmark

As you can see in the image below, the Exynos 2400 obtained 1,781,862 points in the AnTuTu benchmark test, while the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 crossed the 2 million mark, bringing the score to 2,057,772. Segment-wise, the Exynos 2400 CPU is close to the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3, but in the GPU department, the performance difference is about 30%.

Exynos 2400 vs Snapdragon 8 Gen 3: 3DMark GPU Test

To test the GPU, we ran the intensive 3DMark Wild Life test on both the Exynos 2400 and Snapdragon 8 Gen 3. In the Wild Life Extreme test, the Xclipse 940 GPU on the Exynos 2400 GPU scored 4304 with 25.78 FPS. In the same test, the Adreno 750 GPU in the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 scored 5114 with 30.63 FPS. The GPU performance difference is around 18% in this test.

In the most intensive test, the 3DMark Wildlife Extreme Stress In the test, the Exynos 2400’s Xclipse 940 GPU achieved the best loop score of 4259 with 63.4% stability. In contrast, the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3’s Adreno 750 GPU achieved the best loop score of 4564 with 60% stability.

This is an incredibly thorough GPU test, and the Exynos 2400 GPU has managed to put up a good fight against the best mobile GPU on the market. The Xclipse 940 6-core GPU It even beats Apple’s A17 Pro 6-core GPU (score of 4110), which shows that Samsung has developed a really powerful GPU with the AMD RDNA 3 architecture.

Finally, let’s look at the Solar Bay Test, which evaluates the ray tracing capabilities of the GPU. Also in this case the Xclipse 940 GPU has done a remarkable job. Is on par with the Adreno 750 GPU, both with similar scores.

Finally, we come to the Solar Bay test that evaluates the ray tracing capabilities of the GPU, and here too, the Xclipse 940 GPU has done a remarkable job. Is on par with Adreno 750 GPUboth scoring on similar lines.

Exynos 2400 vs Snapdragon 8 Gen 3: AI benchmarks

Samsung says the Exynos 2400 has a powerful new AI engine that is 14.7 times faster than the last-generation NPU in the Exynos 2200. In our Geekbench ML test run on the CPU, both mobile chipsets performed brilliantly. similar. However, in other AI benchmark tests, the Exynos 2400 achieved surprising results. inconsistent results.

The NPU engine of the Exynos 2400 in the AITuTu benchmark scored a measly 41,020 points compared to the 8 Gen 3’s whopping 1,422,010 points. This appears to be an anomaly, which could arise from software incompatibility, or perhaps, developers need to add framework support for the Exynos 2400’s new AI engine. For this reason, we will not be publishing the rest of the AI ​​benchmark results for the Exynos 2400 NPU.

Exynos 2400 vs Snapdragon 8 Gen 3: 5G speed test

Finally, in the 5G speed test, the Exynos 2400 5G modem surprisingly delivered better speeds than the X75 5G modem on the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3. The Exynos 2400 reached up to 386 Mbps in the download test and 49.8 Mbps in the upload test. In comparison, the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 offered a maximum download speed of up to 338 Mbps and a maximum upload speed of up to 54 Mbps. FYI, we used the same Airtel 5G SIM card in both the devices.

Exynos 2400 vs Snapdragon 8 Gen 3: the verdict

Samsung has developed a powerful chipset that can compete with the best mobile chipsets on the market. Aside from the acceleration issue, the Exynos 2400 chipset has very few downsides. In the GPU department, the gap has largely been closed and the CPU has performed above our expectations. Samsung has also done a notable job with the 5G modem.

Yes, the Samsung Exynos 2400 doesn’t beat the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 in any benchmark test, but it’s on par with the best flagship SoCs. So it was all about the benchmark comparison between the two chipsets. Are you impressed with the performance of the Exynos 2400? Let us know in the comments section.

The post Exynos 2400 vs Snapdragon 8 Gen 3: Benchmark Comparison appeared first on Jugo Mobile.