System Performance - Extremely Snappy

System performance of the SSI is rather straightforward: With the well known Snapdragon 888 which we’ve review in tons of devices to date, along with ASUS’s software stack, and the device’s 120/144Hz panel, it should perform extremely well.

PCMark Work 3.0 - Web Browsing 3.0

In the web-browsing test in PCMark Work 3.0, the SSI is a little bit faster than the ROG 5.

PCMark Work 3.0 - Writing

The writing subtest shows a more substantial advantage in favour of the SSI, indicating that there’s actually some more notable BSP and scheduler/DVFS differences between it and the ROG 5. It’s in line with the performance of the Mi 11 Ultra and the Galaxy S21.

PCMark Work 3.0 - Photo Editing

Photo editing falls in line with the Mi 11 Ultra and the Axon 30 Ultra.

PCMark Work 3.0 - Data Manipulation

Oddly enough, both the ROG 5 and the SSI top the charts in the data manipulation test, showcasing similar OS optimisations.

PCMark Work 3.0 - Performance

In the overall performance scores, the SSI ends up as the top performing Android device, thanks to its more aggressive tuning.

Web Browser Performance

Speedometer 2.0 - OS WebView (64b) JetStream 2 - OS Webview (64b) WebXPRT 3 - OS WebView (64b)

The web browser results are a bit of a mix between being in line with the ROG Phone 5 and being actually quite ahead of all other Snapdragon 888 phones on the market. Particularly the extremely high WebXPRT 3 scores showcases that the SSI is a lot more aggressive in terms of DVFS than any other Snapdragon powered device.

The overall system performance of the Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders is excellent and outstanding The extremely fast responsiveness of the software as well as for the fast chip, along with the very high refresh rate as well as the low latency input means that it’s amongst one of the fastest and snappiest devices on the market.

Introduction & Design GPU Performance
POST A COMMENT

43 Comments

View All Comments

  • Andrei Frumusanu - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link

    Phones don't have true zooms, the 3x is in reference to the the 27mm equivalent main module. The telephoto is 80mm, anything beyond is crop magnification. Reply
  • Arbie - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link

    One important use for my phone is audiobooks. No headphone jack means no sale - even at $500 more... Reply
  • xTRICKYxx - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link

    Same here! Reply
  • flyingpants265 - Tuesday, August 17, 2021 - link

    Removing the headphone jack is a very obvious tactic to push people towards wireless headphones, which are worse in every way. More expensive, limited battery life, even inferior quality. I would be willing to accept that crap if they had unlimited battery life, but they don't. They should have tiny swappable battery cells that you can slide inside the phone to charge them (like the Note Stylus). I am not carrying some separate box and waiting for those things to charge, that is completely crazy. Reply
  • 29a - Tuesday, August 17, 2021 - link

    Removing the headphone jack is a way to make the phone more waterproof. Reply
  • s.yu - Tuesday, August 17, 2021 - link

    No it is not. Sonys are regularly waterproof and still have the jack. Reply
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Tuesday, August 17, 2021 - link

    We've had the S7 to S10 all with 3.5mm and IP68. Reply
  • drajitshnew - Wednesday, August 18, 2021 - link

    Galaxy S5 was also waterproof with a headphone jack AND a removable battery. Reply
  • wr3zzz - Thursday, August 19, 2021 - link

    You forgot to include that TWS has a hard planned obsolescence of recharge cycles. A $300 TWS is guaranteed to die after 3-4 years while a $300 wired headphone that sounds 10x better could last decades. Reply
  • eek2121 - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link

    Somehow they managed to charge more than Apple. Impressive. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now