Qualcomm Adreno 205 vs Adreno 220 / HTC Sensation vs HTC Flyer, HTC Desire HD and Samsung Galaxy S

Here’s s quick compilation of benchmark results comparing the Qualcomm Adreno 205 GPU vs Adreno 220 GPU found in the HTC Sensation (as part of the MSM8260 SoC). The are several things to note here: First, the Adreno 205 found in the HTC Flyer and HTC Desire HD are most probably not clocked at the same speed (The MSM8255 is clocked at 1Ghz in the Desire HD compared to1.5Ghz in the HTC Flyer). Secondly, THe screen resolution are different on each handsets:

- HTC Desire HD: 800X480
- Samsung Galaxy S: 800×480
- HTC Sensation: 960×540
- HTC Flyer: 1024×600

Thirdly, the driver versions are obviously not the same on all devices so you shouldn’t take those results as granted, they are just an indication of how these GPUs stack up against each other in synthetic benchmarks. The now famous and awesome PowerVR SGX540 is also included in the mix. Check the results after the break:

HTC Desire HD / Adreno 205 Samsung Galaxy S / SGX540 HTC Flyer / Adreno 205 HTC Sensation / Adreno 220
GLBenchmark 2.0 Egypt : 2043 Frames (18.1 Fps) 2423 Frames (21.4 Fps) 1997 Frames (17.6 Fps) 2677 Frames (23.4 Fps)
GLBenchmark 2.0 Egypt FSAA : 1705 Frames (15.1 Fps) 1957 Frames (17.3 Fps) 1637 Frames (14.7 Fps) 2280 Frames (20.1 Fps)
GLBenchmark 2.0 Egypt FSAA Fixed Time : 194328 ms 170861 ms 194191 ms 155598 ms
GLBenchmark 2.0 PRO : 1269 Frames (25.4 Fps) 1931 Frames (38.6 Fps) 1088 Frames (21.9 Fps) 2728 Frames (54.3Fps)
GLBenchmark 2.0 PRO FSAA : 973 Frames (19.5 Fps) 1441 Frames (28.8 Fps) 848 Frames (17.1Fps) 2564 Frames (51.1 Fps)
GLBenchmark PRO FSAA Fixed Time : 69861 ms 51186 ms 79835 ms 25960 ms
Array test: uniform array access : 2325 kVertex/s (17.7 Fps) 2026 kVertex/s (15.4 Fps) 2213 kVertex/s (16.9 Fps) 7999 kVertex/s (60.9 Fps)
Branching test: balanced : 5484 kShader/s (10.6 Fps) 2862 kShader/s (5.6 Fps) 6022 kShader/s (8.1 Fps) 9044 kShader/s (13.9 Fps)
Branching test: fragment weighted : 11726 kFragment/s (30.5 Fps) 9996 kFragment/s (26.0 Fps) 12260 kFragment/s (20.0 Fps) 24377 kFragment/s (47.0 Fps)
Branching test: vertex weighted : 2084 kVertex/s (15.9 Fps) 2398 kVertex/s (18.3 Fps) 2021 kVertex/s (15.4 Fps) 6709 kVertex/s (51.2 Fps)
Common test: balanced : 3385 kShader/s (6.6 Fps) Failed / Not supported 3747 kShader/s (5.0 Fps) 6966 kShader/s (10.8 Fps)
Common test: fragment weighted : 7872 kFragment/s (20.5 Fps) Failed / Not supported 8084 kFragment/s (13.2 Fps) 16610 kFragment/s (32.0 Fps)
Common test: vertex weighted : 503 kVertex/s (3.8 Fps) 2295 kVertex/s (17.5 Fps) 499 kVertex/s (3.8 Fps) 3350 kVertex/s (25.6 Fps)
Geometric test: balanced : 3071 kShader/s (6.0 Fps) 2862 kShader/s (5.6 Fps) 3532 kShader/s (4.7 Fps) 6589 kShader/s (10.4 Fps)
Geometric test: fragment weighted : 8654 kFragment/s (22.5 Fps) 5082 kFragment/s (13.2 Fps) 8802 kFragment/s (14.3 Fps) 18001 kFragment/s (34.6 Fps)
Geometric test: vertex weighted : 820 kVertex/s (6.2 Fps) 2398 kVertex/s (18.3 Fps) 809 kVertex/s (6.2 Fps) 4760 kVertex/s (36.4 Fps)
Exponential test: balanced : 6121 kShader/s (11.9 Fps) 3270 kShader/s (6.3 Fps) 7000 kShader/s (9.4 Fps) 11773 kShader/s (18.1 Fps)
Exponential test: fragment weighted : 14674 kFragment/s (38.2 Fps) 7543 kFragment/s (19.6 Fps) 15547 kFragment/s (25.3 Fps) 30330 kFragment/s (58.5 Fps)
Exponential test: vertex weighted : 1124 kVertex/s (8.6 Fps) 2379 kVertex/s (18.1 Fps) 1119 kVertex/s (8.5 Fps) 5417 kVertex/s (41.2 Fps)
Fill test: texture fetch : 182942 kTexels/s (7.4 Fps) 73753 kTexels/s (3.0 Fps) 204865 kTexels/s (5.2 Fps) 113213 kTexels/s (3.4 Fps)
For loop test: balanced : 4175 kShader/s (8.1 Fps) 3089 kShader/s (6.0 Fps) 4627 kShader/s (6.2 Fps) 9121 kShader/s (14.0 Fps)
For loop test: fragment weighted : 10598 kFragment/s (27.6 Fps) 2333 kVertex/s (17.8 Fps) 11014 kFragment/s (17.9 Fps) 22305 kFragment/s (43.1Fps)
For loop test: vertex weighted : 877 kVertex/s (6.7 Fps) 2333 kVertex/s (17.8 Fps) 858 kVertex/s (6.5 Fps) 4895 kVertex/s (37.3 Fps)
Triangle test: textured : 9266 kTriangles/s (70.6 Fps) 4046 kTriangles/s (30.8 Fps) 9314 kTriangles/s (17.7 Fps) 12875 kTriangles/s (24.5 Fps)
Triangle test: textured, fragment lit : 7729 kTriangles/s (58.9 Fps) 2806 kTriangles/s (21.4 Fps) 7528 kTriangles/s (14.3 Fps) 10640 kTriangles/s (20.02Fps)
Triangle test: textured, vertex lit : 7715 kTriangles/s (58.7 Fps) 3364 kTriangles/s (25.6 Fps) 7601 kTriangles/s (14.5 Fps) 10502 kTriangles/s (20.1Fps)
Triangle test: white : 12118 kTriangles/s (92.3 Fps) 5219 kTriangles/s (39.7 Fps) 11157 kTriangles/s (21.2 Fps) 16033 kTriangles/s (30.6 Fps)
Trigonometric test: balanced : 3244 kShader/s (6.3 Fps) 2030 kShader/s (3.9 Fps) 3714 kShader/s (5.0 Fps) 6745 kShader/s (10.3Fps)
Trigonometric test: fragment weighted : 8800 kFragment/s (22.9 Fps) 2757 kFragment/s (7.2 Fps) 9072 kFragment/s (14.8 Fps) 18502 kFragment/s (35.9 Fps)
Trigonometric test: vertex weighted : 850 kVertex/s (6.5 Fps) 1730 kVertex/s (13.2 Fps) 877 kVertex/s (6.7 Fps) 4622 kVertex/s (35.2 Fps)
Swapbuffer speed : 592 (59.2 Fps) 560 (56.0 Fps) 545 (54.5 Fps) 608 (60.8Fps)

GL Benchmark 2.0:

Qualcomm Electopia:

This is Qualcomm’s own benchmark so we shouldn’t be surprised to see the PowerVR SGX540 score as low as it does.

Nenamark:

Quadrant:

As you can in the results above the Adreno 220 is vastly superior compared to the others but only in certain test (notice how the HTC Desire HD scores OGL2.0 triangle test..). More importantly, I can assure that you won’t notice any major performance difference between of the devices tested above during regular usage as there simply no applications or games that “really” takes advantage of the GPU power or even the Dual-core CPU.


  • http://twitter.com/ilguider Ian Guider

    I wonder how much better the drivers have gotten, and much the Adreno 205 will shine when clocked at 1.5ghz on a wvga screen. Im guessing we’ll see at gamescom!

  • http://profiles.google.com/penguin.balances penguin.balances awesome

    so different devices with single and dual-core processors, different screen resolutions and different GPU’s ?

    the resolution differences effect fillrate performance, the CPU’s effect GPU performance with FPU performance…

    sounds like a fair comparison.

  • flarbear

    Something seems really off with the Triangle benchmark numbers.  The Adreno 220 has the highest kTriangle/s numbers, but for some reason the Desire HD numbers show moderate kTriangle/s numbers but radically higher fps numbers.  Could the Desire HD have been skipping frames and reporting inaccurate fps numbers?

  • sdude

    I cant not believe i was going to get a sensation over atrix. my atrix beats it in most areas.