Nokia Lumia 800 gets benchmarked, rasies many questions

The Nokia Lumia has been benchmarked and lets all hope that the numbers are not representative of performance. TNW got their source to benchmark the upcoming device and initial results show it to be behind the pack in most areas.

The benchmarks show that the Lumia 800 falls flat when compared to outsiders like the Samsung GS II or even the aged iPhone 3GS, but it does remain close in performance to that of the HTC Titan. It should be heavily noted that the source of the benchmarks does say the device feels ‘slick and smooth’ and ‘not laggy’. We all know that raw performance stats are not the entire picture but you would think that this device would be competitive to the iPhone 3GS.

Other tidbits about the Lumia 800 are that it does not have a front facing camera and is otherwise similar to the N9. Also, the recently released HTC Titan does not match up to the benchmarks of older phones (as shown above) and no performance issues were raised with that device.

Benchmarks are only a small portion of the equation when it comes to performance. While the Lumia 800 may be lower than the pack in these tests, that does not equate to poor performance. You can find more benchmarks over at TNW.

Image Credit: TNW

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows 8 verification causing problems for PC makers?

Next Story

Battlefield 3 on sale; gets nearly 3 million pre-orders

39 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This is really a trash comparison and a misleading title as well. How about amending the title to "Windows Phone IE benchmarked on Nokia 800". This is a problem with the browser designed by Microsoft included in WP 7.5. How is this relevant to Nokia 800 only. Wouldn't the performance be same in every WP7 phone?

StandingInAlley said,
The **** part is lack of FF cam.How can Nokia remove it especially when even N9 had it? ugh

We'll know what the deal is in a bit over 2 hours when Nokia World starts.

Just asking... Those comparing iOS and Android benchmark, they are broswer benchmark... What does it have to do with smoothness on WP7?

Err... I dont think that the javascript performance reflects on the phone itself. Plus let me remind the audience that when IE8 was doing crap on sunspider everyone mocked it. Then IE9 was beating almost every browser on sunspider at the time of release where at that point the "technology enthusiasts" decided the test is not that important. Are we glorifying sunspider once again?

Riva said,
Err... I dont think that the javascript performance reflects on the phone itself. Plus let me remind the audience that when IE8 was doing crap on sunspider everyone mocked it. Then IE9 was beating almost every browser on sunspider at the time of release where at that point the "technology enthusiasts" decided the test is not that important. Are we glorifying sunspider once again?

Looks like we are, since when does a brower test tell you how fast your whole OS is anyways? And I expect js scores to be higher on devices that have and take advantage of dual core CPUs, but in the end this is pretty pointless. IE9 mobile on my WP7 device loads full Neowin.net just fine and fast.

No front facing camera is a huge omission in my opinion (unless this phone is aimed at the lower end market). It surprises me more than anything due to the MS Skype division. I would have serioulsy considered the Lumia 800 (in black of course...tsk), but NOT in that configuration. (I have a HTC HD7.)

Perhaps the Nokia (f)Ace?

boo synthetic benchmarks

Besides, I don't use my phone's browser for complicated javascripts.
I prefer dedicated apps or mobile layouts to the sites I visit, so Javascript performance is irrelevant on the windows platform.

I do think that MS are trying to get the new JS engine into WP7, then these benchmarks will be way off, as the new JS engine compiles to native code for faster execution.

Then we'll see the graphs show Windows phone platform as king of the hill.

Its odd really...i was a total android fanboy till I tried wp7...now I look back and think how slow, laggy and unreliable by HTC magic, nexus one & HTC desire HD handsets were...my omnia 7 is slicker to use, not laggy, faster in every way and more fun to use....so I have to say although I was disappointed to see the test results initially, I still do think wp7 is best....

Written using my omnia 7 :-D

Call me a fanboy or what ever... but does this really show the performance of the device? It seems its just showing how the tests are run in different OS's...

The Titan from what i have read works amazingly fast but the tests show it as a poor performance....

I don't think these tests really show the 'true' performance as IE is only on WP7 devices... Which correct me if I'm wrong this is a good browser bench marker for the phones?

brent3000 said,
Call me a fanboy or what ever... but does this really show the performance of the device? It seems its just showing how the tests are run in different OS's...

The Titan from what i have read works amazingly fast but the tests show it as a poor performance....

I don't think these tests really show the 'true' performance as IE is only on WP7 devices... Which correct me if I'm wrong this is a good browser bench marker for the phones?

You can always try other benchmark tests on the website and share it with us on the forums?

When I tried and tested the HTC Titan and the iPhone 4S, the Titan was more responsive. If in a real world test the Nokia can match the Titan then it too will also feel quicker than the 4S.

lt8480 said,
When I tried and tested the HTC Titan and the iPhone 4S, the Titan was more responsive. If in a real world test the Nokia can match the Titan then it too will also feel quicker than the 4S.

Don't see how it would feel faster than the 4S, unless it was wishful thin on your part.

KeR said,

Don't see how it would feel faster than the 4S, unless it was wishful thin on your part.

Because WP7's OS is much faster than iOS..

LOL @ the WP7 fanboys desperately trying to defend it. If a phone from any other company benchmarked with these results, you would all be laughing at it and ripping into it.

JPXi said,
LOL @ the WP7 fanboys desperately trying to defend it. If a phone from any other company benchmarked with these results, you would all be laughing at it and ripping into it.

If anything. these benchmarks are a testament to performance and optimization of WP7. other OS need more RAM and cpu and still manage to get the worse performance than WP7.
even if WP7 ran on IPhone 4S hardware you wouldnt notice because it'll already running smooth on 3GS equivalent.

to pivot a bit, If Nokia dont price these well then these will fail. I'm hoping the old hardware means lot lesser prices.. like $300 unlocked

Well according to one of those graphs the Galaxy S II is only marginally better than the iPhone 3GS. Hard to know what to believe really.

IE 9 javascript performance is terrible vs WebKit based browsers.. it is less to do with the phone itself and more to do with the software.

Current gen WP7 devices probably benchmark worse and are still smoother and faster than android phones. Basing conclusions on synthetic benchmarks is pretty much irrelevant compared to real world tests.

smooth3006 said,

No there not. They give you an idea as to how fast your phone really is.

No where not? lrn2english

Muhammad Farrukh said,
Benchmarks are overrated

Javascript benchmarks are overrated when entirely irrelvent to gauge a phones overall performance when they're using different javascript engines. Especially when IE 9's javascript engine is noticeably worse than webkits on both Android & iOS.

Edited by ~Johnny, Oct 25 2011, 9:55pm :

fsX said,

No where not? lrn2english

Is that the best thing you can come up with? To pick on typo? I see you obviously don't have any thing to disagree with what he say.

rajputwarrior said,
well that's a pretty effin slow phone... iphone 4s is owning though.

Unfortunately it's an invalid comparison, as it's not comparing the raw CPU proficiency of the devices, it's just testing a small subsection of browser-related code, of which IE 9 is noticeable worse at anyway, regardless of hardware. It's IE 9's javascript engine that lets it down, not specifically the hardware. It would only be a valid comparison of CPU speed if they both used the exact same javascript engines, not wild different engines.

~Johnny said,

Unfortunately it's an invalid comparison, as it's not comparing the raw CPU proficiency of the devices, it's just testing a small subsection of browser-related code, of which IE 9 is noticeable worse at anyway, regardless of hardware. It's IE 9's javascript engine that lets it down, not specifically the hardware. It would only be a valid comparison of CPU speed if they both used the exact same javascript engines, not wild different engines.


In the end it doesn't mean jack what's causing the slowdowns... All that matters to the end-user is the end result.

.Neo said,

In the end it doesn't mean jack what's causing the slowdowns... All that matters to the end-user is the end result.

And of course to the end user, generally in a mobile browser JS speeds mean very little The actual parsing and rendering speeds and how smoothly the browser handles panning and zooming are far more important for mobile browsers

~Johnny said,

And of course to the end user, generally in a mobile browser JS speeds mean very little The actual parsing and rendering speeds and how smoothly the browser handles panning and zooming are far more important for mobile browsers

well if most of the web is DHTML and HTML 5 javascript rendering speeds make a big difference. having a webpage take forever to load cause IE sucks is going to make people not happy.

rajputwarrior said,

well if most of the web is DHTML and HTML 5 javascript rendering speeds make a big difference. having a webpage take forever to load cause IE sucks is going to make people not happy.

Most of the web isn't though The vast majority are static pages and most javascript usage is in tiny amounts. Though IE9 does an admirable job of parsing the sections of HTML 5 it does know very fast.

rajputwarrior said,

well if most of the web is DHTML and HTML 5 javascript rendering speeds make a big difference. having a webpage take forever to load cause IE sucks is going to make people not happy.

Javascript only represent less than 10% of the typical time it takes to render a web page. Some webpages don't even use javascript. JS performance don't affect user experience in a significant way.
Parsing, layout, and visual rendering account for the 90% remaining. IE9 mobile has excellent performance for layout calculation, and is much faster than any other mobile browser when doing heavy web page rendering.

I remember that IE9 mobile on a first-gen WP7 devine is much faster than safari on the iphone 4 when running graphic intensive benchmarks like speedreading:
http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/mobile/

Funny how wp7 hate boys use benchmarks created by apple/google employees to mislead people.
No real world web apps is going to use heavy javascript calculation without layout and graphic rendering to the point of using 100% of the cpu resources for several seconds!

The ietestdrive speadreading test is much more realistic since it use the same kind of ressource a web app would use (javascript+layout+rendering) not just javascript like apple/google benchmarks.

And lets not forget that optimizations in panning/zooming much more affect user experience than Javascript or rendering.

That's why even IE7 on wp7 rtm feels much faster than chrome on android on a nexus S. Chrome really lags on android compared to wp7

while the ie9 thing is a good point, the CPU is also involved. i guess the most powerful i7 scores lower in sunspider for the same browser in another machine.

but i agree... the comparison is pretty much useless