The Minor Issue of Overzealous Marketing

As mentioned earlier in the piece, the most common numbers from Huawei and Honor about the new technology follow the same pattern: GPU Turbo is going to offer up to 60% extra performance, and 30% better power consumption. Since launch, out of all the marketing materials we have seen, there is exactly one instance where either company expands on these figures. This is in the footnotes of Honor Play’s English global product page, explaining the context of the 60%/30% numbers:

Honor Play's Product Website GPU Turbo Explanation

Here is what that tiny bullet point says:

*2 The GPU Turbo is a graphics processing technology that is based on Kirin chips and incorporates mutualistic software and hardware interaction. And it supports some particular games. 
Results are based on comparison with the previous generation chip, the Kirin 960.

This is a big red flag. Normally when comparing a new technology, the performance difference should be quoted in an off/on state. So it shouldn’t be too complicated to see as to the fact that using the Kirin 960 as the base result is a pretty massive issue. It means that the marketing materials are mixing up its claims – values that are explicitly being attributed to GPU Turbo, a software technology, are mixed with silicon improvements between two generations of chipsets.

The honest comparison should be the Kirin 970 with GPU Turbo off and the Kirin 970 with GPU Turbo on. In this case, the baseline result is with the Kirin 960 with no GPU Turbo, compared against the latest Kirin 970 with GPU Turbo on.

For our readers unfamiliar with the generational improvements of the new Kirin 970 chipset, I recommend referring back to our in-depth article review of chipset released back in January. In terms of advancements, the Kirin 970 brings a new Mali G72MP12 GPU running at 747MHz, manufactured on a new TSMC 10nm process. This represented quite an improvement to the 16nm manufactured Kirin 960 which featured a Mali G71MP8 at up to 1037MHz.

Kirin 970 AnandTech Kirin 960
TSMC 10FF Mfg. Process TSMC 16FFC
4xA73 @ 2.36 GHz
4xA53 @ 1.84 GHz
CPU 4xA73 @ 2.36 GHz
4xA53 @ 1.84 GHz
Mali-G72MP12 @ 746 MHz GPU Mali-G71MP8 @ 1035 MHz
Yes NPU No
Cat 18/13 Modem Cat 12/13

Furthermore, the Kirin 960’s GPU performance and efficiency was extremely problematic, showcasing some of the worst behavior we’ve ever seen in any smartphone ever released. We’re not going to go back as to why this happened, but it was a competitive blow to the Kirin 960.

Now the Kirin 970 improved from these low figures, as we’ve shown in our reviews. But the 60% performance improvements and 30% power improvement mentioned for GPU Turbo, while in isolation might sound impressive, aren't nearly as impressive once we know what they're based on. By being relative to the badly performing Kirin 960, it completely changes the meaning. Users that enable GPU Turbo on their devices will not experience a 60%/30% difference in performance.

This is also in the face of Huawei’s own data presented throughout the lifetime of GPU Turbo. Quoting 60%/30% makes for impressive headlines (regardless of how honest they are), however even Huawei’s own analysis shows that 60%/30% are wildly optimistic:

Ultimately Huawei presented the 60%/30% figures as a differential between GPU Turbo On/Off. If anyone was expecting that on their device, then they would be sorely disappointed. The fact that the companies obfuscated the crucial comparison point of the Kirin 960 is almost unreal in that respect.

Also on that image above, we have to criticize quite heavily on the fact that those bar charts are misrepresenting all the gains: the 3 FPS gain in PUBG is shown as a 25% gain. Companies feel the need to misrepresent the true growth in values like this because it makes for a more impressive graph, rather than adhere to the standard of starting graphs at zero.

Why Using The Kirin 960 Is An Issue: Starting With A Low Bar

Going back to our GPU power efficiency tables measured in GFXBench Manhattan 3.1 and T-Rex, we put the two chipsets back into context:

GFXBench Manhattan 3.1 Offscreen Power Efficiency
(System Active Power)
AnandTech Mfc. Process FPS Avg. Power
(W)
Perf/W
Efficiency
Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon 845) 10LPP 61.16 5.01 11.99 fps/W
Galaxy S9 (Exynos 9810) 10LPP 46.04 4.08 11.28 fps/W
Galaxy S8 (Snapdragon 835) 10LPE 38.90 3.79 10.26 fps/W
LeEco Le Pro3 (Snapdragon 821) 14LPP 33.04 4.18 7.90 fps/W
Galaxy S7 (Snapdragon 820) 14LPP 30.98 3.98 7.78 fps/W
Huawei Mate 10 (Kirin 970) 10FF 37.66 6.33 5.94 fps/W
Galaxy S8 (Exynos 8895) 10LPE 42.49 7.35 5.78 fps/W
Galaxy S7 (Exynos 8890) 14LPP 29.41 5.95 4.94 fps/W
Meizu PRO 5 (Exynos 7420) 14LPE 14.45 3.47 4.16 fps/W
Nexus 6P (Snapdragon 810 v2.1) 20Soc 21.94 5.44 4.03 fps/W
Huawei Mate 8 (Kirin 950) 16FF+ 10.37 2.75 3.77 fps/W
Huawei Mate 9 (Kirin 960) 16FFC 32.49 8.63 3.77 fps/W
Huawei P9 (Kirin 955) 16FF+ 10.59 2.98 3.55 fps/W
GFXBench T-Rex Offscreen Power Efficiency
(System Active Power)
AnandTech Mfc. Process FPS Avg. Power
(W)
Perf/W
Efficiency
Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon 845) 10LPP 150.40 4.42 34.00 fps/W
Galaxy S9 (Exynos 9810) 10LPP 141.91 4.34 32.67 fps/W
Galaxy S8 (Snapdragon 835) 10LPE 108.20 3.45 31.31 fps/W
LeEco Le Pro3 (Snapdragon 821) 14LPP 94.97 3.91 24.26 fps/W
Galaxy S7 (Snapdragon 820) 14LPP 90.59 4.18 21.67 fps/W
Galaxy S8 (Exynos 8895) 10LPE 121.00 5.86 20.65 fps/W
Galaxy S7 (Exynos 8890) 14LPP 87.00 4.70 18.51 fps/W
Huawei Mate 10 (Kirin 970) 10FF 127.25 7.93 16.04 fps/W
Meizu PRO 5 (Exynos 7420) 14LPE 55.67 3.83 14.54 fps/W
Nexus 6P (Snapdragon 810 v2.1) 20Soc 58.97 4.70 12.54 fps/W
Huawei Mate 8 (Kirin 950) 16FF+ 41.69 3.58 11.64 fps/W
Huawei P9 (Kirin 955) 16FF+ 40.42 3.68 10.98 fps/W
Huawei Mate 9 (Kirin 960) 16FFC 99.16 9.51 10.42 fps/W

So while the Kirin 970 is an advancement and improvement over the 960 – in the context of the competition, it still has trouble holding up with this generation’s Exynos and Snapdragon.

The key point I’m trying to make here in the context of GPU Turbo claims, is that the 60%/30% figures are very much unrealistic and extremely misleading to users. If Huawei and Honor are not clear about the baseline comparisons, the companies' own numbers can never be trusted in future announcements again.

How Much Does GPU Turbo Actually Provide?

On Friday Huawei CEO Richard Yu announced the new Kirin 980, and some of the presentation slides addressed the new mechanism, showcasing a more concrete figure of the GPU Turbo effects on the newly released chipset:

Here, the actual performance improvement is rather minor because the workload is V-sync capped and the GPU doesn’t have issues in that regard, however the power improvements should be still representative. Here the actual power improvement was 10% - something that’s a lot more reasonable and believable improvement that can be attributed to software.

Problems with PUBG: Not All GPUs Render Equally Conclusion: Still A Plus, But
Comments Locked

64 Comments

View All Comments

  • LiverpoolFC5903 - Wednesday, September 5, 2018 - link

    Very interesting to say the least. The improvements from this, although not as much as promised, are still tangible and will make a difference in supported games.

    Also, alarming to see the quality difference between an Adreno unit and a Mali unit, especially considering they are supposed to be close competitors. I have an S9 with the Mali g72mp18 unit and going by the results on PUBG, it performs much worse than its Adreno counterpart, both in render quality and framerate.

    Hisilicon and Samsung should consider using Powervr gpus again, given the clear inability of the Mali to keep up. I have noticed this in the real world as well, with my LG V20 with a Snapdragon 820 lasting MUCH longer than my S9 while running emulators (PSP and Neo Geo), despite being years old.
  • Manch - Wednesday, September 5, 2018 - link

    Maybe its my screen but the Honor Play and the S9 pics make it look like the dude got no undies. LOL
  • umano - Wednesday, September 5, 2018 - link

    Amazing article, thank you. Having a P20 pro ( I don't play games on phone ) that was particularly interesting and I really liked the "ethic" behind words, supporting both customers and the company, asking the latter to do the right thing. I think this is the way professional journalism has to be done.
    Chapeau
  • AshokGupta - Wednesday, September 5, 2018 - link

    Hundreds of Huawei's competaters have tried round and round to prove GPU Turbo is a fake junk, and all of them failed. Now you take over their job. Good Luck, Man!
  • GreenReaper - Wednesday, September 5, 2018 - link

    Fake? No. But the reality doesn't exactly match up to the marketing.
  • s.yu - Friday, September 7, 2018 - link

    The reality doesn't match up to the marketing, AT ALL. Good as fake.
    Huawei in all practicality was trying to sell this off as a *universal* performance and efficiency gain of 60%, 30% respectively while in fact it only works on *a handful* of games for about *10%* each. When you're exaggerating your claims by 3x, 6x, it's lying, it's fake.
  • AshokGupta - Saturday, September 8, 2018 - link

    If you read the Chinese media, what happens here is just repetition of what happened exactly right after the technology was launched in CHINA. Including this stupid guess of saying it only covers few games. Then approved by many independent tech media it's applicable for all. Your name indicates you are most probably from China. I suppose you should know it. Don't understand why you come here again giving the approved fake comments.
  • s.yu - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link

    Because of the opaque operation of Chinese media. Obviously you're also from China, don't tell me you don't know about the fuss Huawei created buying ads on international sites and then buying fake journalism back in China.
    http://tech.ifeng.com/a/20180710/45057623_0.shtml
    This article was widely spread as legit news but the international content cited was intentionally twisted, it's highly misleading.
    When Huawei buys western ads at least the hosts declare bought articles, in China there's no way of telling real journalism from Huawei's smokescreen, so I put off reaching a conclusion until global availability of the technology.
    Now from Anandtech's analysis and *interview* it's obviously certain that the tech only works on a handful of games, Huawei even admitted that each profile is trained separately then pushed to devices.
    I know a Huawei troll when I see one, I'll be keeping an eye on you in the future.
  • ET - Wednesday, September 5, 2018 - link

    What's with the annoying 'Buy the Right CPU' autoplaying video?
  • psychobriggsy - Wednesday, September 5, 2018 - link

    It's really annoying, and on every article, on every page, and it doesn't remember if you pause it on one page then go to the next.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now