![oneplus benchmarks geekbench over cheating allegations oneplus benchmarks geekbench over cheating allegations](https://www.xda-developers.com/files/2017/02/OP3T-Score-Comparison.png)
- #Oneplus benchmarks geekbench over cheating allegations skin
- #Oneplus benchmarks geekbench over cheating allegations full
- #Oneplus benchmarks geekbench over cheating allegations pro
I am excited to test Pixel 6/Pixel 6 Pro with snapdragon 870ish performance of battery life and CPU.
![oneplus benchmarks geekbench over cheating allegations oneplus benchmarks geekbench over cheating allegations](https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/OnePlus-9-Pro-2.jpg)
#Oneplus benchmarks geekbench over cheating allegations skin
It's literally optimization.Įxcept for some software glitches off late, Oxygen OS was well optimized Android skins just after stock Android bare skin which is present on Pixel Line up. This here is just running benchmarks unrestricted and it's restricting social media garbage as evident from the list of optimized apps.
![oneplus benchmarks geekbench over cheating allegations oneplus benchmarks geekbench over cheating allegations](https://devsjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/IMG_20170201_201057-768x507.jpg)
That was specifically targeting benchmarks to cheat. Cheating was when Realme (was it GT Neo?) was caught degrading output image in benchmarks into some mangled mess to artificially boost performance. So, this alone makes no sense to be called "cheating". I mean, what they have to gain if they slowdown daily apps and not benchmarks? When you cheat you kinda don't restrict daily apps and you artificially boost benchmarks to score better than the rest. They're being scrutinized because they didn't communicate the thing to users and they just made it a transparent function that does the job without any user knowledge or interaction. The situation with OnePlus's "cheating" is exactly the same thing. Good luck just filing a class lawsuit with Chinese company lmao. Problem was they didn't notify users about it or give them choice and that's where "battery gate" came from, not all the stuff people make up here.Īnd only reason there was lawsuit and they paid it because it's a big American company.
#Oneplus benchmarks geekbench over cheating allegations full
They weren't doing this on phones with good batteries to imply planned obsolescence and if you replaced battery, you restored full performance. Phone isn't as fast, but it's still usable and wouldn't shut down anymore. Without chipset slowdown, phones were turning off and Apple mitigated that by simply slowing down chipset so it doesn't pull as much amps from battery to cause a shutdown. All the complaining came from lack of communication about the feature. Not that you Android fans would know what's like to use phone for 5+ years when you lose software support after just 2 but anyways. How the frigging hell was Apple "caught" degrading battery when they were doing performance degrading IN RESPONSE to battery degradation which comes with age and usage.
![oneplus benchmarks geekbench over cheating allegations oneplus benchmarks geekbench over cheating allegations](https://blog.gamebench.net/hubfs/GameBench-Feb2017/Files/Meizu-GameBench-FrAndroid.jpg)
moreOh god, just proves you people have absolutely no clue what batterygate was even about yet you all harp about it endlessly like donkeys. The report further says that similar configurations were found on a whole bunch of other MediaTek devices, including the Vivo S1 with the Helio P65, the Xiaomi (Redmi) Note 8 Pro with the Helio G90, the Realme C3 with the Helio G70 and the Sony XAI with the Helio P20, among others.Anonymous, Battery gate drama was entirely different. Some of the common benchmarking apps found on the list include the likes of PCMark, GeekBench, AnTuTu, 3DBench and Quadrant alongside a few Chinese benchmark apps. As per the report, the phone’s power_whitelist_cfg.xml file had a list of popular applications, including some of the aforementioned benchmark apps, with various power management tweaks applied to them. However, what set the alarm bells ringing was the Chinese version of the Reno3 with the newer and supposedly faster Dimensity 1000L chipset, performing much worse in those same benchmark tests.Īs it turns out, MediaTek was specifically preventing the benchmarking apps from activating the chip’s thermal throttling mechanism so as to return higher scores than they would in real-world scenarios. The blog says it started its investigation when it found that the European version of the Oppo Reno 3 Pro with the older Helio P95 chipset was returning significantly higher benchmark scores than what was expected from a Cortex-A75 class SoC. However, AnandTech now claims that chipmaker MediaTek is also guilty of fudging benchmark scores of some of its smartphone SoCs. The problem was thus far believed to have been limited to smartphone vendors, with Samsung, OnePlus and Huawei being some of the prominent companies to have been caught up in this controversy from time to time.