Nokia Lumia 900 trounces dual-core HTC One X in HTML5 Speed Reading

Nokia Lumia 900 Speed Reading

Okay, we'll be the first to admit that a simple, single browser test does not make or break a device. We'll also admit that the Android-based HTC One X (review) is an interesting little number with some very impressive hardware (quad-core dual 1.5Ghz CPU, with a dual-core Qualcomm Krait processor plus a 720x1280 screen. Holla!).

Still, all that fancy hardware doesn't do much if your OS is dragging it all down. Even with the latest Android OS, 4.0.3 aka Ice Cream sandwich, the HTC One X still lags behind the single-core 1.4GHz Nokia Lumia 900 when it comes to the HTML5 Speed Reading test: http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/mobile/performance/speedreading/default.html


One of our AT&T ninjas has their hands on a One X and he decided to see how it performed. Results (combined with our Windows Phone ones):

  • HTC One X - 24 FPS, average draw 41ms
  • Nokia Lumia 900 - 45 FPS, average draw 22ms
  • HTC Titan II - 60 FPS, average draw 13ms

And if we throw the 1.5GHz HTC Titan II into the mix you can see it trounces the Lumia 900. Like we said earlier, there's more to device performance than just a single HTML5 browser test, so yeah, call this unfair/biased/silly, it's cool, we can take it. But we think it is an interesting result nonetheless, as you wouldn't expect such a high-end device to be so mediocre with all that firepower on board.

It also raises this interesting thought experiment: What if the One X ran Windows Phone 7 instead? Of course the joke's on us since we can't support dual core, let alone quad, so we'll never know. But we think it's safe to say, it'd be very fast.

Related: See the One X get "smoked" by Windows Phone.


Reader comments

Nokia Lumia 900 trounces dual-core HTC One X in HTML5 Speed Reading


Does the HTC Titan II have the same processor as the Lumia? I'm curious how the HTC did significantly better than Lumia.
Btw Daniel, more you post pics of the White Lumia, more I want to get it. Assuming that's your device, how is the gloss holding up?

Titan II is technically faster (1.5GHz vs 1.4GHz). Titan II also has a dedicated CPU for the camera, so we're told, to handle those 16MP pics. Not sure what else HTC has done, if anything, to optimize.

That's my StormTrooper as I call 'em. He's holding up great, no major complaints so far. It's a sharp little number, everyone is blown away when they see it. Gloss is good, no issues so far.

The clock speed makes zero difference here. This is GPU not CPU. The reason why it's destroying android is that WP is fully GPU optimized. The entire UI layer is hardware accelerated, nothing is not. 
I would probably guess that the HTC Titan is locked at 60FPS while the Lumia is at a bit lower. Originally the Samsung Focus was locked to 30fps then Mango upped it to 60fps. Something like that might be going on here. 
1.4ghz vs 1.5ghz is 100mhz difference. In the world of CPUs, that is insignificant :) 
What this shows is that engineering makes a lot of difference. This should not happen. The raw hardware power in that HTC One X phone is mind blowing compared to Lumia/Titan. For Android to drag it down that bad is stunning to be honest. 

i would say that its more of HTC sense that is the resource hog. When i had my sensation it was extremly laggy and had constant FC. I then rooted it and put a ASOP Rom on there and things improved , but not as much as people lead me to believe. I Stil had constant Fc and some time it was laggy IMO.

That's not really a downgrade, it's simply because of the LTE support required on AT&T.
This is the new dual-core platform and it is more than capable of battling Tegra's Quad Core.
Check the performance comparison of the One X (non AT&T, Tegra Quad Core) vs. the One S (Dual Core Krait)

the Lumia 900 is running on a 1.4 ghz qualcom APQ8055
the Titan II is running on a 1.5 ghz qualcom MSM8255T
As far as I can tell the main difference is the clock speed and the radios are not part of the Lumia CPU, other than that they are both S2 arm v7 with the same GPU.

I think it's just with an apparent lack of optimization.  It's fast, but my first-gen Samsung is way faster, until you get to app loading, which my Lumia does faster.  But then sometimes apps just hang.  Or like Bing Maps wouldn't load the map in the middle of using it and all you see is the dot.  There are little things that got cleaned up in the NoDo update for the first-gen phones, these Nokias, which are essentially first-gen for Nokia, will need a similar optimization update.  That or I have a defective device, but my concern in that would be how many others have one.
I've had it since launch and just did a hard-reset yesterday.  So I'll see if it gets better.  I'm thinking maybe I should just swap it.

My Lumia 800 also occationally is extremly slow to load an app, affect also built-in MS-app like stock dialer. Have not seen this on my Titan 1, Omnia 7 or Throphy (are a developer with many phones:)

This, although a small test, needs to be shown to all the people who say,"Oh my android/iphone is way better than your windows phone because it is dual/quad core and your phone only has a single core processor." Windows phone 7.5 isn't bloated and doesn't need a quad core processor to run smoothly, but all everyone cares about is specs and benchmarks

So… I just tried this test on my European One X in Chrome for Android:
FPS: 60
Average draw: 17ms
And in the included Browser:
FPS: 60
Average draw: 10ms
Your mileage may vary? I haven't tried the One X with a Snapdragon S4 inside, but from all I saw it should be even faster than the Tegra 3 version
Edit: Worth noting that the European model is the quad-core, the US model is just dual-core.

It is all because the Chrome browser has hardware acceleration. If you try other browsers you will probably see much lower results. The OS has nothing to do here. I don't know what they did to the Lumia to get the lower score (maybe some issue while loading site content?). My Samsung Omnia W gets 60 FPS.

How does a single browser based benchmark make a whole platform suck?
This is more a browser based limitation rather than anything and I have a feeling th AT&T One X would fare better running Chrome:
Stock Android browser on my TF Prime:
FPS: 43
Using: Android Browser 534.3 (Android 4.0.3)
Chrome on my TF Prime:
FPS: 60
Using: Android Browser 535.1 (Android 4.0.3)
How well can the Lumia 900 run GTA III? Shadowgun?
Even the ubiqitious Angry Birds runs at a lower framerate on my single core 1.5GHz HTC Titan compared to my old single core, 1GHz Nexus S.

I don't care, after all these games are insultingly stupid. I've yet to see anything better in the mobile space than ARMED! Bring on the Android competitive multiplayer games or shut up! :)

People always come running with the "Yeah, but will it run <random game not released for WP yet>?????".
Games are run on the GPU (Or atleast they should) and not on the CPU. So having a octo-core 5ghz Android phone versus a Single Core 1ghz WP won't do that much of a difference. It all comes down to the GPU.

Just tested Lumia 800 in this test for comparison - similar results to Lumia 900:
FPS 47
Average Draw Duration: 21ms

while this is good press, i hope you realize that this is a speedtest from MICROSOFT, the guys behind internet explorer and windows phone. it is widely known that those vendor-specific speedtests are somewhat.. dubios

Got 60 fps on my (1 year old) Galaxy S2 running android 4.0.4 running Google Chrome. And to make the point clear, it cannot cross 60 fps due to Vsync....else it would have been higher.
The other android browsers are not made for this kind of load... Dont blame it the OS for that.

WP7 only supports a small subset of html5 compared to Android or iOS. So a faster rendering of a Benchmark means nothing when everyday Html5 Websites don't work.

How much do the results change when you actually click "Start"?  On my Focus I had 27 but after I ran the full test it went up to 29.  In all, the test took 41 seconds for my Browser Score. 1322 draws for and average of 34 ms.

ATT Titan I
FPS: 60
Using: Internet Explorer 9
Total Billboard Draws: 1322
Average Draw Duration: 15ms
Maybe I'll wait on buying the Stormtrooper. HAH J/K

I love (emphasis required) my WP7, but the fanboyism on this site is just top-notch.
Just would like to point out that "dual-core" this and "dual-core" that, has little to do with HTML performance (note: not browsing performance). The HTC scored lower becuase its browser is less HTML5 compliant, and also because Android's stock browser is not fully GPU accelerated. Plain and simple. Both characteristics which are totally irrelevant to the processor's clock, the amount thereof, and are two widely known facts.
The Nokia Lumia 900 uses the S2's Adreno 205 GPU, which while not as powerful as the One X's Tegra, this one in contrast is being 100% utilized by the browser for renderization (or GPU compositing; which neither iOS or Android do!). Also add the fact that Adreno 205 has been greatly impoved with regards to hardware-accelerated SVG, shaders, and 3D objects when compared to previous Adrenos.
Had Android being able to support full hardware accelerated compositing (which WP7 fully does), this would have been a completely different story.
(Also, don't confuse hardware accelerated animations and scrolling, which both iOS and Android support, with hardware accelaration compositing... two different things. You never wondered why the WP team advertised so much that their browser was GPU accelerated? Well, it was becuase they were the first ones!)
In essence, the title should have read: Windows Phone 7.5's IE9 browser is fully GPU accelerated, and Android's isn't. But wait, you already knew that!
I kid, I kid.
But, I get you wanna grab some attention. And hey, me calling you out on it is not me saying it's "biased,"  it's me saying what you said is flat out misinformed, and that it pains me greatly to see you resorting to publishing this as some sort of new achievement for Windows Phone, when in fact it isn't.
Just my two cents.

I dont know if this test is a fake or what?
I have a HTC One X (EU) 100 % stock Android 4.0.3 and with the standard browser I get:
FPS: 60, 11 ms
With my HTC Titan I (same CPU and MSM8255 chipset as Titan II) I get:
FPS: 60, 16 ms
60 fps is max.
When running the other galaxy test on Microsofts HTML test page the HTC One X gets shows about twice as many fps as the Titan I (40 vs 20 fps).
And the One X has more then twice the amount of pixels to "shuffle around", which it does incredibly well, in my opinion. The 720p screen is nothing but amazing.
Just for fun and to see what a non-MS brower test says I tried peacekeeper.futuremark.com Got these results:
HTC Titan: 157 points, HTML5 capabilites 2/5
HTC One X, standard browser: 342 points, HTML5 capabilites 1/5
HTC One X, Chrome: 401 points, HTML5 capabilities 2/5
HTC One X, Opera Mobile 12: 244 points, HTML5 capabilites 3/5.
Well, honestly I dont think a browser test tell you that much about real life performance and especially not when the browser test is made by one of the browser companies!

Did you just register to post this nonsense,huh? You stupid muthafuçker! Google chrome made a bunch of sites that require just chrome and IE can't access them. MS sites are different in that any browser can access them.

I just tested this on my Galaxy Nexus in Chrome and I get 60 fps just fine. If you have ICS on Android you really should be using Chrome at this point as it is a much faster browser than the stock one. 

Must be nice for current gen Windows Phone users... My HTC HD7 clocks in at 31ms on this test! Very slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow. Meanwhile, the iPhone 4 (same class/time period) is about 13ms