tkin
Back to school!!
Wait a minute, if the CPU of SII is faster, why is it losing in CPU intensive benchmarks like browser mark or sunspider?It is losing pretty badly.
Xperia SL has 8260 Snapdragon, with two 1.7 Ghz Scorpion cores and Adreno 220.
which Similar to Xperia S, or the older HTC Sensation Soc except for the increase in clockspeed.
Scorpion Core doesn't have the raw performance to match Cortex A9. So any Soc designed around Cortex A9 is likely to perform better than the one designed with Scorpion Core.
Besides Exynos 4412 has shown excellent performance in various benchmarks compared to other. Anandtech gives detailed review of galaxy s2 and hardware capabilities.
AnandTech - Samsung Galaxy S 2 (International) Review - The Best, Redefined
Sony Xperia S vs. Samsung Galaxy S II: S-hootout - GSMArena.com
S2 has 20 to 30% better FPS over Xperia S in nenamark 2. Even for Xperia SL, the benchmark is 38. but S2 pushes to 45.
however Krait Socs have solved Sony & HTC Problems. They have clearly beaten Exynos quad as far as raw performance is concerned. But Sammy will soon come out with a Cortex A15 cum Cortex A7 Soc called Exynos 5 Octa and Mali T658 GPU which will probably the turn the tables. Mali T604 itself is giving Adreno 320 a run for its money if the nexus 10 benchmarks are to be believed.
And next time read the review instead of seeing the pics and jumping with joy:
For graphics performance, the Sony Xperia S and the Samsung Galaxy Nexus are at a disadvantage performance-wise with their 720p screens, but the image quality is better. Still, the Xperia S and its Adreno 220 manage the very playable 37.5fps, second only to the Galaxy S II, which has only about 40% of the total pixels as the Xperia and manages 46.2fps.
Based on this, the 60% less pixel containing SGS II should have nenamark score of 59.5 (Xperia S gets 37.5, calculate), yet is gets 46.2, Adreno 220 has always been faster than Mali 400MP, and the Snapdragon is faster than A9, just like krait>A15
And their conclusion:
The Sony Xperia S can successfully take on the best current-gen droids and come out the winner in several key areas. Its biggest problem, however, is that the flagship trend has moved on to quad-core packing, Android 4.0 ICS running phones and Sony isn't there yet.
The OS update is coming soon, which will neutralize one of the two major complaints.
The second complaint - the number of CPU cores - is not necessarily a deal-breaker as not all tasks require that many cores and games are often more limited by the GPU than the processor (even the new iPad sticks with just 2 CPU cores, but packs upgraded graphics).
The 12MP camera is definitely a key selling point for the Sony Xperia S and luckily for it, it's practically alone in its field (except some Japan-only or obscure phones). It did very well in video capture too.
The Xperia S also benchmarks well, so it should feel as an upgrade over some older dual-cores, it has very decent battery life and it's armed to the teeth when it comes to connectivity (LTE is missing from the list, but its very rare outside the US, where the Xperia ion takes over).
The Xperia S has its advantages over the Samsung Galaxy S II such as screen sharpness and the camera. Still, we wish Sony had fixed the screen viewing angles perhaps by using an IPS matrix and overall, the phone could have been thinner.
The price premium of the Xperia S over the Galaxy S II seems to vary from market to market (it's €30-€60) and we'll leave it up to you to decide if the Xperia S is worth the extra cash.
So? They cost same here.
PS: Battery life of SII is higher than Xperia S, but its pushing a lot less pixels.
And finally the big bomb: Xperia SL has a 200MHz faster CPU than S, so that's about 14% faster, Xperia SL will beat SGS II black and blue, period, and again I say this, SGS II is a fine phone, but for 26k that Samsung charges its daylight robbery, SGSII is the killer at 22k, not 26k, big boys play here(Optimux 4X HD etc).
Now peace, let the OP chose, he has enough material now.