GPU Performance

GPU performance of both the V60 and Velvet are also expected to be quite interesting, given the stark differences in the two SoCs. We don’t know too many details of the Adreno 620 and exactly how much less processing elements we have compared to the Adreno 650, but if the power draw of the phones during 3D workloads are any indication of the performance difference, the S765 should be less than half as performant compared to the S865.

Basemark GPU 1.2 - Medium 1440p - Off-Screen / Blit GFXBench Aztec Ruins - High - Vulkan/Metal - Off-screen GFXBench Aztec Ruins - Normal - Vulkan/Metal - Off-screen GFXBench Manhattan 3.1 Off-screen GFXBench T-Rex 2.7 Off-screen

Indeed, in all our benchmarks, we see the LG Vevlet with the Snapdragon 765 roughly fare off about 2.5x slower than the Snapdragon 865. That’s a not too great result, and actually puts the new premium chipset in line with the peak performance of a Snapdragon 835 from a few years ago.

The good news here is the power draw of the phone – at around 1.7-1.8W active system load, the chipset is really only using a fraction of the power compared to the flagship SoCs, even the efficient Snapdragon 865. This means that thermal throttling is pretty much impossible for the chipset and the LG Velvet, making its sustained performance figures identical to its peak figures. In this regard, the chip and phone perform more similar to a Snapdragon 845 device, whilst only ever getting lukewarm at worst.

The LG V60’s more performant SoC falls in line with our latest batch of Snapdragon 865 phones. We’re seeing excellent performance and thermal behaviour, with the phone also nearly not throttling at all after prolonged periods – only reaching ~38°C peak skin temperatures.

System Performance Display Measurement - Typical LG
POST A COMMENT

81 Comments

View All Comments

  • philehidiot - Wednesday, July 15, 2020 - link

    Myself, it's a matter of price. For £400 more than my current SIM only package (over 24 months) I can get an S10. That's a VERY hard deal to beat. I'm currently paying £2.50 a month more than if I got on a decent 24 month contract as I've been awaiting the 5G rollout to upgrade, so I'm on a monthly contract with unlimited data. So any phone has to be available at £400 or less before even consideration as the S10 is the benchmark. Reply
  • flyingpants265 - Sunday, July 19, 2020 - link

    Not a fan of S10's curved screen edges. Still annoying.

    What I needed was OP7, Samsung, or LG G4/G8, or Realme X.. with blackshark style front speakers, and no other missing features.
    Reply
  • flyingpants265 - Monday, July 20, 2020 - link

    Well... True, honestly.

    I'm no fan of LG, their phones are defective. And I want a phone with front speakers.

    But this looks like a OP8 with headphone jack. Or S10 with no stupid curved screen.

    The second Samsung, LG or OnePlus make a flagship phone with front stereo speakers, I'll be all over it.
    Reply
  • peevee - Friday, July 24, 2020 - link

    Agree on the useless pixels. Either the people are near-sighted and don't use glasses when looking at the screens, or just go by "bigger is better" attitude of self-delusion (claiming the see the difference without a double blind test). Reply
  • PeachNCream - Wednesday, July 15, 2020 - link

    That's a lot of money to pay for a phone with a battery that isn't easily replaced. Kind of a pity since it doesn't really help make phones better in some meaningful way by stopping the user from yanking out and installing a fresh battery after it starts to get tired less than a year later. Reply
  • TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, July 15, 2020 - link

    Agreed, although with a capacity and runtime like that "tired in less then a year" doesnt apply. It isnt 2005 anymore.

    after 4 years my moto z play still has great battery life and is only just now starting to falter. Even so I agree on the price, no way I'd pay $900 for a phone.
    Reply
  • PeachNCream - Wednesday, July 15, 2020 - link

    It's probably more of a symptom of the phones that I end up using, but I do find myself on an annual-ish replacement cycle for batteries regardless of the design and that means keeping a small set of specialized tools plus rolling the dice with replacement batteries. That is present day experience though rather than one from fifteen years ago when, in fact, my cell phone battery retained its endurance for quite a bit longer due mainly to the fact that it was necessary to charge the battery once a week or so rather than daily. Reply
  • TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, July 15, 2020 - link

    My work gives us iPhones. While 3-4 hours runtime is the norm for them, I never had one lose appreciable battery life after less then 3 years outside of the 6s’ faulty one.

    My personal phones have been a moto z play and before that a note 4 with a 10,000 mah zero lemon battery. The moto is showing signs of wear after nearly 4 years, the note never showed signs of wear. Before that was a dumb phone that went many years on the original battery.
    Reply
  • TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, July 15, 2020 - link

    I should note all my personal phones went at least 3 days on a charge when new, with the dumb phone pasting 2 weeks and the note lasting 7-8 days. The moto z play goes 3-4, but I was forced to upgrade, Id’ve stuck with the note 4 if I could. Reply
  • PeachNCream - Friday, July 17, 2020 - link

    If I leave my phone alone, it will generally sit idle for close to four days without requiring a recharge. That is a rare thing though since I tend to put my phone to use doing just about everything I used to do on my computer. Mine tends to be busy most of the day with web activity, e-mail, lengthy writing (always working on the next novel), watching videos, streaming radio or running local music, playing a few games - mainly emulators of 8- and 16-bit consoles but sometimes a few native Android games as well so I rarely end the day without charging. Since lockdown and staying at home became a thing, I've just let my phone connected to a charger almost constantly and that's been nice.

    Brings me back to the point though. I usually see well over a 30% drop in battery life over the course of a year and that's annoying enough to warrant an annual replacement which is never fun thanks to spudgers, tiny hex screws and so on. It isn't the most tedious thing I get to do, but it would be a LOT better to simply make the battery removable.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now