The actual Samsung Galaxy Tab 8. 9 features the same 1GHz dual-core processor chip and 1GB of RAM as it's 10. 1 inch predecessor, so no real surprise, then, that performance here is much like what we saw on the 10. 1 -- though certainly not identical. Quadrant gave us an typical of 2, 341, which is surprisingly greater than the 1, 800 or so the actual 10. 1 puts down. Linpack Solitary 26. 846, though Linpack Multi would not give us consistent enough scores in order to warrant inclusion, and Neocore also declined to cooperate. Nenamark netted 38. 1, Nenamark2 eighteen. 1 and Sunspider clocked in from 2, 295, just a tick slower compared to 10. 1's 2, 200. It footwear from cold in 35 seconds.
Real-world impressions support the benchmark findings. The Samsung Galaxy Tab 8. 9 feels a similar to use as the 10. 1. In back-to-back testing from the two occasionally the 10. 1 would load an app slightly faster, sometimes the Samsung Galaxy Tab 8. 9, but neither had a conclusive advantage within the other. Unless you had them each sitting side-by-side you'd never tell any kind of difference, and even when we did we needed to be really paying attention.
When it involves longevity the Samsung Galaxy Tab 8. 9 does not disappoint -- though it doesn't quite meet its predecessor. The 10. 1 (having a 7, 000mAh battery) scored an extremely impressive 9: 55 on our rigorous video rundown test, almost matching the actual 10: 26 of the iPad two. The Samsung Galaxy Tab 8. 9, with its 6, 100mAh electric battery, managed 9: 21. That's well a lot more than the seven hours managed by the actual Archos, and plenty enough for basically the most punishing of flights.