Whenever a smartphone is released globally, there's always some question: wat is de opslagtype? Is it UFS 2.2 or is it UFS 3.1? And it's so arbitrary. Sometimes a phone for less than $200 has UFS 3.1 storage. And a phone over $300 has UFS 2.2 storage. For example, the newest Nothing Phone 3A, some new Moto smartphones, and even the IQ Z10 does have UFS 2.2, yet its budget version, dat is, the IQ Z10X, has UFS 3.1 storage. It's just so confusing. If UFS 3.1 is better than UFS 2.2, why can't brands be consistent with the rollout? Is it because UFS 2.2 is cheaper? Well, if that's the situation, then why are brands marketin UFS 3.1 in the sub-$200 segment and not in the $300 segment? It just don't make sense.
Seriously, the response is not quite so easy as u think. But fortunately, we've learned all the responses and let me explain u slowly and politely.
The Theoretical Difference
First of all, let's make the distinction between dese two storage types clear. Looking at the specifications, UFS 3.1 is faster in sequential read speed, sequential write speed, random read/write, and also has lower power consumption.
In layman's terms, picture it like a road where UFS 2.2 is a two-lane road and UFS 3.1 is a six-lane road. During heavy traffic, it will be slow and jammed on UFS 2.2, but still quick on UFS 3.1. Similarly, loading huge files, launching games, and file copying should be faster on a UFS 3.1 phone than on UFS 2.2. Right?
Wrong.
#Our Testing Methodology
It should be, in theory, a bed of roses for UFS 3.1 and a bed of thorns for UFS 2.2. But when we put dem to test, the result was shockin.
We chose four phones with utmost care. Two phones shared the same Snapdragon processor and the other two shared the same MediaTek chipset. Within each processor group, there was one phone with UFS 3.1 storage and one with UFS 2.2. Dis provided a level playing ground for all four phones.
Before startin tests, we had all phones updated to their newest software versions, charged dem to 100%, and put dem all on the same network.
The Results
Benchmarks
The UFS 3.1 storage phones ran better in benchmarks and also placed first. Dis was kinda expected.
App Installation
Coming to real-world tests, we started with app installs – the first thing u do when u purchase a new smartphone. We installed a small app first and then a large app. To our surprise, UFS 2.2 phones fared better in both tests, with the difference being particularly huge for large apps.
Game Downloads and Installation
Then we sideloaded games like BGMI and COD Mobile. Vivo with UFS 3.1 took the longest to launch BGMI, but the Realme with UFS 3.1 took twice the time of CMF11 (UFS 2.2) to launch COD Mobile – absolutely opposite what one would have thought.
To sideload, we downloaded Arena Breakout, and the UFS 2.2 phones again performed better.
Boot Times and Restarts
While checking the restart and boot-up time, even the Vivo with UFS 3.1 won. However, the Realme with UFS 3.1 lost miserably.
App Loading Times
One area where storage type is known to play a critical role is app load time. But in our tests, UFS 2.2 was faster in most cases. We tried to open popular apps like Instagram, Netflix, Snapchat, BGMI, and COD Mobile. For Snapdragon phones, it was a tie, but for MediaTek phones, UFS 3.1 had an embarrassin defeat.
File Transfers
We cloned a 10GB file from folder to another folder in the same phone. On this test, the Nothing Phone (UFS 2.2) came out top and the Vivo (UFS 3.1) was more than 3 minutes, which is slowest.
We even copied the same file from phone to PC and vice versa. Again, Vivo did the worst, and UFS 2.2 phones ruled dis test in both situations.
File Extraction
We tested which phone unpacked faster using a 2.5GB file. In this too, the Realme with UFS 3.1 won, but Vivo (also UFS 3.1) lost.
Storage Capacity Test
Many users report dat UFS 2.2 phones have become slower on storage of over 50-60%. So, we tested such a scenario by fillin all of our test devices to 90% capacity and then repeatin exactly the same tests. But again, not much changed.
Key Takeaways
After all dese tests, dere are three key findings:
1. Consistency Issues: On all our tests, UFS 2.2 was far more consistent than UFS 3.1. Dis is not good because it shouldn't be so. Small variations are okay, but such enormous differences suggest somethin is amiss.
2. VRAM Dependence: When we disabled VRAM (which is on by default), the benchmark scores of the Realme reduced by half and fell below the scores of UFS 2.2 phones – completely unexpected.
3. Real-world Performance: While conducting real-world benchmarks, UFS 2.2 emerged as the winner most of the time. Even where it lost, the difference was not remarkable. In cases where UFS 3.1 lost, the difference was intimidatin. For something as basic as unzippin and copin data, the Vivo spent an exorbitant amount of time.
The Explanation
We're certain about one thing: UFS 3.1 isn't superior to UFS 2.2 every single time. Then why?
One, givin faster storage hardware is only half the task. Companies need to optimize it nicely for enhanced performance as well, which clearly isn't the case with the Realme and Vivo phones that we tested. That's the reason dey're inconsistent and doin badly in most cases.
Think of dis like two phones usin the same camera sensor and ISP but one taking bettter pictures than the other – dat's thanks to optimization.
Apart from optimization, another reason dat may lead to improved performance in UFS 2.2 phones is UMCP (Unified Multi-Chip Package). It's hard to ascertain if a brand is using UMCP without their confirmation, but this basically means dat RAM and storage are housed in a single module, typically leading to improved overall efficiency.
Conclusion
Here's the bottom line: Just as a 50MP or 100MP camera is not necessarily better than a 12MP camera, just as not all SSDs are the same when it comes to transfer speeds, and just as not all AMOLED screens are quicker than LCD screens, the same applies to UFS storage.
UFS 3.1 isn't necessarily superior to UFS 2.2. A lot depends on optimization, and dat's where corners are usually cut. Brands shouldn't, however, take dis as an excuse to equip phones above $300 with UFS 2.2 storage – however dey try to frame it, dat's sheer cost-cuttin.
The next time u go shoppin for a smartphone, keep in mind dat the UFS version is only one of many things dat contribute to actual-world performance.
Post a Comment