I don’t get this benchmark stuff for phones unless you do gaming with them i guess. I have used recently a Nothing Phone 2a for a few weeks and it works far better and smoother for everyday use than my Galaxy S22 despite having a chip that is supposedly 50% worse. In the end is the OS what makes the difference not the SoC.
The S22 US version used snapdragon 8 gen 1 (in the US) and the chip was prone to performance issues. It worked, but it was rough, ran hot, and ate power for lunch. I’m not sure if that was a year that the international variants had an Exynos, but their performance is generally worse.
So seeing a simpler phone with basic android seem to do fine versus a flagship with super bloated Android on a first gen apps processor makes a lot of sense, really.
That’s only true for new phones. Once they get older, the difference in performance is noticeable.
Replacing the battery after a few years is possible, upgrading the SoC is not.
Yeah, nowadays the only you might notice the difference between processors is in the camera. How fast it processes and how able it is to film in 4k (or not), and of course in games.
My Moto (midrange) phone is plenty fast for daily task while the battery last at least for 2 days with my usecase. But it can’t film in 4k (I couldn’t care less), because of the limitations of the CPU. I do value battery life though and don’t game on it.
However, as the OS is bareboned with little bloatware, its very snappy. Moto phones are also a safe bet if you want a phone that just works all the time, every time, things like the fingerprint scanner.
Oh, and did I mention it cost half what a galaxy phone costs?