Sony Xperia E4 review: The odd successor

Benchmarks

The Sony Xperia E4 is definitely not a powerhouse and nobody really expects a lot of number-crunching performance out of a budget device. It is powered by a Mediatek MT6582 SoC, which can be considered last year's mid-range at best. Inside it, there are four Cortex-A7 cores, clocked at 1.3GHz and a Mali-400MP2 GPU. That coupled with merely 1GB of RAM paints not so optimistic picture.

But Sony has really managed to squeeze all they can out of the modest hardware. And whatever the Xperia loses on paper, it quickly regains in usability and real-world performance. It runs surprisingly smooth and can definitely be a perfect match for an undemanding Android user, mainly because it is reliable and simply works.

That being said, we will try not to be too harsh on the E4 when diving into its benchmark results. It comes as no surprise that they are low, but we have picked out some quite interesting competition to pin it up against and the results were often surprising.

First up, we have the raw CPU performance test with GeekBench 3, so things should be pretty straightforward in this department. As we mentioned, we have devised a budget league for the Xperia to wrestle in and the MT6582 really holds its own. Here we see the E4 has shown more muscle than the Moto G and Moto G (2014), both running the Qualcomm MSM8226 Snapdragon 400. This is quite understandable, as the once widely-spread SoC is also equipped with four Cortex-A7 chips, but clocked slightly lower at 1.2 GHz.

The situation is even clearer with the Moto E, which shares the same cores, but only has two of them. Interestingly enough, Sony has two other, quite similar Snapdragon 400 phones, both powered by four Cortex-A7 cores - the Xperia E3 and the Xperia M2. Both are in pretty much the same price range as the E4 and one is even its direct predecessor.

GeekBench 3

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy Core Prime
  1492
• Xiaomi Redmi 1S
  1492
• Sony Xperia E4
  1180
• Motorola Moto G (2014)
  1171
• Motorola Moto G
  1120
• Sony Xperia E3
  1118
• Sony Xperia M2
  1074
• Motorola Moto E
  611

AnTuTu is a compound benchmark, which also takes into account RAM and GPU performance. Here we see pretty much the same arrangement. The Xperia beats the two Moto G's and its predecessor, but is also dwarfed by the Xiaomi Redmi 1S and the Samsung Galaxy Core Prime. The Xiaomi ha, rather surprisingly, scored significantly higher that the E4, despite having an HD screen and a quad-core Cortex-A7-based CPU. It, however is clocked higher and 1.6 GHZ. Otherwise, RAM is the same at 1GB.

The Galaxy Core Prime is a different story. It is equipped with a superior Qualcomm MSM8916 Snapdragon 410, along with an Adreno 306 GPU, so naturally it takes the lead amongst the competition.

Basemark OS II is another all-round benchmark. It gives an overall score along with single, multi-core performance, math performance and more. We focus on the overall score and the dedicated CPU scores. Interestingly enough, the E4 scored lower than its predecessor, the E3, so there might sill be some room for tweaking and software improvements on Sony's end. Then again, the handset does feature a lot more services, out of the box, so the increased background load, may account for some of the benchmark issues.

This theory is further backed up by the detailed single-core and multi-core result. In both instances the MT6582 shows some muscle.

Basemark OS II

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy Core Prime
  564
• Motorola Moto G (2014)
  526
• Motorola Moto G
  516
• Nokia Lumia 635
  451
• Sony Xperia E3
  417
• Microsoft Lumia 535 Dual SIM
  414
• Xiaomi Redmi 1S
  394
• Sony Xperia E4
  333
• Sony Xperia M2
  298
• Motorola Moto E
  116

Basemark OS II (single-core)

Higher is better

• Xiaomi Redmi 1S
  1435
• Samsung Galaxy Core Prime
  1313
• Sony Xperia E4
  1311
• Motorola Moto G
  1205
• Sony Xperia E3
  1171
• Sony Xperia M2
  1164
• Motorola Moto G (2014)
  1123
• Motorola Moto E
  1110

Basemark OS II (multi-core)

Higher is better

• Sony Xperia E3
  5697
• Sony Xperia E4
  5358
• Samsung Galaxy Core Prime
  5283
• Motorola Moto G
  5030
• Motorola Moto G (2014)
  5001
• Sony Xperia M2
  4927
• Xiaomi Redmi 1S
  4875
• Motorola Moto E
  2637

In fact, the multi-core score seemed so odd, that we thought there might have been some cheating on Sony's end, but running a tailored version of the same test, to prevent common cheating technique, revealed that the processors in the X4 does, in fact, perform very well.

Interestingly enough, however, the Xperia E3 seems to persistently outperform a lot of the competition, including its successor, which is quite odd, but the reasons could be numerous, ranging from increased system software load to poor optimization. And, at the end of the day, there is always a room for error with standardized tests and a higher score does not necessarily translate into better real life performance.

Basemark OS II (anti-cheat)

Higher is better

• Sony Xperia E3
  421
• Sony Xperia E4
  337

Basemark OS II (single-core. anti-cheat)

Higher is better

• Sony Xperia E4
  1464
• Sony Xperia E3
  1269

Basemark OS II (multi-core. anti-cheat)

Higher is better

• Sony Xperia E4
  6110
• Sony Xperia E3
  5617

Moving on to pure graphics tests, the Xperia E4 really seems to lack behind. The Mali-400MP2 is really not up to par and gets blown away by the competition.

As it turns out, all of the other contenders in the test are powered by some implementation of the Adreno 305, except for the Moto E, which runs the Adreno 302. Utilization by the respective SoCs is obviously quite different, resulting in significantly different results. One thing is for sure, though, the Mali-400MP2 was a really poor choice for a graphics processor and it is a shame Sony didn't just stick with the Adreno used in the E3.

In fact the Mali was so bad, that it was incapable of running the GFX 3.0 Manhattan test, most-likely due to insufficient memory. The small screen resolution on the Xperia E4 does help to some extent in the onscreen render, but it is not nearly enough to compensate.

GFX 2.7 T-Rex (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

• Sony Xperia E3
  5.9
• Sony Xperia M2
  5.9
• Motorola Moto G (2014)
  5.8
• Xiaomi Redmi 1S
  5.7
• Motorola Moto G
  5.6
• Motorola Moto E
  4.5
• Sony Xperia E4
  4.2

GFX 2.7 T-Rex (onscreen)

Higher is better

• Sony Xperia E3
  17.1
• Sony Xperia M2
  15.4
• Motorola Moto E
  11.2
• Motorola Moto G (2014)
  10.8
• Xiaomi Redmi 1S
  10.3
• Sony Xperia E4
  9.5

The Xperia E4 did surprisingly well in the browser performance tests. Google Chrome is the browser, Sony has bundled with the budget phone and is surely attributes a lot to the high scores. Interestingly enough, though, the E3, yet again, surpasses its successor, which you really don't want to see in a new smartphone.

Kraken 1.1

Lower is better

• Xiaomi Redmi 1S
  12470
• Motorola Moto G (2014)
  15988
• Sony Xperia E3
  16059
• Sony Xperia E4
  16137
• Motorola Moto G
  16867
• Motorola Moto E
  17213
• Sony Xperia M2
  18047
• Samsung Galaxy Core Prime
  18353
• Microsoft Lumia 535 Dual SIM
  26981

BrowserMark 2.1

Higher is better

• Motorola Moto G (2014)
  1085
• Sony Xperia E3
  1044
• Sony Xperia E4
  950
• Sony Xperia M2
  903
• Motorola Moto E
  784
• Microsoft Lumia 535 Dual SIM
  480

One thing is clear, the Sony Xperia E4 isn't acing any benchmarks. On the contrary - its raw performance is average at best, barely touching some of its competitors. On a positive note - the synthetic benchmark performance may not be a complete measure for the device performance as in real-life use we found it to operate quite well. It provides solid and smooth Android experience and will do OK for the occasional game.

Unfortunately, heavier 3D games may not run well or at all because of insufficient RAM and poor GPU or both. Sony has rather oddly opted to combine a capable CPU with a very underperforming GPU, often leaving the Xperia E4 at a disadvantage compared to even the Xperia E3.

The reality, however, is that being a budget device, the Xperia E4 is quite ok at what it does. And if you don't intend to use it for more than web browsing, watching the occasional video, listening to music, or playing some Angry Birds, and, of course, messaging and calls, then you'd be good for quite a while.