There are also "lab" versions for the thickness. When will the new phone promotions stop "boasting"?

As is well known, in today's smartphone industry, "benchmark scores" still serve as an intuitive and valuable reference for evaluating a device's hardware performance and software tuning level.

For example, when comparing different hardware platforms, the one with "higher benchmark scores" is often considered to have better performance and design. For models with the same SoC in name, consumers use the benchmark scores to measure the device's heat dissipation design, peripheral configuration, and the manufacturer's software tuning capabilities.

However, due to this, we have seen too many cases of smartphone manufacturers "boasting" about benchmark scores. The "lab benchmark scores" are a typical example.

What's the use of benchmark scores that users can never achieve?

What are "lab benchmark scores"? On the surface, it refers to the scores obtained by smartphone manufacturers in their "R & D labs" using devices that may still be in the engineering prototype stage or specially modified ones.

Actually, the real situation may not be that complicated. All you need to know is that the term "lab benchmark scores" was not coined by smartphone manufacturers, but rather a "requirement" from the benchmark software.

When we see "lab benchmark scores" at the launch of some new phones, it means that these scores are beyond what ordinary users can achieve. Therefore, smartphone manufacturers must mark them to ensure that the benchmark software didn't give any special treatment. It's more like a "disclaimer" from the benchmark software and doesn't specify what "technical means" the manufacturers used in the process of obtaining these "lab benchmark scores".

As a hardcore technology media, we have a little understanding of the "tricks" involved. That's why in our recent smartphone reviews, whenever benchmark scores are involved, we deliberately conduct two sets of tests: one in a low - temperature environment (with a series of "techniques") and the other in a normal - temperature environment (normal benchmarking), and then compare the differences between them.

On the surface, this seems to be testing whether the phone's heat dissipation design at normal temperature is good enough and whether there is "thermal throttling". In fact, it can also be understood as an investigation of the gap between the phone's "lab benchmark scores" and the ordinary user experience.

Can you brag about benchmark scores, and can the thickness also be measured in the "lab"?

Does this mean that "lab benchmark scores" are completely meaningless? Not necessarily. No matter how outrageous the lab scores are, it's impossible to fake the hardware. So, a phone with high "lab benchmark scores" may have a poor heat dissipation design, or the actual mass - produced models may have stricter software temperature control. But at least the "theoretical performance ceiling" of its hardware can reach the level claimed by the manufacturer, so it still has some reference value.

In contrast, the recently exposed "lab thickness" information is even more ridiculous.

The origin of this incident is a new "ultra - thin phone" from a certain brand that was recently exposed. According to the leaked product specification sheet, the thickness of this model is about 6.7mm. According to this indicator, it is a bit thicker than the Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge and the rumored iPhone 17 Air (both within 6mm), but still thinner than most smartphones on the market.

However, the publicity department of the relevant manufacturer doesn't seem to be satisfied with this result. Recently, a newly exposed promotional material shows that this model adopts a "5.9mm ultra - thin design".

Obviously, the body thickness information in these two exposed pieces of information doesn't match. Is it because the relevant manufacturer redesigned the device after realizing the pressure from competitors and successfully "thinned" it before the launch?

Creating data for marketing purposes is of no benefit to the entire industry

It seems not. Because there are two lines of small print in the lower right corner of the second exposed promotional material. One line indicates that the product image in the promotional material is for reference only, and the other line clearly tells us that the so - called "5.9mm thickness" was "measured in the lab", and it's not the thickness of the whole phone, but only the thickness of the middle frame.

We really can't understand why the thickness of a phone's middle frame needs to be measured under "lab conditions". Obviously, these two lines of text tell us that the "5.9mm" thickness is just advertising data for promotional purposes. Like "lab benchmark scores", it can't be replicated by ordinary users. Of course, unless you remove the phone's screen and back cover and only "use" the middle frame and the motherboard.

High "lab benchmark scores" can at least prove that the corresponding model has a good hardware foundation, but a thin "lab thickness" seems to prove nothing.

If it's just to "look thin" during promotion, the double - curved design on both the front and back may become popular again.

After all, if the width of the middle frame can be used as the "lab thickness" for product promotion, once this trend becomes popular, some manufacturers may design phones with double - curved front and back and a very thin middle frame. Of course, it doesn't mean that such phones are not good - looking, but at least this unrealistic marketing strategy has no positive meaning for promoting the technological improvement of the entire industry.

This article is from the WeChat official account "Three - Easy Life" (ID: IT - 3eLife). Author: Three - Easy Jun. It is published by 36Kr with permission.