Getting a 15% increase to CPU performance is an incremental upgrade to the CPU performance. We expected a much better improvement from the new CPU architecture. It's quite disappointing and the removal of MTE support is even more disappointing. Using HWASan instead of MTE would have around 2x CPU overhead, 25% memory overhead and would not provide nearly as much of the security benefits due to only working for code instrumented with it. Compared to doing memory tagging using HWASan, decent MTE support is an incredible performance boost.

GrapheneOS works well for running games and people can toggle off hardened_malloc and MTE for a game to eliminate nearly all of the performance difference. It doesn't usually make any noticeable difference. GrapheneOS is intended to be fully usable by everyone including people who care about GPU performance whether it's for games or other apps. Claiming GrapheneOS isn't gaming focused is your opinion. We care a lot about compatibility with games and have put effort into it. Pixels using a GPU with poor gaming compatibility and performance wasn't our choice and doesn't mean we don't care about it.

> and the same modem

Pixel 10a has a drastically better cellular radio than the Pixel 9a. The 'a' series Pixels are consistently the most popular devices supported by GrapheneOS. Pixel 10a is still the latest one so there isn't going to be any gap in people being able to buy a new device for GrapheneOS if we don't add the Pixel 11 and instead skip right to Motorola flagships and then more Motorola devices. We hope the Pixel 12 adds back MTE support but aren't optimistic.

> back to GOS?

You're directing abusive comments towards our team based on highly inaccurate harassment content.

The CPU is 10-15% faster, that’s incremental in use even if it’s technically interesting.

Lots of apps and websites only run smoothly on newer GPUs, too. You can play the “they’re dumb and I just won’t use them” game, but not everybody has your priorities, and it’s a relevant factor either way.

The modem comment, likewise, is simply correct, and evaluating performance is good even when shortcomings are understandable.

They supported Pixel 10 because they supported every new Pixel that wasn’t a security downgrade and shortly preceding a better alternative. The logic isn’t “performance bad therefore no upgrade”, it’s “no upgrade for a bunch of other reasons, and it’s not like we’re missing out on a 3x performance improvement”.