Develop Bugs

Leedroid but what kernel

Hi all,
I've got Leedroid and would like to know how the hell people get the 3000+ scores on quadrant ?
I've used most of the roms with a lot of the kernels but the most i get is around 2500 - 2600 , i've heard that the kernel by Kamma is a good one but i'm at a loss as to which one i should use.
So if anyone could point out which one i could use for .
1. Stability.
2. Battery saving.
3. Benchmarking (without smoking my device of course)
Any answers would be appreciated.
Thanks.

dladz said:
Hi all,
I've got Leedroid and would like to know how the hell people get the 3000+ scores on quadrant ?
I've used most of the roms with a lot of the kernels but the most i get is around 2500 - 2600 , i've heard that the kernel by Kamma is a good one but i'm at a loss as to which one i should use.
So if anyone could point out which one i could use for .
1. Stability.
2. Battery saving.
3. Benchmarking (without smoking my device of course)
Any answers would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the first thing you need to understand is quadrant is ****, it is not an acurate indication of the speed of your device, a few devs have made kernels that trick quadrant into giving it massive scores, but in reality there kernels are not the best that being said, you wont find a better kernel for stability or speed than leedroids one, it is flawless you can download it here
http://www.multiupload.com/U2ECLTRT7V

AndroHero said:
that being said, you wont find a better kernel for stability or speed than leedroids one, it is flawless you can download it here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have you noticed much difference between 2.0.5 and 2.0.6 kernels? The LeeDroid thread is getting very lengthy to read through these days to catch up on new updates lol!

RobSimmo said:
Have you noticed much difference between 2.0.5 and 2.0.6 kernels? The LeeDroid thread is getting very lengthy to read through these days to catch up on new updates lol!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah the new one is based on the latest kernel source, with the 1.75 libs,
Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

Tbh I use leedroids newest one an its really good, quadrant gets 2500 +
The device is smooth as silk, bit then again it always was.
I didn't know that quadrant was pants, I thought it was a good benchmarking tool.

Confirm that the newest kernel of Lee is the best!but in a few days he prepare a new awesome BFS kernel...

Mmm badly ****ed scheduler. My favourite.
If you want good quadrant, buy the paid app which gives higher scores than the free one. Do the I/O hack which core and lee droids use. Use Leedroid kernel at max freq, performance governor, and finally run it in airplane mode.
Follow all those steps and you will get around the 3000 score.
You should state if you use quadrant standard or advance when posting results as they do differ. Otherwise it's like comparing oranges to mandarins. They are both orange but one is always bigger.
Sent from my super slick Android device.

dr.m0x said:
Mmm badly ****ed scheduler. My favourite.
If you want good quadrant, buy the paid app which gives higher scores than the free one. Do the I/O hack which core and lee droids use. Use Leedroid kernel at max freq, performance governor, and finally run it in airplane mode.
Follow all those steps and you will get around the 3000 score.
You should state if you use quadrant standard or advance when posting results as they do differ. Otherwise it's like comparing oranges to mandarins. They are both orange but one is always bigger.
Sent from my super slick Android device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea it's just the standard version of quadrant, I thought that it would do the job.
Also i don't want to trick it or actually buy an app just so it can give me higher scores, that's not actually helping at all, i'll try the airplane mode to see if that helps, my phone is rapid anyway so it's only for my own satisfaction and to see how high i could get the score to go to.

Quadrant: Worse than you thought

As we all know quadrant is no reliable measure for speed. At least I knew this for a while now and it was repeated and quoted many times.
This article tells anybody with a functioning brain (that is used of course) that quadrant means pretty much nothing.
I can't help to run it from time to time anyway
So I sat on the to... in my room in front of my computer with my phone. I9000 with supersonic ROM and the remount script from adrenaline shot 7. I sat there and said to myself "how hight can you score in quadrant LOL"
I started quadrant up and ran the benchmark: 2309
Then I opened the task manager-> Exit all & Clear memory
Then via long press homebutton back to quadrant to run the benchmark again score: 2453
But since I am a programmer and can imagine all kinds of optimizations and caching I pressed the back button and just ran it again just after it finished
Score: 2675
How the hell could anyone call that a benchmark?^^
just to be sure could anyone confirm that behavior? And does anyone know of a mor reliable alternative? I'd like to collect that knowledge in this thread.
TL;DR: quadrant sucks, you know anything better or want to flame away: do it here
Those are not the actual numbers from my first experiment, I repeated the scenario just now and took the numbers from those runs.
Additional runs scored 2775, 2907 and 2820, that's just silly

I think this behaviour is well known and has to do with JIT optimizations or something like that

allotrios said:
I think this behaviour is well known and has to do with JIT optimizations or something like that
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The reason is irrelevant. The fact it doesn't provide a reliable benchmark is.

no benchmark is precise if you don't use it as intended. Quadrant produces a reliable comparative benchmark when used as designed: run it five times, remove the lowest and highest scores and average the remaining 3 -- that is your benchmark. You may not like it, but that is how it is designed to be used.
Now if you want to be pedantic, you could reasonably test again, by running quadrant 5 times, removing the outliers and average your 3 remaining scores. Repeat 10 times and then tell me how your average scores do or do not vary: they will in fact be within a narrow range, your actual benchmark.
Alternatively, tell us which benchmark produces the same score each run, as that appears to be the sum total of your objection to quadrant.
There are other benchmarks, such as Caffiene Mark, AnTuTu and NenaMark, but they are all apps just as Quadrant is and all require several runs and averaging to produce a comparable benchmark.
Moreover, the primary use of any benchmark is to compare firmware (kernel and rom) builds on the same phone to see relative performance gain and drop.

A benchmark is supposed to give way of comparing the capabilities of a given device. This means that a device with a high average score implies a better device than a lower score.
But the Quadrant score does nothing of this sort! In a competition with a friend I achieved an average Quadrant score of about 4300, with a peak of 4462. According to Quadrant my device is a lot better than the OP! Which is just not true.
Quadrant is unreliable as a benchmark, no matter how it is "designed to be used".
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

whaave said:
But the Quadrant score does nothing of this sort! In a competition with a friend I achieved an average Quadrant score of about 4300, with a peak of 4462. According to Quadrant my device is a lot better than the OP! Which is just not true.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're doing it wrong.
lgsshedden said:
Moreover, the primary use of any benchmark is to compare firmware (kernel and rom) builds on the same phone to see relative performance gain and drop.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Quadrant scores are useless. I've used custom roms with scores of 2500+ but they aren't as smooth as stock roms, which only have scores of 1600-1800.

Antutu is indeed quite reliable imho. My results never fluctuate more than +-5% on the same config. That's an acceptable range, considering I don't set cpu governor to performance before running my tests.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

upichie said:
You're doing it wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
w00t?
Quadrant does not reflect performance, and therefore can not be used as a comparison parameter.

It can't be much worse than I thought.
My phone with 2.1 and 'lag fix' scored 2200 and lagged so bad I wanted to throw it against a wall multiple times a day.
With stock 2.3 quadrant can be ~1000 but the phone runs much smoother.
Other than the obvious file systems I/O 'cheats' that resulted in the above, there is also the frame rate cap that makes the GPU tests useless as well.

if your trying to measure height with a scale , u wont get your answer .
The only benchmark tool that ever reflected how the phone felt in my hands , in real life usage is linpack .
changing OC / kernel is mainly the only thing that will affect linpack if your trying to use it to compare roms ill efer you to my first statement .
In order to have a good feel of a rom / set up on the phone , use some apps that will use lots of ressources , for example TW4 launcher , go in there scroll a lot open gallery (if you have many pics) scroll thru them and repeat ... Any benchmark tools will basically tell you the 'ability of your device ' ( comparing 2 different models like an inspire and an sgs2 for example will be accurate )

ZioGTS said:
Antutu is indeed quite reliable imho. My results never fluctuate more than +-5% on the same config. That's an acceptable range, considering I don't set cpu governor to performance before running my tests.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I recently tried Passmark Mobile. Still a beta version, but I like it. Test results reflect real performance improvement and degradation pretty closely, particularly for what concerns I/O and memory speed.

benchmark confusion

Hi!
i just got my dhd, and i am a bit confused about the bench scores.
firstly, i'm tunning rcmix3d runny 3.3, with defoult kernel. what confuses me is that i get a normal result in quadrant (around 1900), i only get around 9-ish in linpack, where i should get around 40 if i understand correctly. phone feels quite smooth...
could somebody please explane what i dont get here

t0mas_ said:
Hi!
i just got my dhd, and i am a bit confused about the bench scores.
firstly, i'm tunning rcmix3d runny 3.3, with defoult kernel. what confuses me is that i get a normal result in quadrant (around 1900), i only get around 9-ish in linpack, where i should get around 40 if i understand correctly. phone feels quite smooth...
could somebody please explane what i dont get here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even I am getting the same results.
Changing cpu speed using setCPU has no effect on Linpack.
Maybe its something to do with Linpack i suppose.

Most benchmarks have absolutely nothing to do with phone performance. Especially quadrant and Linpack.
Linpack tests CPU Speed, which is pretty pointless since there are few tasks that actually require CPU (everything should still feel smooth @ 768 MHz).
And quadrant (Especially standard) gets quite alot of its points from IO on the Desire HD, which is actually pretty pointless. The 3D Performance is around the same on every ROM.
I would suggest getting a 3D benchmark like Nenamark/etc if you actually want to test performance, since 3D gaming is the only thing that would actually require it.

thanks for info, i figured that everything works quite fast so why bother with some benchmarks
but since i like to understend stuff, i feel better now

Good benchmarks

Hey guys I hear a lot of negative stuff about how smooth the GN isn't and how the hardware is not that good but I must say that after 6 months of SGS2 use with many awesome roms like Checkrom etc and overclocking to 1600Mhz running a lot of benchmark tests I have to say that my experience with the GN has been awesome. Its smooth, fast and pretty.
But I saved all my Antutu, Nenamark and Quadrant scores and i have done a series of scores with the GN trying different roms and kernels and I say that the results, even only clocked to 1350Mhz were on average above my old SGS2. We should consider how much more effort is required to use the resolution of the screen to produce 6800 scores on Antutu and 3000+ scores on Quadrant.
This phone is really the next logical step and I actually get it why Google went down this path.

robt772000 said:
Hey guys I hear a lot of negative stuff about how smooth the GN isn't and how the hardware is not that good but I must say that after 6 months of SGS2 use with many awesome roms like Checkrom etc and overclocking to 1600Mhz running a lot of benchmark tests I have to say that my experience with the GN has been awesome. Its smooth, fast and pretty.
But I saved all my Antutu, Nenamark and Quadrant scores and i have done a series of scores with the GN trying different roms and kernels and I say that the results, even only clocked to 1350Mhz were on average above my old SGS2. We should consider how much more effort is required to use the resolution of the screen to produce 6800 scores on Antutu and 3000+ scores on Quadrant.
This phone is really the next logical step and I actually get it why Google went down this path.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice to see a positive post for once.

Sweet as mate
I started a benchmark scores thread in general.
If you dont mind, can you post your ROM + Kernel and any OC/UV settings u applied.
Also, have u used CF-Bench and what was your score?

Cheers. Its big ie oc to 1350Mhz with Franco kernal.

[KERNELS][ICS][I9000] The ICS Kernel Benchmarking Project -Update: Devil

Goal of this little project is to dispel myths and hearsay and trying to assess the elusive performance of custom kernels for our beloved SGS I9000.
So far this has proven quite challenging as there is no single good benchmark on Android (yet):
a lot of people have been misled by ridiculous Quadrant scores: ridiculous because, with some small tweaks which do not affect real performance in any way, shape or form, it is possible to boost the Quadrant score by factor 3x.
You're free to believe that your SGS I9000 which scores 3000+ on Quadrant is faster than a SGS II, but then please leave this thread and move on.
some kernels may seem smooth with some games, and get high scores on some synthetic benchmark, yet the UI appears "laggy" and stutters a lot in comparison to other kernels which score lower on the same benchmark
some popular benchmarks give results with unacceptably low reproducibility, i.e. if you run them multiple times without changing a thing on your system, you get scores varying by 50% of more, in a completely random fashion
most popular benchmarks do not measure or take into account multitasking and CPU contention with other applications, yet on a typical usage one has background tasks such as the media scanner or synchronization which kick in often and unpredictably
So this will be mostly a work in progress, i'm testing several benchmarks and several kernels in multiple combinations, trying to analyze which benchmarks offer certain criteria which make them useful, namely:
Reproducibility of results: running the same tests multiple times, should result in a very small variance of the final score
Performance separation: benchmarks which are too "synthetic" and show only a dependency on clock speed are not useful to discriminate "fast" kernels from "slow" kernels
Performance representation: we all know when a kernel "looks" or "feels" fast or smooth. If a benchmarks shows you that a "laggy" kernel scores higher than a fast and responsive one, it's likely that the benchmark is not well designed
I'll work more on this thread explaining my (current) choice of tests and what they're good for.
But for now i'll just post a link to the summary table, and give a brief recommendation concerning popular ICS kernels; recommendation which i'll explain in the coming days.
Base ROM:
Slim ICS 2.8
(because is fast, smooth and has the least background stuff of all ICS ROMs which i tested)
Test Conditions:
Whenever possible, i tried to overclock the kernels to 1.2GHz which most / all phones should have no trouble achieving.
In case of Semaphore i had to use the bus / live overclock but it wasn't fully stable at 1.2GHz on my phone so i ran most of the tests at 1.14GHz.
Tested Kernels:
Stock Teamhacksung V17
Devil 1.1.6b BFS
Devil 1.1.6b CFS
Icy Glitch V14 b
Semaphore ICS 0.9.5b
Recommendation:
Devil 1.1.6b CFS, Icy Glitch V14b (with SmartassV2 and FIOPS), and Midnight ICS (with a tweaked Conservative) are trading blows for the fastest kernel.
At the time of testing, Midnight is slightly worse in terms of overclocking though, apparently due to different voltages, also it doesn't allow overclocking beyond 1.2GHz.
But what's interesting is that it achieves great performance while using a tweaked conservative governor.
Devil 1.1.6b BFS is good but obviously inferior to its CFS brother.
Semaphore has the lowest cache and memory latency in the multithreaded test, it also has impressive sd card read speed and in general appears super responsive, but it's a bit worse in 3D gaming and especially it lacks "true" overclocking, "live overclocking" changes the bus clock and is way more unstable, in fact on my phone i couldn't run it stable at 1.2GHz.
All kernels are significantly faster than the stock teamhacksung's kernel, so you have no excuses not to upgrade to one of the popular custom kernels!
ICS 4.0.4
Started testing Android ICS 4.0.4 kernels on Slim ICS 3.2.
All tested kernels are "huge mem" versions with 380+MB of available RAM, without breaking video playback or 720p recording.
Summary:
the stock kernel from Teamhacksung is now a very respectable performer, unless you plan to overclock probably you don't need to install one of the other kernels
Semaphore, Midnight and Devil are all very fast and smooth
Results table:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuBUEB4dGFSSdHIyN2VIeWU4QnhLOFpJejFPWDh5S1E

Res 1
One request for the kernel developers:
could you please post me what are your preferred / recommended settings in terms of Governor and I/O Scheduler?
Only one configuration per kernel please, as running these tests is rather time consuming.

Test Settings
So for anybody who wants to follow the same methodology as I used to test kernels, please pay attention that in some tests i didn't use stock settings, to try to improve the reproducibility of the results.
Before all test, i put the phone in flight mode, and disable all synch services.
Antutu: DB I/O and SD Write and Read have poor reproducibility. So i run these tests separately 5 times, and take the best scores.
RealPi: the number of iterations is increased by factor 10x i.e.: 100000 digits
MPAC: lots of customization here. Also be careful as it's not very stable and some settings will make it crash.
All tests: 8 threads (or 8 producer / consumer pairs)
CPU: 10000000 iterations, use case: integer (i'm considering to add logical too)
Memory: stock apart for nr of threads. Repeat the test 5 times and get best numbers
Cache: 40 iterations

Res 3
With this should be enough.

Judging from those results, CFS Devil looks really promising.

Semaphore live oc stability issues happen only on Slim ICS indeed. On ICSSGS I have perfect stability at 1.2 ghz. And performance is just great, paired with very good battery life.
GT-i9000 / ICSSGS 4.2 / Semaphore 0.9.0

A quick question: did you lock the max freq to eliminate the "governor" variable?
Because each kernel could have governor's tweaks that the other don't.
Based on what you posted here, the differences between Glitch and Devil is practically none.
I tested both and didn't feel any tangible difference, in the end, it comes down to the unique features of each kernel.

Overclocking bus vs adding an extra step aren't even slightly comparable. Maybe do tests not overclocked?
Also there is a new glitch build with 100% working bln.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using xda premium

+1 for tests without overclock. Majority of us, users do not overclock. Maybe a seperate test for overclocking could be nice , but comparisons should be done with stock speeds imho.
Thanks for the time and effort. We needed this.

Overclocking bus Vs adding an extra step isn't an apple to apple comparison, I agree.
However my goal was to use each kernel in the best possible way, and if some kernels have the possibility to use higher multipliers / extra frequency steps, that is an advantage for the user, compared to the kernels who only offer live overclock.
Don't get me wrong, i love Semaphore and i've been using it for a long time.
And i have no doubt that some users can get it stable with live overclock to 1.2GHz.
But that is the ceiling, while with other kernels even my phone can reach stable overclocks of 1.5GHz, and that is something to consider.
I chose as the basis for my tests an overclock of 1.2GHz because it's something which practically everybody can use, without massive battery drain, overheat or shortening the life of the device.
I'll try to add measurements at stock speeds for those who don't like to overclock.

cba1986 said:
A quick question: did you lock the max freq to eliminate the "governor" variable?
Because each kernel could have governor's tweaks that the other don't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't want to take the governor variable out.
Because, as you said, each kernel could use (and often does) governor tweaks which make the kernel "special" or different from the others, and that has to be taken into account in evaluating them.
Because nobody will use the phone locked at the maximum frequency.
So for me the governor and its tweaks is part of the user experience of a certain kernel, and a distinctive factor.
At the end, all kernels are coming from almost the same sources, so it's the little things which make the difference.

phzi said:
Also there is a new glitch build with 100% working bln.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's great!
This test i run is not the "be all end all", it was just a recommendation at the time of writing.

Pipperox said:
Overclocking bus Vs adding an extra step isn't an apple to apple comparison, I agree.
However my goal was to use each kernel in the best possible way, and if some kernels have the possibility to use higher multipliers / extra frequency steps, that is an advantage for the user, compared to the kernels who only offer live overclock.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed but, then again, benchmarks should be done at original CPU clock IMHO.
Otherwise, results are distorted.

HiKsFiles said:
Agreed but, then again, benchmarks should be done at original CPU clock IMHO.
Otherwise, results are distorted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agreed. Especially since stock team hacksung seems to be clocked at 1GHz
what's the point of the comparison? Really?
As expected, there is no noticeable difference between all 1.2 GHz kernels.
It's not as if there was a real difference between them anyway.

zorxd said:
agreed. Especially since stock team hacksung seems to be clocked at 1GHz
what's the point of the comparison? Really?
As expected, there is no noticeable difference between all 1.2 GHz kernels.
It's not as if there was a real difference between them anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not quite true.
If you look closer, you'll see that Devil CFS has quite a distinct advantage over all others in 3D tests.
The point of the comparison between stock hacksung @1.0GHz and the others, who can overclock, is to show what kind of benefit you get from switching to kernels which are overclock friendly.
Especially considering that you can't assume that a 20% clock speed increase will bring a 20% performance speedup across the board.
At last, i'd say that you may have "expected" that the kernels tested at 1.2 GHz don't have such a difference in performance.
But expectations have to be verified.
I tried to answer the questions:
On Devil's kernel, is BFS really better than CFS?
The "popular belief" is that BFS is faster than CFS.
According to my tests, CFS results faster instead.
Another question may be, what kernel gives you the best gaming performance.
If you pay attention to the An3D Bench XL, you'll see that Semaphore 0.9.5b, even overclocked a 1.2GHz, is significantly slower than Devil.

If i recall correctly Semaphore Author claimed that some kernel developers overclock GPU, and he didn't. Idk anything about it, but i recall something about it.
Is it possible to overclock only GPU, without overclocking CPU??

zipgenius said:
so you should benchmark them without setting anything. Average users don't overclock and don't change governor or scheduler: they flash the new kernel and stop.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I completely agree on benchmarking every kernel at the same frequency (stock 1Ghz max) but I think there are two different options for further benchmarking:
1) Benchmark kernels configured as similar as possible regarding CPU governor, IO scheduler, readahead -> comparable results for all kernels.
2) Benchmark kernels with default settings (only makes sense if all compared kernels are optimized for similar purpose like performance, does not make sense if a kernel does *not* focus on max. performance and uses e.g. Conservative CPU governor as default setting.
@Pipperox: Would it be possible to check my Mindnight-ICS dev version with your benchmark suite? I'd be really interested in the results as you use the same setup for all kernels (1.2Ghz would not be a problem, does not use LiveOC but old school 1/1.128/1.2Ghz OC).

Interesting thread... I never used devil's CFS version, always BFS. Will try CFS out now.
@Mialwe Where can we get your ics kernel?

mialwe said:
I completely agree on benchmarking every kernel at the same frequency (stock 1Ghz max) but I think there are two different options for further benchmarking:
1) Benchmark kernels configured as similar as possible regarding CPU governor, IO scheduler, readahead -> comparable results for all kernels.
2) Benchmark kernels with default settings (only makes sense if all compared kernels are optimized for similar purpose like performance, does not make sense if a kernel does *not* focus on max. performance and uses e.g. Conservative CPU governor as default setting.
@Pipperox: Would it be possible to check my Mindnight-ICS dev version with your benchmark suite? I'd be really interested in the results as you use the same setup for all kernels (1.2Ghz would not be a problem, does not use LiveOC but old school 1/1.128/1.2Ghz OC).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry guys, i understand your logic but i do not fully agree with it.
I'm not comparing overclocked kernels with heavy tweaking of voltages and special settings with which they only work.
I did the "poor man"'s overclock, setting to 1.2GHz using NSTools, a setting where 95% of phones should have no problem working.
I think that if some kernels offer you this possibility while others do not, it is fair to use this "advantage" that they have over the other kernels.
Because a lot of users will have the possibility to do the same as i do, without esoteric knowledge and with just a couple of clicks in the menus.
That being said, "due to popular demand" i will also try to retest those kernels at 1.0GHz as soon as i get a bit of time.
BUT in my recommendations, i will also consider the overclocking capabilities.
@mialwe: sure, i'll give a run to your kernel as well!

mialwe said:
@Pipperox: Would it be possible to check my Mindnight-ICS dev version with your benchmark suite? I'd be really interested in the results as you use the same setup for all kernels (1.2Ghz would not be a problem, does not use LiveOC but old school 1/1.128/1.2Ghz OC).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude, sorry but i don't seem to find your ICS kernel anywhere.. can you provide a link?