hey guys!
i'm kind of a noob, so forgive me if i write something stupid i've watched a few videos of other phones being benchmarked with quadrant, and at the part where the planet and it's moon shows, other mid-range/high-end phones have no problem playing it flawlessly, and with my defy i get around 10-11fps, and some textures don't even show! is that because of a poorly optimised gpu driver, or what? any ideas? do other phones with sgx530 gpu do that too, or just the defy?
Sent from my MB525 using XDA App
It's all right, i get 9 fps at stock speed (800mhz) and up to 12 depending on the OC applied.
Maybe Defy is not so brilliant in that specific test but the overall performances are great compared to other phones with similar price.
Also consider that many devices have huge score on quadrant benchmark but they're actually not so fast.
Some of them also have stagefright enabled, as a result the quadrant benchmark fails to decode h.264 and gives huge scores...
So, don't trust quadrant too much, our gpu and drivers are ok!
thx! actually i couldn't be happier with this phone, it's by far the best in it's price range (even if we exclude it's 'life-proof'-ness and great overclocking/undervolting capability). this was just something that caught my attention. anyway, thanks again!
Related
Hello!
So, I have a DHD with the Revolution HD ROM (2.0.8) and the Buzz Sense kernel. I have locked the CPU to min/max 1516MHz Perf. scaling and, upon running the AnTutu System Review 1.2("System Benchmark" under Market) I get a score of 1879.
Yet in the Rankings I see that the #2 device is a DHD with 2.2 @1516MHz with a whopping score of 2774!!!!!
So, how could I reach those heights? The only thing I can think of is the slow SD card that came with the mobile (read/write scores: 34/117), but other than that what could be holding me back?
Cheers
T
I have reached pretty high scores while testing, but then the overall rom smoothness has pretty much sucked. It is normal that synthetic benchmarks give lower results when you use a custom rom, the optimizations that ensure general smoothness and usability cause it. One big reason is CPU scheduling, in custom rom (custom kernel) cpu time is divided for each task in a different way, thus reducing the overall benchmark score.
jkoljo said:
I have reached pretty high scores while testing, but then the overall rom smoothness has pretty much sucked. It is normal that synthetic benchmarks give lower results when you use a custom rom, the optimizations that ensure general smoothness and usability cause it. One big reason is CPU scheduling, in custom rom (custom kernel) cpu time is divided for each task in a different way, thus reducing the overall benchmark score.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Aha... but then this means that this or the other ROM do not let a specific app (say, a heavy 3D game) take the phone to its full potential...
Incorrect, it is just the synthetic benchmark that suffers. Games will run fine, faster than stock.
Jkoljo's right.The overall system speed is much better,performance is better,but it sucks a little in benchmarks.If you are so desperate to see high benchmark scores(I was once too! )try kamma's 1.4 kernel.Quadrant 3200.Need I say more?
tolis626 said:
Jkoljo's right.The overall system speed is much better,performance is better,but it sucks a little in benchmarks.If you are so desperate to see high benchmark scores(I was once too! )try kamma's 1.4 kernel.Quadrant 3200.Need I say more?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really? 3200? Wow. Just out of curiosity, what scores are you getting with other kernels?
Well, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter - I haven't seen an app or game that runs slow or choppy or whatever. It's just for the heck of it
krakout said:
Really? 3200? Wow. Just out of curiosity, what scores are you getting with other kernels?
Well, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter - I haven't seen an app or game that runs slow or choppy or whatever. It's just for the heck of it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh yeah,I know what tou mean!
Anyway,with Lee's and Apache's kernels I get about 2500-2600 in Quadrant.CPU clocked all the way up to 1.5 GHz of course!
Greetings all. Allow me to introduce myself and explain my noob credentials before making my main point. I am an electronic engineer by day, and I am not a software person - assembler is as high-level as I am comfortable programming. My phone hacking credentials extend only as far as rooting and unlocking one galaxy S, and installing cyanogen 7 on a ZTE Blade, another Galaxy S and my personal Defy.
The blade was the first cyanogen install I did, and I did not find it to be spectacularly fast. However, on a 600MHz processor, was I expecting too much?
Next up was my defy. Oh my word... This is absurdly fast, as we all know. My phone scores 2100 in quadrant (for whatever that is worth - we know quadrant has its flaws).
Finally, I installed CM7 on a Galaxy S, and was marginally disappointed. Yes, it was a bit slicker than touchwiz, but not much. Quadrant of 1615, despite the significantly greater 3d capability of the SGS over the Defy.
So, some questions in my mind - Why does the Defy benefit so much, and how does it end up significantly outperforming the SGS when on paper they are pretty even with a slight advantage to the SGS - both 1GHz, both 512MB RAM, SGS has SGX540 and lower res screen (fewer pixels needing fill rate can potentially improve graphics framerates).
What it comes down to, I believe, is the RAM. The SGS has a strange memory architecture for its 512MB, with 128MB as "onedram" offering ~10GB/s speeds, required by the SGX540 and apparently solely dedicated to it. The remaining 384MB is LPDDR (1.6GB/s) and is what is available to the system (with CM7 reporting 342 total in about phone).
In contrast, the defy has 512MB LPDDR2 (3.2GB/s), which is all available to the system with dynamic allocation to the GPU when required. CM7 reports 477.
Therefore, in situations where the GPU is not being heavily used (which is most of the time for general system use) the Defy has much more and much faster memory for the system.
So it seems that the key for CM7 performance is memory speed and capacity, not necessarily processor power.
Should ICS come to the SGS with GPU-accelerated UI then I think the SGS would suddenly have a big advantage over all other single-core phones.
Quadrant Score for CM7 on the Defy is absolutly not relevant.
I should not use this as point of comparison ... not at all.
Does your Defy run slicker than your GS2 ? Does apps run faster ?
Do you have same settings on the both device ?
It is an SGS (i9000), not a GS2 (i9100).
Yes. The defy does seem to run a bit slicker and more fluidly than the SGS.
Also for me, defy + cm7 is way better then my ex-dhd....
Le_Poilu said:
Quadrant Score for CM7 on the Defy is absolutly not relevant.
I should not use this as point of comparison ... not at all.
Does your Defy run slicker than your GS2 ? Does apps run faster ?
Do you have same settings on the both device ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course it would give some insight even if it's flawed...
Sent from my MB525 using xda premium
LauncherPro and browser opera use gpu for its work. If you are right, sgs would benefit greatly by using those instead other cpu based.
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.
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.
I am a big fan of benchmarks but are there are really important
Please say what Kenel are you using.
No.
-----
I would love to help you, but help yourself first: ask a better question
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
It really depends what you find important and what's useless. Its just for the certain few enthusiasts who like tweaking their devices and testing out different values to achieve a higher benchmark score and brag about it. I'm one of them although for the Note 2 I see little or no difference in performance when comparing between an over clocked and a stock setting.
Sent from the Rabbit Hole
Some people are disagree with overclock some not, benchmark are high only with overclock but if they are not important what are the reason?
I personally think that having a benchmark with a phones overclock settings turned on is the best way to see the true strength of a phone.
Some phones being overclocked do not even come close to other phones with out it being overclocked
Sent from my SPH-L900 using xda app-developers app
So overclock or no overclock?
What you prefer?
When it comes to mobile phones, be it a ultra top end smartphone, absolutely not.
Swyped from my GT-N7100
for me, benchmark is only for fun and push it to the best performance of Note 2.
but for daily i still overclocked, 1.8GHz
it was stable and response very well..
Good way to compare devices. Although I do not overclock for my daily usage.
They are not for everyday thing but they tell their stories. For example I am a GPU comparison addict. I believe the GPUs are the first aging parts of the chipsets and if the GPU is not enough no matter what CPU or phone it is, it will fade away quickly. So when I am choosing a product I take one of the Nexus devices as a reference. For my Note 2, my referance was Nexus 7. Sİnce it will be getting at least 1.5 year support (the worst scenerio) Note will run any game for that time period.
So GLbenchmark comes in. Then it lets us to compare Nexus 4 and Note 2. What we can learn from it is, for example, Mali 400 is better for higher resolutions since 1080p and 720p results are same. Mali 400s quad core processors are so powerfull that they can not be effected by MSAAx4 or higher resolutions where Adreno 320 tenst to slow down however it has a bottle neck on the pixel processor side and it gets stuck on the Egypt 2.5 test no matter how much we OC it. So newer games will be a problem for Note 2 we can say. For the more older-coded games which are still close to the Egypt 2.1 side Adreno barely has %5-7 advantage over the Mali 400 so no problem for a long time.
Thanks for reply:good: