Related
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?
Hi guys,
I was looking on Nexus forums and i've found many interesting threads thta can be useful for every android device. Here we go:
Battery Drain Benchmarks
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1478406
CPU governors and i/o schedulers
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1478418
Battery Saving Governor Benchmarks
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1507204
All credits to xda member bedalus
if my rom doesn't include a governor (i'm using cm9 and there is no smart Smartass governor in there), can i install it? if it's possible then how i can do it?
terifish said:
if my rom doesn't include a governor (i'm using cm9 and there is no smart Smartass governor in there), can i install it? if it's possible then how i can do it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I know, The only way to try other governor is to create a custom kernel, because the governor code is built inside the kernel code.
Hmmm... I was wondering about OnDemandX, but unfortunately the linked threads don't seem to be aware of it...
_____ W + Bionic Cow 2 + xda app _____
I think this is now the only major deficiency in our device, having different kernels, governors and schedulers. I have a friend with GS2(AT&T) and he uses Pegasus governor with deadline scheduler on Siya Kernel, absolutely unbelievable battery life!! Just an appeal to our great devs out there, we could use a bit if that
Sent From My Wonder on CyanogenMod 9
2g11 said:
I think this is now the only major deficiency in our device, having different kernels, governors and schedulers. I have a friend with GS2(AT&T) and he uses Pegasus governor with deadline scheduler on Siya Kernel, absolutely unbelievable battery life!! Just an appeal to our great devs out there, we could use a bit if that
Sent From My Wonder on CyanogenMod 9
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sgs2 is flagship phone, it was sold in millions, so millions of users -> lots of devs -> lots of nice things.. our phone is not so popular, that's the thing..
pepoluan said:
Hmmm... I was wondering about OnDemandX, but unfortunately the linked threads don't seem to be aware of it...
_____ W + Bionic Cow 2 + xda app _____
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, didnt notice that. I think its the only one of the popular governor thats missing.
2g11 said:
I think this is now the only major deficiency in our device, having different kernels, governors and schedulers. I have a friend with GS2(AT&T) and he uses Pegasus governor with deadline scheduler on Siya Kernel, absolutely unbelievable battery life!! Just an appeal to our great devs out there, we could use a bit if that
Sent From My Wonder on CyanogenMod 9
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its just a matter of time. User dimaka1256 is getting his hands on making a good kernel for us. Make him a suggestion on his thread http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1841827
I was wondering which governors and schedulers are the best for say performace or battery? I've done a little research on my own, but what do you prefer on your HTC One V? I've got aokp JB running on my cdma one v
Thanks!
I am a kernel dev, so naturally I know whats behind this code Lionheart is my favorite as it has aggressive scaling. No lag is also good, in some cases. On demand is great with battery though. I can get roughly 8 hours mid use with on demand. I hope this helps with deciding your governors.
Sent from my One V using Tapatalk 2
simonsimons34 said:
I am a kernel dev, so naturally I know whats behind this code Lionheart is my favorite as it has aggressive scaling. No lag is also good, in some cases. On demand is great with battery though. I can get roughly 8 hours mid use with on demand. I hope this helps with deciding your governors.
Sent from my One V using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey Simon! I'm actually running your 3.0.46 sick kernel JB with AOKP. It's wonderful!! haha so far, I've been running OC at 1708 with the performance governor and noop scheduler... it's lasted 11 hours and I'm at 73% battery, medium to light use with wifi on the whole time, but it's pretty snappy!
Is Lionheart pretty much a performance governor? You mentioned aggressive scaling, so it's snappy when it needs to be, but saves for battery when you're not using it?
BTW I didn't see a "no lag" governor... not sure what that is, so can you clarify? Also, is performance actually the best for snappiness, or will lionheart be even better? I used to use [email protected]$$v2 on my optimus v, but I'm just not sure what's best here?
Nolag is a new addition. I have been hard at work removing even more htc things Lionheart is a bit nicer on battery then performance, because it will scale to your minimum of its not needed. Perfoance stays at full no matter. Cpu spy will be a good tool to help with battery as well
Sent from my One V using Tapatalk 2
Oh kool! Well I don't see it in the latest kernel, so will it be in the next kernel? Thanks dude, you're awesome!
I'll fill everyone in on this thread on the work.
We are :
Patching to Linux 3.0.49
Removing htc additions that are hacks and ics specific.
Cleaning Bluetooth and header files up
Updating WiFi drivers
Updating GPU drivers
Overhauling the mmc drivers
We also have a driver dev that's working on camera and maybe eventually an lcdc driver which will allow us to use the experimental caf display needed for cyanogen mod10 and full project butter
Sent from my One V using Tapatalk 2
Wow that sounds ridiculously awesome!!
Ok im looking at kernels and im not going to ask "whats the best?" but im really not understanding the difference.
What im looking for is a kernel thats stable (that seems like all of them), one that allows under-clock/volting (and any other batter saving tricks) and one that will work well with my rom (XenonHD rc3) as most of the kernels seem to be using anyrom i dont think this is an issue.
i have been using the stock kernel then tinys kernel but im wondering if Zen or Air are going to serve me better?
Here is the order im looking at things
Stability
battery
speed
cosmetics
From what i can tell the governors dont seem to matter much as long as there are a few available (performance, interactive, conservative, power-saver) and the schedulers are even less important as they can handle normal use just fine. SIO or no-op or CFQ all work just fine for me. never tried FIFO but it seems kinda restrictive when multitasking
So from a development standpoint could someone explain whats so different in TINY, ZEN, and AIR i would much appreciate your input. They all seem to start from google source, are the compiled different?
Ok so i am trying Zen and i like that the CPU can be clocked lower. but im still not sure about whats best for me. A comparrison chart would be grand but i have no idea what to compare
The major differences between kernels are what kernel version they're compiled from, what modules are compiled into the kernel, which I/O schedulers are included, and which CPU governors are included. Depending on what the kernel dev has included, the kernel tends to run better or worse on specific devices. Unfortunately, it tends to vary quite a bit even within a single device line.
Zen is the best one I've found yet for my device. Others swear by Franco, Air, Trinity, etc. It's really a matter of trial and error on a device-by-device basis.
Finally, your statement about governors and schedulers not being that important is a bit wrong, in my opinion. Schedulers are definitely the lesser of the two, but depending on your usage, you can get a little bit of an I/O performance increase by using the "right" scheduler. The same thing goes for governors. A properly tweaked governor can save a bit of battery and/or boost your performance. Just like the kernels themselves, though, it would vary device-by-device and based on the user's usage type.
What are your guys' opinions on the performance of these two kernels? From what I've gathered it seems like KToon's kernel is meant for overclocking, but then what would one use task's for?
Task's recent update to his kernel makes me want to try it because I've been using KToon's kernel with the ktoonservative governer and row scheduler UV'ed a little bit but unlocked to 2.1GHz and have been having some pretty bad battery life in mu opinion, do you think switching to task's kernel would be better on the battery?
Well what do you guys think?
Fun Fact for the day. Versus threads get shut down in no time here on XDA.
P.S- Why wouldn't you just try it first before making a thread about it? Kernels take about 3 seconds to flash. Also. No one can tell you that you will get better battery life on one or the other considering all of the variables. We are all in different locations, use different apps, have different settings, and we all use our devices differently. You need to try them both out and see which one works better for YOUR device.
Man why are ya giving me a hard time? You kicked me out of your thread, which I understood and respect, but then you come here and tell me the same thing you told me before and that my thread's gonna go to the bin in no time.
I'm just trying to find out what the DIFFERENCES between the kernels are, because it isn't very clear in reading the descriptions/OP's,
They wouldn't co-exist if they were exactly the same.
I'm not too interested in tweaking the hell out of my device nor do I care too much about overclocking...I just want a lot of screen time and the ability to play games and SMS with little lag.
I have tried out both kernels and didn't really notice much difference because I didn't really know what to look for.
Like, okay or example, it seems to me that your kernel is less for tweaking and isn't for overclocking (max 1.6GHz or something?) while KToons can go to 2.1.
berryman13 said:
Man why are ya giving me a hard time? You kicked me out of your thread, which I understood and respect, but then you come here and tell me the same thing you told me before and that my thread's gonna go to the bin in no time.
I'm just trying to find out what the DIFFERENCES between the kernels are, because it isn't very clear in reading the descriptions/OP's,
They wouldn't co-exist if they were exactly the same.
I'm not too interested in tweaking the hell out of my device nor do I care too much about overclocking...I just want a lot of screen time and the ability to play games and SMS with little lag.
I have tried out both kernels and didn't really notice much difference because I didn't really know what to look for.
Like, okay or example, it seems to me that your kernel is less for tweaking and isn't for overclocking (max 1.6GHz or something?) while KToons can go to 2.1.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not giving you are hard time. I'm just telling you the facts here. If you're not into tweaking and messing with things then this is simple and really shouldn't make a difference to you which one you use other than battery life, less lag, ect... Which no one can tell you one is better than the other for. Flash one and don't touch the settings for it and use it how you normally would for a day or two. Then do the same for the other kernel. See which one gets you the best results. Its the only way to find out. Not quite sure why you're refusing to take my advice here. Its pretty straight forward.
There's kernel source in both threads that explain in DETAIL all the DIFFERENCES between the two. It literally only takes seconds to flash and see for yourself. This shouldn't be a big deal at all.
I think they re two of the same.Task just doesnt want KT to know he borrowed his kernel...lol jk. But seriously,they're pretty similar.KT seems better on the performance end but I never got the exceptional battery stats that ppl keep posting,IdK it may be something on my end. On the other hand, task's seemed better on my battery as I could not noticeably see my battery drain during use as I did on Kt's. Furthermore my phone does get hot really fast on task kernel,I'm guessing its cuz we use performance control and can't really play in the voltages as much.
gilo123 said:
I think they re two of the same.Task just doesnt want KT to know he borrowed his kernel...lol jk. But seriously,they're pretty similar.KT seems better on the performance end but I never got the exceptional battery stats that ppl keep posting,IdK it may be something on my end. On the other hand, task's seemed better on my battery as I could not noticeably see my battery drain during use as I did on Kt's. Furthermore my phone does get hot really fast on task kernel,I'm guessing its cuz we use performance control and can't really play in the voltages as much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or all or any of that could be due to the apps your have on your device, the settings you choose, ect...
P.S- My phone has never gotten hot. Probably due to what I mentioned above.
task650 said:
If you're not into tweaking and messing with things then this is simple and really shouldn't make a difference to you which one you use other than battery life, less lag, ect... Flash one and don't touch the settings for it and use it how you normally would for a day or two. Then do the same for the other kernel. See which one gets you the best results. Its the only way to find out. Not quite sure why you're refusing to take my advice here. Its pretty straight forward.
There's kernel source in both threads that explain in DETAIL all the DIFFERENCES between the two. It literally only takes seconds to flash and see for yourself. This shouldn't be a big deal at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have flashed both kernels. And I don't mean that I am not planning on doing ANY tweaking whatsoever, I just don't mean like messing with voltages adding or subtracting 25 at a time until my CPU crashes so I can find the under/overclock limit...that's the kind of tweaking I have no interest in trying. I'm not gonna look through he sources of both kernels, come on dude you know I'm not a dev and that level of detail is un-necessary.
Your kernel being capped at 1.6GHz probably is better on battery but I also have a sixaxis controller and like to game, does it affect 3D performance at all?
gilo123 said:
Ithey're pretty similar.KT seems better on the performance end but I never got the exceptional battery stats that ppl keep posting,IdK it may be something on my end. On the other hand, task's seemed better on my battery as I could not noticeably see my battery drain during use as I did on Kt's. Furthermore my phone does get hot really fast on task kernel,I'm guessing its cuz we use performance control and can't really play in the voltages as much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the kind of posts I'm looking for in this thread. Do you personally find task's kernel's performance to be any worse than KT's? Cause you said bettery life seemed better.
Also, are the same governers and I/O schedules available between both kernels? The only settings I'm used to using is ktoonservative and row, I wouldn't really know what to do in performance control to emulate what I've done in KTweaker.
berryman13 said:
This is the kind of posts I'm looking for in this thread. Do you personally find task's kernel's performance to be any worse than KT's? Cause you said bettery life seemed better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He cannot answer this question honestly. He doesn't have your device. You're not understanding. He can have the best battery life possible on my kernel but if you use it, you could have the worst battery life possible. IT'S DEVICE DEPENDENT. Will you please just do yourself a favor and take 3 seconds, flash the kernel, and see. You say you've tried them both, but you are also asking about playing games and what not with them? You would know if you had tried them dude. Same goes for the governors & schedulers. You would also know that if you had actually tried them both. I need to ask you this. Why won't you just try them and see for yourself. Are you really the type of person to flash what people tell you to your expensive device?
Look dude. I'm only trying to help you here. I'm not quite sure why you wouldn't just take my advice here. I have quite a bit of experience with this stuff and I'm trying to help you get the best experience possible. But it seems as though you think that personal opinions of others are whats best for your device when in all reality they are not. Real life testing is what will prove to be best for your device. Trust me.
berryman13 said:
I have flashed both kernels. And I don't mean that I am not planning on doing ANY tweaking whatsoever, I just don't mean like messing with voltages adding or subtracting 25 at a time until my CPU crashes so I can find the under/overclock limit...that's the kind of tweaking I have no interest in trying. I'm not gonna look through he sources of both kernels, come on dude you know I'm not a dev and that level of detail is un-necessary.
Your kernel being capped at 1.6GHz probably is better on battery but I also have a sixaxis controller and like to game, does it affect 3D performance at all?
This is the kind of posts I'm looking for in this thread. Do you personally find task's kernel's performance to be any worse than KT's? Cause you said bettery life seemed better.
Also, are the same governers and I/O schedules available between both kernels? The only settings I'm used to using is ktoonservative and row, I wouldn't really know what to do in performance control to emulate what I've done in KTweaker.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What You won't have on underwear kernel vs kt747: ktoonservative gov, vibration strength control, screen off max freq control, screen off gov control, fast charge, MHz range from 96 to 2106, undervolting capabilities and adjustments to governors and schedulers.
If you don't want to undervolt or tweak anything, I recommend you use underwear kernel. It is stable fast and oc to 1674mhz is alright for any gaming and it doesn't affect 3d performance.
If you wanna use ktoonservative governor then you will have no choice but to use kt747.
But anyway, what you really need is to try both and familiarize yourself with their features.
Sent from my SGH-I747 using xda app-developers app
liltitiz said:
What You won't have on underwear kernel vs kt747: ktoonservative gov, vibration strength control, screen off max freq control, screen off gov control, fast charge, MHz range from 96 to 2106, undervolting capabilities and adjustments to governors and schedulers.
If you don't want to undervolt or tweak anything, I recommend you use underwear kernel. It is stable fast and oc to 1674mhz is alright for any gaming and it doesn't affect 3d performance.
If you wanna use ktoonservative governor then you will have no choice but to use kt747.
But anyway, what you really need is to try both and familiarize yourself with their features.
Sent from my SGH-I747 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Comprehensive list. I like it. Now I gotta figure out which gov I'm gonna use when I flash the underwear kernel.
Thanks everybody for their input, if anyone else has anything to say then please go for it!
Wiping cache + dalvik and flashing underwear kernel then fixing permissions and rebooting and gonna take a look around performance control to see whats up.
task650 said:
Or all or any of that could be due to the apps your have on your device, the settings you choose, ect...
P.S- My phone has never gotten hot. Probably due to what I mentioned above.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ohh Thnx man. While you're here any suggestions as to how I go about fixing/finding out which apps are responsible? Also,any combinations/settings you might recommend trying with your kernel,despite the phone dependent variables and what not. Thnx )
Running the underwear kernel today, changes frequencies min and max to the farthest it can go. Will report back with my results.
Sent from my SGH-I747 using xda app-developers app
Sorry man, but no need to report back here as it has already been stated that each User's experience will differ upon usage, apps, personal habits, planet alignment,... Boils down to a flash and see type thing.
Thread Closed
Here is some info on Governor and I/O schedulers. Obviously it isn't going to include Ktoonservative or ROW but you get the idea.