Ive tried KYRILLOSv3 which works no problem but the Antu Benchmark gave me a rating of 6039 which was 5% slower than KYRILLOSv2 has anyone else noticed this.
I got an improvment of about 100 compared to v2. However, don't trust only benchmarks. Its more important how it feels to you. And for me its feeling smoother
you too believe in antutu.
antutu test just for fun
hafidzduddin said:
you too believe in antutu.
antutu test just for fun
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its not a matter of believing antutu but people produce these tools to compare devices on an un-biased way and the score is lower.
Related
Are we ever going to see quadrant scores like the hd2 is getting now ugh!!
A new rom has been imported to the hd2 that has it at 2800 quadrant score evo is better hardware and still at 1100-1500 whyyyy????
Sent From My HTC EVO4G
Lol.
What is the benchmark going to do for you?
garekinokami said:
What is the benchmark going to do for you?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then what does it mean and why does it even exist?
Where can I download this at
If you really want it, you can get CM6.0 here:
http://forum.cyanogenmod.com/files/category/12-htc-evo/
and Snap 7.6 with Turbo here:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=733099
The current Snap only works with CM6.0 though which is a few versions behind, so you might as well wait though.
So the kernel is not universally compatible???
poulosjr said:
So the kernel is not universally compatible???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
he did clearly say that it was only compatible with cm 6.0
no it is not universally compatible
the benchmark doesn't do anything for you anyway
Quadrant scores are a joke and easily manipulated, just look at CM6 with Snap Turbo. 2800 was my highest quadrant on it and speed was identical to all other roms.
Benchmark..Schmenchmark.....
The reason were all here is to improve the performance and functionality of our devices isn't it?? These scores are posted by every reviewer, manufacturers are giving us more powerful processors with each new device. Kernels and overclock tools are a staple in the dev community. How are these benchmarks not important? Sure they may not reflect the overall performance of the device in every case but if everyone viewed benchmark scores as useless data where would we be?? Not here trying to improve on them
DirtyShroomz said:
Quadrant scores are a joke and easily manipulated, just look at CM6 with Snap Turbo. 2800 was my highest quadrant on it and speed was identical to all other roms.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This. Even Cyanogen stated that the quadrant scores are fudged. I read his post somewhere, it had something to do with cheating on the I/O portion of the test.
My EVO with MIUI gets around 1750 and performs as good or better than when I was scoring 2600+ with cm6 and snap turbo.
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've recently upgraded to the ARHD 5.0.0 Rom and my Quadrant score has dropped from an average of 4800 down to an average of 3800.
I realise quadrant is not the most reliable benchmark for realworld performance but that seems like a pretty big drop.
Anyone else know what could have happened?
Thanks.
What has happened is that it's meaningless Quadrant score has dropped. I'd just ignore it altogether.
Solaris81 said:
I've recently upgraded to the ARHD 5.0.0 Rom and my Quadrant score has dropped from an average of 4800 down to an average of 3800.
I realise quadrant is not the most reliable benchmark for realworld performance but that seems like a pretty big drop.
Anyone else know what could have happened?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
People are reporting lower AnTuTu scores after 1.29 so if the ROM you're using is 1.29 based what you're observing could be a result of the update. Since Nvidia's code and drivers are proprietary the devs use it pretty much as-is.
Read this...
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=25601709&postcount=626
And this...
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1632354
As Nvidia plays around with low-level code and drivers to address battery life and fix the graphics issues they'll be tweaking the behaviour of the CPU. There were some pretty odd changes to the CPU code in the Prime while Nvidia was tackling its launch issues.
You have to do quadrant in stock rom.
On 1.26 and 1.28 stock rom it's easily around 4,600 to 4,800. Should be around the same for stock 1.29. I'll see it when I get the Asia ota.
I've tried most roms around and some of their versions are low and some after their update becomes on par with stock in terms of quadrant. It's due to the fact that they are doing heavy tweaking on the rom thus affecting performance a bit (whether for better or worse) . Good thing is they can easily rectify the problem on their next releases.
Although benchmark is not a clear indication of real world performance but it's always nice to get high scores nonetheless. Lol.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium
Anyone post some benchmarks! I personally don't hold a lot of stock in benchmarks but am curious about what other folks are getting... To me, this seems rather low but I'd like to see some others to compare...
jbarcus81 said:
Anyone post some benchmarks! I personally don't hold a lot of stock in benchmarks but am curious about what other folks are getting... To me, this seems rather low but I'd like to see some others to compare...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not much better here, but like you said I don't hold much stock in benchmarks. Especially something like geekbench..
KonoeKyon said:
Not much better here, but like you said I don't hold much stock in benchmarks. Especially something like geekbench..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unless it's total bias from the application. Should we not be rolling with the results? Shouldn't they be higher? Fastest chip available currently... Other specs... Just seems low...
jbarcus81 said:
Unless it's total bias from the application. Should we not be rolling with the results? Shouldn't they be higher? Fastest chip available currently... Other specs... Just seems low...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Too much can influence the results of benchmarks, like a random background app using up CPU cycles. Geekbench also isn't that reliable IMO anyway, they test difference cpus differently which make it look like the iPhones are as fast as laptops with core i7 processors which couldn't be farther from the truth.
I have the essential phone and the 2xl and this is what I got
Interesting stuff... And the comment made about Geekbench and Apple products is so true.. their benchmarks look so fake at times...
Yeah.. Unless Apple has the fastest chips on the planet.. these scores are a bit, what's the word?
Single core score for iOS and Android.. Top 3 results..