Hi guys,
I have been testing many different ROMs and kernels so far and still haven't found a kernel which really permits underclocking below 1113 Mhz (for big cores) and 633 Mhz (for little cores).
Do you know any kernel which allows setting cores for a minimum of 300 Mhz for instance?
Many thanks.
Patoilo said:
Hi guys,
I have been testing many different ROMs and kernels so far and still haven't found a kernel which really permits underclocking below 1113 Mhz (for big cores) and 633 Mhz (for little cores).
Do you know any kernel which allows setting cores for a minimum of 300 Mhz for instance?
Many thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe Agni kernel do this.
IceCold Kernel up until (including) R3.5 has this feature. The feature was then removed without reason by the developer, but you can still download R3.5.
I'm using (and underclocking) it with Havoc OS 2.5 and it works great.
JosephusQuint said:
IceCold Kernel up until (including) R3.5 has this feature. The feature was then removed without reason by the developer, but you can still download R3.5.
I'm using (and underclocking) it with Havoc OS 2.5 and it works great.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks a lot for the tip. I will flash it to test.
Any experience of those builds till 3.5 working with MIUI-based ROMs?
Patoilo said:
Thanks a lot for the tip. I will flash it to test.
Any experience of those builds till 3.5 working with MIUI-based ROMs?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have never used it for MIUI-based-ROMs, so I can't speak on that.
JosephusQuint said:
I have never used it for MIUI-based-ROMs, so I can't speak on that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will see how it goes and will post the results here.
But I am also interested in testing the Havoc ROM. I actually did it before but got poor battery results. Do you have an idea of your screen-on-time with the combo Havoc + IceCold 3.5?
Patoilo said:
I will see how it goes and will post the results here.
But I am also interested in testing the Havoc ROM. I actually did it before but got poor battery results. Do you have an idea of your screen-on-time with the combo Havoc + IceCold 3.5?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will make a screenshot tomorrow evening of the battery life, and put it in the thread. (It's bedtime here)
JosephusQuint said:
I will make a screenshot tomorrow evening of the battery life, and put it in the thread. (It's bedtime here)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you in the meanwhile, I clean flashed IceCold 3.5 Pie and minimum big cpu still stays at 1113 MHz
No option to set 300 MHz
JosephusQuint said:
IceCold Kernel up until (including) R3.5 has this feature. The feature was then removed without reason by the developer, but you can still download R3.5.
I'm using (and underclocking) it with Havoc OS 2.5 and it works great.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
are you sure he removed it without given a reason.?? it was removed caused those frequencies was useless.
raptorddd said:
are you sure he removed it without given a reason.?? it was removed caused those frequencies was useless.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He removed it, because he thought them useless. What is useful and what isn't, is of course subjective, and I for one disagree with his view. He decided it wasn't worth keeping in; however, the feature was working and not "useless" in the sense that it was incomplete.
Regardless, this is not a discussion for this thread; you may ask him directly in his.
The underclocking frequencies were removed due to the Pie firmware disabling the ability to underclock below 1113MHz.
IceCold R3.5 + Oreo FW should still work.
JosephusQuint said:
He removed it, because he thought them useless. What is useful and what isn't, is of course subjective, and I for one disagree with his view. He decided it wasn't worth keeping in; however, the feature was working and not "useless" in the sense that it was incomplete.
Regardless, this is not a discussion for this thread; you may ask him directly in his.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
bcoz its not useful at all. its all inefficient frequency and he is right. we all tested that alot and found it to be as good as previous undercocked 300mhz freq. just test and see instead of saying this.
people dont even try and complain
JosephusQuint said:
I will make a screenshot tomorrow evening of the battery life, and put it in the thread. (It's bedtime here)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There you go. It took a bit longer because I normally have 2 SIM-Cards active (but that uses up more battery). So the pictures are from only 1 SIM card active and mobile data always on.
jokerpappu said:
bcoz its not useful at all. its all inefficient frequency and he is right. we all tested that alot and found it to be as good as previous undercocked 300mhz freq. just test and see instead of saying this.
people dont even try and complain
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You know what people also do? Assuming without evidence what other people did/thought, instead of asking them.
I did test and compare, and I do have a measurably better battery life than with later versions of the Kernel. I also didn't complain, I stated how it is.
Grow a thicker skin; people like you are not helpful. Not worshipping every move of a developer doesn't mean not being grateful.
I maintain that underclocking is an important feature to have, others may disagree. Some people want NFC and Wireless Charging, I could not care less.
It boggles my mind, that on XDA of all places you regularly find people that tell you what you do or don't need.
JosephusQuint said:
You know what people also do? Assuming without evidence what other people did/thought, instead of asking them.
I did test and compare, and I do have a measurably better battery life than with later versions of the Kernel. I also didn't complain, I stated how it is.
Grow a thicker skin; people like you are not helpful. Not worshipping every move of a developer doesn't mean not being grateful.
I maintain that underclocking is an important feature to have, others may disagree. Some people want NFC and Wireless Charging, I could not care less.
It boggles my mind, that on XDA of all places you regularly find people that tell you what you do or don't need.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
latest test builds have better bb than older underclocked builds.
if u have had enougj acting like a idiot better use it and see the magic instead of bullshiting here. come 8n tg group and see thick head
Related
I'm currently running CM6 with the standard kernel that comes with it. I'm not really looking to overclock as that drains the battery life faster and that's my main issue. My question is...with all the recent releases such as the HAVs enabled HTC kernel and those sort of updates, does Snap v. 7.6 offer any real battery life advantages?
Also, I almost installed it once, but I decided not to when it gave me the THIS HAS BEEN KNOWN TO CAUSE SUDDEN DEATH TO EVOS warning. Are my fears here unfounded?
I use the Snap kernel with no problems ever, but I haven't seen any battery benefits. Just my experience.
Supposedly snap 7.5 offers the lowest idle energy draw out of all the kernals - sense or not. I use it and get great battery life.
via Tapatalk.
I'm using the snap 7.6 with Turbo and definitely prefer it. Things feel smoother to me. I'm not sure about battery life as I just switched back to cyanogen again after a whole of not using it.
Don't worry about that message.. its just a disclaimer like people put on their roms that they aren't responsible any damage. In the snap thread the maker said there haven't been any major problems reported.
Sent from my HTC Evo 4G using XDA app.
Snap 7.6 with turbo enabled is extremely fast, the .34 kernal is as well, so you will not find too many differences in terms of real performance... not sure of the battery differences tho. btw, this should probably not be in the dev section, more suitable for the q&a section.
thekarens said:
I use the Snap kernel with no problems ever, but I haven't seen any battery benefits. Just my experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm...alright.
Award Tour said:
Supposedly snap 7.5 offers the lowest idle energy draw out of all the kernals - sense or not. I use it and get great battery life.
via Tapatalk.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you! That's great information. Is this the one listed in the "daily driver" section of the first post in the Snap thread? Do you think Snap v 7.6 w/ Turbo will have alright battery life?
jkinnison90 said:
I'm using the snap 7.6 with Turbo and definitely prefer it. Things feel smoother to me. I'm not sure about battery life as I just switched back to cyanogen again after a whole of not using it.
Don't worry about that message.. its just a disclaimer like people put on their roms that they aren't responsible any damage. In the snap thread the maker said there haven't been any major problems reported.
Sent from my HTC Evo 4G using XDA app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Alright Imma bite the bullet and try this. Thanks for telling me that's not a big issue. I'm in the process of reading the snap thread, but I'll never get through all 500 pages.
cmart4 said:
Snap 7.6 with turbo enabled is extremely fast, the .34 kernal is as well, so you will not find too many differences in terms of real performance... not sure of the battery differences tho. btw, this should probably not be in the dev section, more suitable for the q&a section.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
CRAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP. I thought I posted this in the Q&A >_< I'm so bad at this forum thing.
i use 7.6 + turbo and it rocks
Currently backing everything up and probably going to flash Snap v. 7.6 with Turbo and see how that runs. If I don't get the battery life I'm hoping for, I'll probably try 7.5. Thank you all for replying so quickly. ^_^
I have build 107 installed and snap 7.6 with turbo I've gotten with about 30 emails a day and a good amount of web browsing and flash usage over 35 hours. I think personally that's great!
The kernel in the build 100 series nightlies is very fast. As fast as 76 by my rough analysis. But I still use 7.6 because I feel the battery life is better.
donnie_darko said:
Hmm...alright.
Thank you! That's great information. Is this the one listed in the "daily driver" section of the first post in the Snap thread? Do you think Snap v 7.6 w/ Turbo will have alright battery life?
Alright Imma bite the bullet and try this. Thanks for telling me that's not a big issue. I'm in the process of reading the snap thread, but I'll never get through all 500 pages.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yup to the daily driver.
Fwiw, the comparison tests showed that snap 7.5 is about 25% more effecient at idle than the others. I also confirmed that it goes that low.
You should check out the comparison thread in the general forum. But I def' suggest 7.5 over 7.6 - in actual use the extra quadrant points is 99% superficial. Battery life obviously isn't.
via Tapatalk.
If you are running CM6 you HAVE to run Snap v7.6 with turbo. Its smokes anything out there and the battery life is much better than a lot of other Kernels out there.
Wow! I am sold! I just a freaking 2114 on quadrant. Holy crap this thing is blazing.
FL0OD said:
If you are running CM6 you HAVE to run Snap v7.6 with turbo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, actually I don't. When they share exactly what "turbo" does, maybe.
posguy99 said:
No, actually I don't. When they share exactly what "turbo" does, maybe.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are right. You have the option to miss out on a kernel that just flat out makes CM6 blaze.
Sent from my HTC Supersonic
FL0OD said:
You are right. You have the option to miss out on a kernel that just flat out makes CM6 blaze.
Sent from my HTC Supersonic
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Besides seeing a high number in a app, do you actually experience any difference? My guess: unless it improves GPU performance, probably not.
Award Tour said:
Besides seeing a high number in a app, do you actually experience any difference? My guess: unless it improves GPU performance, probably not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is much more snappy all around. Seems as though you just want to argue with me. Try it. If you like it you like it if you don't you don't.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
FL0OD said:
It is much more snappy all around. Seems as though you just want to argue with me. Try it. If you like it you like it if you don't you don't.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, I'm not trying to argue. I've tried both already several times already.
I'm just saying that there's no real world noticeable/visual improvement between the two. The trade off of using 7.6 + turbo is a REAL 25% drop in idle energy efficiency.
Award Tour said:
Besides seeing a high number in a app, do you actually experience any difference? My guess: unless it improves GPU performance, probably not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I gotta agree with you on this one. All I really got was an awesome quadrant score. I'm on th 7.5 one now, and surprisingly, I got lower linpacks on 7.6 than I get with 7.5. Also, Neocore scores were only .2 FPS better than previous kernels I've tried. So idk what it's doing since it doesn't seem to boost the GPU a whole lot or anything, but it DOES get really good quadrant scores.
Anyways, I'm really just wondering how you guys get decent battery life with v 7.6. I literally got about 5 hours out of it yesterday in what I would consider "moderate use." At one point I played music for 10 minutes and watched it drop from 52% down to 46%. I honestly just hope I'm just doing something wrong here, because that's absolutely insane to me.
I get having it be higher than necessary to avoid bugs... but the 153mhz CORE slot can go to 90mV down from 8-900. That's 1/10th of the original voltage. Why would Google/Samsung ship it using so much more than what it needs?
Hungry Man said:
I get having it be higher than necessary to avoid bugs... but the 153mhz CORE slot can go to 90mV down from 8-900. That's 1/10th of the original voltage. Why would Google/Samsung ship it using so much more than what it needs?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those are MAX voltages...and I call hogwash on the 90mV, unless you are disabling smart reflex. Then I would want to see some actual proof.
Lower than 70mV is unstable. I didn't disable smartreflex, but even if I do it makes no difference. Maybe someone else can share their lowest voltage for this. I'm sure I'm undervolting it as it becomes quite unstable if I input 60mV, so obviously something's happening.
Yes, they're max voltages, but even with SR it doesn't go below 886 or something.
I find that tough to swallow. Did you actually verify the voltage with a kernel log?
What's the easiest way to do that? I'd like to confirm it myself. Like I said, I know it's doing something because at 50-60mV there are instant issues.
Hungry Man said:
What's the easiest way to do that? I'd like to confirm it myself. Like I said, I know it's doing something because at 50-60mV there are instant issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If memory serves, dmesg will log it.
Yikes. A lot of output and no 'grep'. Give me a minute.
Hungry Man said:
Lower than 70mV is unstable. I didn't disable smartreflex, but even if I do it makes no difference. Maybe someone else can share their lowest voltage for this. I'm sure I'm undervolting it as it becomes quite unstable if I input 60mV, so obviously something's happening.
Yes, they're max voltages, but even with SR it doesn't go below 886 or something.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have to disable smart reflex for your voltage settings to work. It isn't going down to 90mv. Disable smart reflex and then set that, I doubt your phone will run.
Voltage Nominal=75000, Calib=75---, margin=38000
Seems to be the most relevant. And yeah, I've got it at 75 right now.
And I've disabled SR as well, it doesn't change anything. And the voltage settings definitely do work witohut disabling it as, like I said, going too far down will cause a crash. So obviously it's doing something.
Have you guys tried undervolting that far?
And I'm doing this with franco kernel updater. The widget is showing the Core voltage to be 75.
Hungry Man said:
Voltage Nominal=75000, Calib=75---, margin=38000
Seems to be the most relevant. And yeah, I've got it at 75 right now.
And I've disabled SR as well, it doesn't change anything. And the voltage settings definitely do work witohut disabling it as, like I said, going too far down will cause a crash. So obviously it's doing something.
Have you guys tried undervolting that far?
And I'm doing this with franco kernel updater. The widget is showing the Core voltage to be 75.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thats 900mV and 750mV. and there is a large variation between individual devices. some can handle much less and some cant handle a tiny bit less. but undervolting too much will end up using more battery to achieve what it needs to achieve from working longer/harder to get there. 90mV without or even with smart relex will cause your phone to freeze then reboot.
but undervolting too much will end up using more battery to achieve what it needs to achieve from working longer/harder to get there
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why? I know that underclocking would do this - the time to finish a task at a lower clockspeed is longer.
I don't see how lowering the mV can possibly increase battery usage.
90mV without or even with smart relex will cause your phone to freeze then reboot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But mine isn't freezing until I put it at 60-70,V.
thats 900mV and 750mV
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not according to the app.
Hopefully this attached a screenshot.
Hungry Man said:
Hopefully this attached a screenshot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no, you are right. i didnt see that you mentioned core. after looking at the original post i see the core now. anyways, at that low a voltage it will operate, but wont be fully functional.
---------- Post added at 11:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 PM ----------
anyways, i dont know what that app is reporting, but franco kernel can only be set to a minimum of 830mV. looks like a mistake or a bug in his app. im gonna email him.. https://bitbucket.org/franciscofran...e9aa9b26/arch/arm/mach-omap2/voltage.h#cl-184
It seems functional... I mean, clearly the GPU is working (and at that voltage according to the app) because the screen is on/ not artifacting.
Is it just incorrectly reporting it? Is there another way to confirm it? Dmesg was not clear.
Hungry Man said:
It seems functional... I mean, clearly the GPU is working (and at that voltage according to the app) because the screen is on/ not artifacting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
check the link out that i just posted. franco kernel can only be set to a minimum of 830mV, the app is reporting wrong. its setting, but not actually setting https://bitbucket.org/franciscofran...e9aa9b26/arch/arm/mach-omap2/voltage.h#cl-184
So what is it actually setting it to? Because if I set it *too* low it still does give me errors... so how can it be both?
Hungry Man said:
So what is it actually setting it to? Because if I set it *too* low it still does give me errors... so how can it be both?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i think it gets set to 830. i let francisco know, we'll see what he says.
Alright. It's just weird. Because if anything under 830 is setting it to 830, and 830 is stable (because 95 shows stable) than how would 830 be unstable when the UI shows it as 40.
I mean, 90mV is kinda insane. It would definitely make sense if it were more like 830. It's just confusing.
Hopefully francisco can explain.
simms22 said:
check the link out that i just posted. franco kernel can only be set to a minimum of 830mV, the app is reporting wrong. its setting, but not actually setting https://bitbucket.org/franciscofran...e9aa9b26/arch/arm/mach-omap2/voltage.h#cl-184
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm, then why does setting an absurd voltage like 200mV cause an instant reboot while I can set it to 830mV and it runs fine?
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Yeah I can set it to 830mV and it runes fine. No issues until I drop to 60mV. I haven't reached a limit for any of them.
Hey I want to know how KT747 kernel works with AOKP Ktoonsez and Task650. From what I hear its pretty good. My main concern is battery life. I heard some people get around 5 hours of onscreen time which is incredible. If you are running these two together, what are good settings for good battery life? I'm using KT747 with CM10 M2 and Ktoonservative/noop but battery life is kinda bad. Thanks
I'm running that setup and although i can't really compare my battery stats to your as i have a 4400mah battery, i can say that for my phone atleast the battery life is superb. I actually just plugged it in after 67 hours, with about 7 hours screen on time. Obviously this isn't going to happen on a stock battery (mine came with a 2100mah), you could realistically expect a little less than half these numbers. I would suggest taking a look at this thread, which discusses overclocking and undervolting settings. I have posted pics of my personal undervolting settings (page 15, post 150), however your device may differ. I discuss why and my suggested method to finding the best value's for your device in the same thread, post 152 on page 16. Of course the discussion has many other opinions and suggestions as well so try them out until you find the one that works best for you. One thing i didn't mention is to disable the cpu settings in the settings>rom control>performance menu as it will conflict with the settings in ktweaker and can actually drain the battery much faster than normal.
dntesinfrno said:
I'm running that setup and although i can't really compare my battery stats to your as i have a 4400mah battery, i can say that for my phone atleast the battery life is superb. I actually just plugged it in after 67 hours, with about 7 hours screen on time. Obviously this isn't going to happen on a stock battery (mine came with a 2100mah), you could realistically expect a little less than half these numbers. I would suggest taking a look at this thread, which discusses overclocking and undervolting settings. I have posted pics of my personal undervolting settings (page 15, post 150), however your device may differ. I discuss why and my suggested method to finding the best value's for your device in the same thread, post 152 on page 16. Of course the discussion has many other opinions and suggestions as well so try them out until you find the one that works best for you. One thing i didn't mention is to disable the cpu settings in the settings>rom control>performance menu as it will conflict with the settings in ktweaker and can actually drain the battery much faster than normal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanked*. Will take a look at the thread. Last time I undervolted I used some guys settings which were extremely wonky and cause a lot of mishaps. I'm still looking for good ones so I might try yours. Thanks.
DarthDerron said:
Thanked*. Will take a look at the thread. Last time I undervolted I used some guys settings which were extremely wonky and cause a lot of mishaps. I'm still looking for good ones so I might try yours. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sounds like too much undervolt.
jethro650 said:
Sounds like too much undervolt.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just tried it, it was a little to much so I bumped everything up a little bit. Seems fine now. Going to flash AOKP later today.
Thats actually how i got those settings, i used what someone said was stable on theirs. It wasn't, playing pretty much any game on my phone would cause a reboot in less than 5 minutes. I think i ended up about 20 mv higher on all steps than his settings. You just have to find what works for you phone.
dntesinfrno said:
Thats actually how i got those settings, i used what someone said was stable on theirs. It wasn't, playing pretty much any game on my phone would cause a reboot in less than 5 minutes. I think i ended up about 20 mv higher on all steps than his settings. You just have to find what works for you phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed. I have AOKP with Ktoonsez/sio and voltage a little higher than yours. Works fine, battery is good.
I have recently switched to the noop scheduler after an article i read which basically said there is no need for a scheduler using flash memory. All the other schedulers are designed for physical hard drives which have seek times, flash does not. Using these schedulers actually creates an artificial seek time, thereby wasting cpu clock cycles and burning precious energy in the process.
dntesinfrno said:
I have recently switched to the noop scheduler after an article i read which basically said there is no need for a scheduler using flash memory. All the other schedulers are designed for physical hard drives which have seek times, flash does not. Using these schedulers actually creates an artificial seek time, thereby wasting cpu clock cycles and burning precious energy in the process.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Was always on noop and ktoonservative. Most people recommend those two together
Boss-njo said:
That rom is no go.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Care to elaborate?
Boss-njo said:
That rom is no go.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think its pretty good. I find it more stable than other roms, imo.
KT747/Cm10 m2
Hi,
I installed Cm10 m2, then ran it, rebooted, and installed kt747, cleared caches and fixed permissions, could not boot afterwards, Anyone else have this problem?
Mitch.sc said:
Hi,
I installed Cm10 m2, then ran it, rebooted, and installed kt747, cleared caches and fixed permissions, could not boot afterwards, Anyone else have this problem?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm, I've never had that problem with KT. Make sure you have correct version, AOSP JB. I would recommend flashing CM10.0.0, the latest CM10 stable build.
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.
I just installed this http://www.intersectraven.net/huawei-watch/ kernel so i have no stats to share. I was hoping someone else had some statistics on its performance and battery life. If not I will report back my experience.
Edit 1 - after 1 day no crashes and performance seems smooth. I didnt notice any better or worse battery but there seems to be less options for the CPU governor. When using powersave governor the battery life is pretty great but of course the UI struggles. The only governors available are userspace, performance, ondemand and powersave
..
MuF123 said:
Did you have any random reboots with skin's kernel?
Also - is there init.d support?
Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i got reboots from Skin's even after setting things as suggested throughout the thread. I do not see init'd mentioned in the change log for Intersect's but i'm not technical enough to say that it isn't there simply because of the change log. I'm also using his February 2nd version which isn't even listed on the link i placed above (you can find many versions by clicking the parent directory link).
not really a point in installing any custom kernel now since 6.0 is about to drop any day now.
Motawa88 said:
not really a point in installing any custom kernel now since 6.0 is about to drop any day now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
all about one's perspective. I can repsect that but i want better batter and performance every scond i have my watch and it literally take me less than minute to intall it so ill keep tinkering until it drops (could be weeks). Either way, id also like to know which dev to focus on when it does drop and this one seems to update pretty frequently so it may be likely that this one's is ready before Skin's. Ill try both though, you can count on that!!
mallman said:
all about one's perspective. I can repsect that but i want better batter and performance every scond i have my watch and it literally take me less than minute to intall it so ill keep tinkering until it drops (could be weeks). Either way, id also like to know which dev to focus on when it does drop and this one seems to update pretty frequently so it may be likely that this one's is ready before Skin's. Ill try both though, you can count on that!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. My point was that the custom kernel won't work after the update. I used invisible kernel the whole time but now I hate wait for 6.0 and hopefully the kernel will be updated.
..