Database Users

"FAIL"-phone slower than other phones? Despite Snapdragon?

Looks like HTC has done it again and delivered a phone that should run crazy fast on paper BUT the actual performance is sub-par compared to other phones:
HTC Nexus One (FAILphone):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvzxZ8tOBcQ
HTC Magic and HTC Liquid Benchmark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O36LA6EhZg4

I don't think that Neocore benchmarks the entire system, maybe more on the graphics chip. I don't know any specifics on the N1's graphics capabilities, but the 1 ghz snapdragon cpu is a definite boost from its predecessors.

Do you work for Apple?

How does it do on PiBenchmark? That would provide more relevant results with its Snapdragon processor.

andythefan said:
I don't think that Neocore benchmarks the entire system, maybe more on the graphics chip. I don't know any specifics on the N1's graphics capabilities, but the 1 ghz snapdragon cpu is a definite boost from its predecessors.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
doesn't the liquid come with an underclocked snapdragon?

I have a Magic that is rooted and tweaked to all hell and have played with the nexus. There is no doubt that the Google phone out performs any other phone that HTC has released. Ive seen it first hand. Its very fast and can handle so many things going on at the same time it makes my tummy tickle.

You are an idiot. Get your panties out of a bunch because you are pissed at the price and that it has no AT&T 3G. Should we all be pissed that the Droid only works on Verizon? Should we all be pissed that the iPhone only has AT&T 3G? The Nexus One is designed to be on T-Mobile. Sure, it will technically work on any GSM provider, but that isn't what it was intended to do. Google must have some deal with T-Mobile since they offers the most android phones.
And about the performance, that only shows video performance, and we dont know for sure what the N1 and A1 have in terms of a GPU

staulkor said:
And about the performance, that only shows video performance, and we dont know for sure what the N1 and A1 have in terms of a GPU
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought neocore tested the graphics chip with 3d benchamarking?

andythefan said:
I don't think that Neocore benchmarks the entire system, maybe more on the graphics chip. I don't know any specifics on the N1's graphics capabilities, but the 1 ghz snapdragon cpu is a definite boost from its predecessors.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's called system on a chip.
and the telling comparison is the Acer Liquid with its ~750MHz Snapdragon CPU (underclocked) vs. the Nexus One with its 1GHz Snapdragon CPU.
Looks like HTC screwed up again.
Ohhh. The other posters are pissed because their Messiah phone is a big FAIL?

What are you, 15 years old? Get off of mommy's computer and stop *****ing because you can't use the N1 on your network and get 3G.

Im guessing the benchmark isnt accurate. It goes beyond common senese that the fps are the same as the magic.

Maedhros said:
Im guessing the benchmark isnt accurate. It goes beyond common senese that the fps are the same as the magic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually ... it goes nicely with HTC's track record of under-performing hardware.

We have too many variables that makes comparing these results difficult. The HTC Magic and Liquid are running 1.6, while the Nexus is running 2.1. There are dramatically different levels of overhead on different Android system versions. There could be way more overhead on Android 2.1 than on 1.6. Additionally, you forgot to mention that the Nexus One is running at a resolution 2.5 times that of the HTC Magic.
Just because you're not going to buy the Nexus (because you recently purchased another handset and are trying to justify your purchase, or because it doesn't support your carrier's 3G frequencies, or otherwise) doesn't mean you are obliged to spam these forums with "OMG THIS PHONE IS FAIL"

the resolution used on the n1 is far higher than on the older devices remember

coolVariable said:
It's called system on a chip.
and the telling comparison is the Acer Liquid with its ~750MHz Snapdragon CPU (underclocked) vs. the Nexus One with its 1GHz Snapdragon CPU.
Looks like HTC screwed up again.
Ohhh. The other posters are pissed because their Messiah phone is a big FAIL?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only FAIL here are your posts. You sound like a Droid owner, pissed that your phone is about to lose top dog status. Just crawl back into your parents basement, fire up your xbox, and shoot some 12 year olds. It will help you get over the fact that you are a huge FAIL.

lol @semantics now thats funny man

I have had this phone for three weeks now and one thing its not is SLOW. Its way faster than my 3GS and my Mytouch.

I got 27.4 FPS on my G1.
I'm pretty sure the N1 isn't slower then the G1. That would be stupid.

I don't give a damn, I'm buying this joint day 1!! LOL

my theory:
1. Neocore is designed to work with android 1.6 and Open GL ES 1.1
2. The Liquid A1 has the same processor (albeit underclocked) and the same screen resolution as the N1 so you would expect them to perform similarliy. They dont perfrom the same so you must look at the differences between the phones. The biggest to me is the fact that the Liquid A1 has Android 1.6 and Open GL ES 1.1, the sweet spot for Neocore.
3. The N1 had Android 2.1 and Open GL ES 2.0, specs that are not supported by Neocore. How can Neocore accurately test the N1 when it does not support its specifications? The slowness is not due to poor hardware, rather it is due to old software trying to run on the latest hardware.

[Q] I/O Question

Hi I've read some where in this forum that the galaxy S has some I/O problems which are leading to the frequent lags that the phone experiences
Frankly I do not know what I/O is but my question is whether I/O problem is a hardware or software problem. If it is software then fair and well, I'll wait for samsung to ooptimize the software
I have noticed that the benchmark software (Quadrant) runs relatively smoothly all the tests except the I/O test at which it stops for a while before moving to the next test. I dont know if this relates to the I/O problem.
Thanks for your answers

RADLOUNI said:
Hi I've read some where in this forum that the galaxy S has some I/O problems which are leading to the frequent lags that the phone experiences
Frankly I do not know what I/O is but my question is whether I/O problem is a hardware or software problem. If it is software then fair and well, I'll wait for samsung to ooptimize the software
I have noticed that the benchmark software (Quadrant) runs relatively smoothly all the tests except the I/O test at which it stops for a while before moving to the next test. I dont know if this relates to the I/O problem.
Thanks for your answers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Theres still no solid proof that its a software issue.

****
EarlZ said:
Theres still no solid proof that its a software issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
****...............then you're saying its hardware ??????

He is not saying its hardware, just that there is no solid proof that its software.
However, based on the amount of working fixes, and reports of great improvements using Froyo I would put money on it being software related.
In fact...I am!
I am ordering a SGS in 3 days when my contract is up for renewal.

Actually, I think everyone's overlooking another obvious possible source of lag: clock-scaling for power conservation. If a phone slows down to 200MHz when it thinks it's inactive, and won't speed up until it sees evidence of activity lasting for 400ms, well... that's 400ms of lag you wouldn't get if the phone were running full-bore 1GHz all the time.
There's even an easy way to test the theory (on a rooted phone, at least) -- take two otherwise-identical phones, fully-charged, root one (while keeping the same rom), then install SetCPU and lock it into 'performance' mode so the phone can't slow down.
If the one locked at 100% CPU speed doesn't lag, and the one that's allowed to slow down to prolong the battery life does... well... there's the answer.
I mention this because I just experienced the night-and-day difference between the CDMA Hero's default power/speed (528MHz max, going down to 250MHz or less when "inactive") and with it locked to 712MHz in performance mode. Pretty much all of my lag problems vanished instantly when I locked it to performance mode. I have a hunch right now that perceived lagginess is almost entirely due to cpu scaling (particularly the time it takes to scale back up, and the criteria used for doing it).

Makes Sense
bitbang3r said:
Actually, I think everyone's overlooking another obvious possible source of lag: clock-scaling for power conservation. If a phone slows down to 200MHz when it thinks it's inactive, and won't speed up until it sees evidence of activity lasting for 400ms, well... that's 400ms of lag you wouldn't get if the phone were running full-bore 1GHz all the time.
There's even an easy way to test the theory (on a rooted phone, at least) -- take two otherwise-identical phones, fully-charged, root one (while keeping the same rom), then install SetCPU and lock it into 'performance' mode so the phone can't slow down.
If the one locked at 100% CPU speed doesn't lag, and the one that's allowed to slow down to prolong the battery life does... well... there's the answer.
I mention this because I just experienced the night-and-day difference between the CDMA Hero's default power/speed (528MHz max, going down to 250MHz or less when "inactive") and with it locked to 712MHz in performance mode. Pretty much all of my lag problems vanished instantly when I locked it to performance mode. I have a hunch right now that perceived lagginess is almost entirely due to cpu scaling (particularly the time it takes to scale back up, and the criteria used for doing it).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very interesting theory, and it makes sense to be frank.
Are there any software out there that would enable me to lock the CPU speed to 1 GHz. I am willing to try this

RADLOUNI said:
Very interesting theory, and it makes sense to be frank.
Are there any software out there that would enable me to lock the CPU speed to 1 GHz. I am willing to try this
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The guy just told you, root phone and install "Setcpu". That's the only way.

Looking at the benchmarks and the various fixes implemented I tend to lean towards the opinion that it may be hardware related.
hxxp://twitter.com/koush/status/20321413798
I'm not familiar enough with the internals of the phone. If there is faster flash memory located on the phone, then a repartition may be enough to fix the device. If not, then I'm afraid we may be stuck with some lag.

Would anyone be so kind as to explain what I/O is and why the setup in the SGS causes lagging while other android phones with similar specs don't seem to suffer from the same problems?
Thanks in advance

RADLOUNI said:
Very interesting theory, and it makes sense to be frank.
Are there any software out there that would enable me to lock the CPU speed to 1 GHz. I am willing to try this
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not very interesting, as it's closer to the truth than you think.
think about it, Android OS is really Linux, the SGS is a miniature PC with phone capability.
everything else aside for the phone part, works just like a PC running Linux.
even on a Windows PC the Duo Core or Quad Core machines that has the Power Saving option enable behaves the same, when they are on iddle mode they run at 50% CPU power or less, and it takes them a fraction of a sec to speed back up, people that don't like that tiny lag, they always set the PC on performance mode, or always on, or simply not install the power saving software that comes with the PC.
we can do the same on the SGS phones, the only downside is that your battery will be out of juice faster than you think.
not to mention the Screen is the most power hungry part in the phone, just like most other phones with large LCD displays

did the install and...
Hi
I just did the install of setcpu and i will monitor the device for sometime before i give some feedback. My initiall impression is that the performance got better.
i set the software to performance mode and kept the limits between 100Mhz and 1000Mhz
i will also try to set the min limit to 800Mhz

Actually, that reminds me... the other thing I've seen cited a lot for causing lag is the way Android manages memory by terminating apps instead of using a swapfile. This can cause lag, because it simply takes time to call onPause()/onStop() and wait for it to finish, compared to unceremoniously just suspending the app and dumping a few megs to the microSD card.
Apparently, manufacturers don't use swapfile because most/all Android phones ship with class 2 microSD flash, in which case it would hurt performance more than it helped.
With that in mind, I'd say the following two things should be tried:
1) Buy a class 6 (or better) microSD card, format a swap partition, and use a rom on a rooted phone that supports it. For the record, swap with class 2 would be detrimental; swap with class 4 would be of minimal benefit; swap with class 6 is a big improvement; class 8 basically doesn't exist, and class 10 in real-world use -- with small, scattered files and random read-writes -- is only a little bit faster than class 6, because at that point the time it takes to deal with protocol matters becomes huge relative to the time it takes to actually DO the flash write (the SD card SPI and 4-bit protocols are *really* ugly, and overwhelmingly optimized for sequential reading and writing of bulk data. The moment you start doing random-access rewrites, their performance -- regardless of class -- goes to hell. That's part of the reason why pro gear still tends to use CompactFlash... it still has to deal with flash a page at a time, but it can access arbitrary tiny chunks of data scattered all over the place a lot faster and with a lot less ceremony than (micro)SD).
2) Install SetCPU and lock the CPU to max speed in "performance" mode.
SetCPU alone seemed to make the biggest difference with regard to keyboard input lag. My guess is that Android (or HTC's modifications for the Hero, Evo, etc... and quite possibly Samsung's too) slow the phone WAY down whenever an input area is displayed, on the theory that "most" apps at that point are just displaying the picture of a keyboard and waiting for the user to mash the screen with his finger. Without SetCPU, Graffiti is almost unusable and makes weird errors. With SetCPU locked to performance mode, Graffiti is almost flawless. It's literally a night-and-day difference.

Kpkpkpkp said:
Would anyone be so kind as to explain what I/O is and why the setup in the SGS causes lagging while other android phones with similar specs don't seem to suffer from the same problems?
Thanks in advance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Input/Output -data communication to/from the phone and other devices/networks
It's like when you are writing information to the system that comes from downloads, so whether you are syncing files, downloading from the marketplace or uploading...you are doing I/O....
"In computing, input/output, or I/O, refers to the communication between an information processing system (such as a computer), and the outside world possibly a human, or another information processing system. Inputs are the signals or data received by the system, and outputs are the signals or data sent from it. "
Wiki

bitbang3r said:
Actually, that reminds me... the other thing I've seen cited a lot for causing lag is the way Android manages memory by terminating apps instead of using a swapfile. This can cause lag, because it simply takes time to call onPause()/onStop() and wait for it to finish, compared to unceremoniously just suspending the app and dumping a few megs to the microSD card.
Apparently, manufacturers don't use swapfile because most/all Android phones ship with class 2 microSD flash, in which case it would hurt performance more than it helped.
With that in mind, I'd say the following two things should be tried:
1) Buy a class 6 (or better) microSD card, format a swap partition, and use a rom on a rooted phone that supports it. For the record, swap with class 2 would be detrimental; swap with class 4 would be of minimal benefit; swap with class 6 is a big improvement; class 8 basically doesn't exist, and class 10 in real-world use -- with small, scattered files and random read-writes -- is only a little bit faster than class 6, because at that point the time it takes to deal with protocol matters becomes huge relative to the time it takes to actually DO the flash write (the SD card SPI and 4-bit protocols are *really* ugly, and overwhelmingly optimized for sequential reading and writing of bulk data. The moment you start doing random-access rewrites, their performance -- regardless of class -- goes to hell. That's part of the reason why pro gear still tends to use CompactFlash... it still has to deal with flash a page at a time, but it can access arbitrary tiny chunks of data scattered all over the place a lot faster and with a lot less ceremony than (micro)SD).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To ask a question and summarize, if you were given a choice of any class card to put in your phone you'd chose a class 6 because of the performance benefit here? Or would you maybe go with a higher class because it'd get greater benefits in other areas? Thanks for the help, again, don't consider money as a factor for the main issue, just trying to learn a bit.

result
bitbang3r said:
Actually, that reminds me... the other thing I've seen cited a lot for causing lag is the way Android manages memory by terminating apps instead of using a swapfile. This can cause lag, because it simply takes time to call onPause()/onStop() and wait for it to finish, compared to unceremoniously just suspending the app and dumping a few megs to the microSD card.
Apparently, manufacturers don't use swapfile because most/all Android phones ship with class 2 microSD flash, in which case it would hurt performance more than it helped.
With that in mind, I'd say the following two things should be tried:
1) Buy a class 6 (or better) microSD card, format a swap partition, and use a rom on a rooted phone that supports it. For the record, swap with class 2 would be detrimental; swap with class 4 would be of minimal benefit; swap with class 6 is a big improvement; class 8 basically doesn't exist, and class 10 in real-world use -- with small, scattered files and random read-writes -- is only a little bit faster than class 6, because at that point the time it takes to deal with protocol matters becomes huge relative to the time it takes to actually DO the flash write (the SD card SPI and 4-bit protocols are *really* ugly, and overwhelmingly optimized for sequential reading and writing of bulk data. The moment you start doing random-access rewrites, their performance -- regardless of class -- goes to hell. That's part of the reason why pro gear still tends to use CompactFlash... it still has to deal with flash a page at a time, but it can access arbitrary tiny chunks of data scattered all over the place a lot faster and with a lot less ceremony than (micro)SD).
2) Install SetCPU and lock the CPU to max speed in "performance" mode.
SetCPU alone seemed to make the biggest difference with regard to keyboard input lag. My guess is that Android (or HTC's modifications for the Hero, Evo, etc... and quite possibly Samsung's too) slow the phone WAY down whenever an input area is displayed, on the theory that "most" apps at that point are just displaying the picture of a keyboard and waiting for the user to mash the screen with his finger. Without SetCPU, Graffiti is almost unusable and makes weird errors. With SetCPU locked to performance mode, Graffiti is almost flawless. It's literally a night-and-day difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HI I tried setCPU at performance mode , and i have to say that it improved the perofrmance A BIT. But i would not say that much has improved.
I guess that the class6 SD card option has more bearing on this issue than CPU speed scaling

RADLOUNI said:
HI I tried setCPU at performance mode , and i have to say that it improved the perofrmance A BIT. But i would not say that much has improved.
I guess that the class6 SD card option has more bearing on this issue than CPU speed scaling
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does the SD card lag fix option REQUIRE a class 6 card? That limits the size a bit, doesn't it? What is the biggest class 6 card available?

borchgrevink said:
Does the SD card lag fix option REQUIRE a class 6 card? That limits the size a bit, doesn't it? What is the biggest class 6 card available?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
16GB
no, it does not need to be Class 6, it depends on the SD card build quality, some Class 2 performs as good as a Class 6
but it's a luck of the draw, if you have a known good Class 2 or Class 4 microSD card, then use it, no need to buy a new one
i suggest you to test the speed of the SD card before you do the mimocan thing
use this app, it's pretty accurate
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=739083

The CPU theory doesn't really explain why symlinking the /dbdata/data folder to /data/data eliminates lag.
hxxp://android.modaco.com/content/samsung-galaxy-s-s-modaco-com/312298/got-the-stalling-problem-rooted-try-this/

It also seems that a 32gb class2 SanDisk card is OK.
http://android.modaco.com/content/s...rt-microsd-cards-that-work-with-mimocans-fix/

borchgrevink said:
It also seems that a 32gb class2 SanDisk card is OK.
http://android.modaco.com/content/s...rt-microsd-cards-that-work-with-mimocans-fix/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
kinda pricey at the moment, aprox $135 for real non fake ones

[Q] 340mb ram instead of 512mb?

My tw taskmanager shows only 340mb ram instead of 512mb, after some research I found that the rest of the ram is used for ramdisk,is that true?
If so,is there a way to use all of 512mb for ram?And does this make Epic inferior to Vibrant,Captivate and Fascinate or better?

All Galaxy S phones have 512 MBs of RAM. And I do believe all are the same. At least the i9000 and the Epic are.

The phone has a physical 512MB of RAM, but I don't believe that the stock kernel currently supports more than 340MB.

thephawx said:
All Galaxy S phones have 512 MBs of RAM. And I do believe all are the same. At least the i9000 and the Epic are.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Check your built in taskmanager(by holding home button),it only shows 324mb total ram,so no they not all the same.Yes we do have 512mb but only 324mb(give or take few mb) is used for actual ram,the rest is used as ramdisk(cache).Vibrant and Captivate uses whole 512mb as ram and internal rom(hd) for cache,im not sure about original Galaxy or Fascinate.
Believe me extra ram not being available has huge impact on performance,i owned MT3gs with 512mb ram and 600mhz cpu and it felt just as fast as my Epic if not faster even with Sense.
This could explain big lag im getting with 4-5 apps open,i could have 10 apps open on Mytouch slide with no lag.

lviv73 said:
Check your built in taskmanager(by holding home button),it only shows 324mb total ram,so no they not all the same.Yes we do have 512mb but only 324mb(give or take few mb) is used for actual ram,the rest is used as ramdisk(cache).Vibrant and Captivate uses whole 512mb as ram and internal rom(hd) for cache,im not sure about original Galaxy or Fascinate.
Believe me extra ram not being available has huge impact on performance,i owned MT3gs with 512mb ram and 600mhz cpu and it felt just as fast as my Epic if not faster even with Sense.
This could explain big lag im getting with 4-5 apps open,i could have 10 apps open on Mytouch slide with no lag.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is a reason why. There is no dalvik cache push to sd for our devices yet. If we could get an ext2 or ext3 or ext 4 for our sd cards and move the cache there, it would be a whole new ball game. But it's no availible for us yet

Maybe to balance the phones out because epic has 2 cameras and keyboard
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

I wonder if other models have same ram or they have full 512mb of usable ram without ramdisk,and does that makes epic faster or slower?
I know my MT3gs was way faster with stock sense 600mhz cpu and 512 ram(without sd cache),sounds like this phone needs that extra 128+ram because extra ram makes more difference than faster cpu,324mb ram I dont think is sufficient for 2.1 to run smoothly.Hope someone comes up with something so we can use whole 512mb as ram and internal rom or sd for cache.

The reason why we have only 320 showing is because samsung moved the cache there to prevent the lag some people here talkming about the galaxy s having.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

EPIC FAIL ...325 for me :-(
2012 the Evolution of Human Consciousness

supposedly the GPU uses 128mb of the ram

All 5 galaxy s phones have 512mb but the epic and fascinate are limited to the 300 and something because our phones are the only ones that don't have a massive amount of internal sd like the others. We ours uses the more typical smaller amount of rom and the missing ram is used to stop touchwiz from lagging! Why do manufacturers and carriers keep ****ing up android!? Love this device but I can customize it myself just fine without the extra tw layer eating my resources and slowing my upgrade releases!
Sent from my Epic 4G using xda app

We have 512mb rom which can be used for cache,i have all the apps I need installed in /system/app folder and still have 400mb free,how much should be dedicated to android swap 128,256?So there is plenty of room and for those people that have about 100 apps on they phone they need to wait for a2sd.
Still no one has answered if its possible to use whole 512mb for ram,this phone really neads it,most of the time I have 3-4 apps open and about 80mb ram free-thats not good.Epic has fastets rom out of any model,now if we could use it for cache and a2sd for apps,plus whole 512mb as ram,than this thing would fly.128 for swap is a waste,plus I think that this 128mb actualy takes away from GPU's vram.

I agree that we need more RAM. There has to be a way to edit the kernel and get more out of our hardware.

[2597] This is why friends don't let friends use Quadrant.

I just scored 2597 on a DK17 FroYo ROM (Quantum Rom v1.5 {WarpSpeed}) running at a stock 1.0 GHz. I believe this sets a record for a stock CPU on Android.
(At least it does according to smartphonebenchmarks.com) UPDATE - It's official. This is the 8th highest recorded Quadrant score and the very highest recorded stock clocked CPU score on that website.
This score was made possible by the EXT3 (EDIT - Correction, ramdisk) hack implemented in the most recent version of the ROM, released this morning.
EDIT - I'd like to note that the "lagfix" was incorporated into the ROM by the author with noobnl's assistance to prove a point; neither condone the serious use of Quadrant scores in it's current form. This hack is purely a Quadrant scores boost and does not provide real-world benefits. It is a demonstration that we should not rely upon inaccurate measurements to tell us what ROM or hardware is best.
An exploitable benchmark is no benchmark at all.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11825908/snap20101127_124836.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11825908/snap20101127_131805.png

So just to clarify, does the ext3 hack do nothing other than improve benchmark scores? Is there any real-world improvement?
As common knowledge as the Quadrant thing is, I'm amazed people KEEP IMPLEMENTING this tweak and bragging about the results... unless there was an actual (less-drastic than Quadrant shows) improvement.

I agree that first we have to look at the big picture..while it may not help as much as the number makes it out to be, that doesn't necessary mean that it gives no benefit.
Next is this, why do people complain about Quadrant so much? you are using a FREE version..the FREE version only gives you a total number..Quadrant Pro on the other hand gives you the scores in each category..and is actually one of the best for measuring atm on android...

Electrofreak said:
I just scored 2597 on a DK17 FroYo ROM (Quantum Rom v1.5 {WarpSpeed}) running at a stock 1.0 GHz. I believe this sets a record for a stock CPU on Android.
(At least it does according to smartphonebenchmarks.com)
This score was made possible by the EXT3 hack implemented in the most recent version of the ROM, released this morning.
An exploitable benchmark is no benchmark at all.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11825908/snap20101127_124836.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11825908/snap20101127_131805.png
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it is true, we mounted benchmark data folder as a ramdisk/tmpfs, theres no ext3 filesystem in the rom because just for the lulz and educate the group that a lag fix won't do ****.. just to cheat a benchmark.. we were pissed at roms user thinking making rfs to ext3 will make performance better...

gTen said:
I agree that first we have to look at the big picture..while it may not help as much as the number makes it out to be, that doesn't necessary mean that it gives no benefit.
Next is this, why do people complain about Quadrant so much? you are using a FREE version..the FREE version only gives you a total number..Quadrant Pro on the other hand gives you the scores in each category..and is actually one of the best for measuring atm on android...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It has nothing to do with cost. It has to do with the fact that Quadrant is the most commonly used benchmark and it is deeply flawed.
Yes, the Pro version does break down the scores. Most people don't pay for Quadrant. Secondly, the I/O scores are weighted very heavily... the score nearly tripled because an I/O test completed a little quicker. There's a significant problem with that.

I've been impressed by the Epic's speed, but your scores aren't truly valid because you are "cheating"
I assume you're using the new Quantum ROM (which I also have installed) that implements a lagfix in which one moves the app data and dalvik cache away from Samsung’s embarrasingly slow internal Storage. Doing this significantly boosts I/O scores in Quadrant, thereby cheating the system. In real-life use, your system is barely performing any faster than before the exploit/lagfix
Read here for more info to see how a dev exploited this to create a 3300 Quad score (can't post links so remove the spaces):
http : // androidspin .com /2010/08/23/my-quadrant-is-bigger-than-your-quadrant/
This exploit has even been confirmed by the almighty Cyanogen himself

So is there any real benifits to this Epic 4G "lag fix"? I've seen that the "lag fix" within the other galaxy S phones actually does give real world results...

Eazail70x7 said:
So is there any real benifits to this Epic 4G "lag fix"? I've seen that the "lag fix" within the other galaxy S phones actually does give real world results...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure, it provides a speed benefit. The only thing being addressed in this thread is that, just because your quadrant scores double, it doesn't mean your device is twice as fast in actual use

Look for Dameon's post a couple of days ago in the quantum rom thread (on tapatalk..and linking sux). He talks about this exploit, but sadly (and understandably), most of the rom migrants want something to quantify expected results.. Even if bs
sent from my RAZR

Its not fair to say quadrant cheats.. rather it just may or may not be measuring performance of an operation that is ever really used on your system. In fact your system does use some fsyncs like quadrant and those will be faster like quadrant. Your system could start using fewer fsyncs though and quadrant would never know. Also your device certainly doesn't use only fsyncs..but those are very related to the lag. So basically, quadrant says the lag fix works if I'm not missing something. That's OK...but you don't need a crazy number to say that.
Bottom line... the only thing that tells how your phone performs...is how your phone performs and that's not just some little disclaimer. Hardware speed depends DRAMATICALLY on how it is used.
Sent from my SHW-M110S using XDA App

biff6789 said:
Sure, it provides a speed benefit. The only thing being addressed in this thread is that, just because your quadrant scores double, it doesn't mean your device is twice as fast in actual use
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually the tweak, as noobnl states, quite specifically provides NO performance improvements to the phone. He would know because he made the hack. See the quote below.
noobnl said:
it is true, we mounted benchmark data folder as a ramdisk/tmpfs, theres no ext3 filesystem in the rom because just for the lulz and educate the group that a lag fix won't do ****.. just to cheat a benchmark.. we were pissed at roms user thinking making rfs to ext3 will make performance better...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Moving on...
biff6789 said:
I've been impressed by the Epic's speed, but your scores aren't truly valid because you are "cheating"
I assume you're using the new Quantum ROM (which I also have installed) that implements a lagfix in which one moves the app data and dalvik cache away from Samsung’s embarrasingly slow internal Storage. Doing this significantly boosts I/O scores in Quadrant, thereby cheating the system. In real-life use, your system is barely performing any faster than before the exploit/lagfix
Read here for more info to see how a dev exploited this to create a 3300 Quad score (can't post links so remove the spaces):
http : // androidspin .com /2010/08/23/my-quadrant-is-bigger-than-your-quadrant/
This exploit has even been confirmed by the almighty Cyanogen himself
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This was the whole point of my post... I think you might have missed that. I would also recommend this article as well: http://briefmobile.com/cyanogen-demonstrates-quadrants-flaws

Electrofreak said:
It has nothing to do with cost. It has to do with the fact that Quadrant is the most commonly used benchmark and it is deeply flawed.
Yes, the Pro version does break down the scores. Most people don't pay for Quadrant. Secondly, the I/O scores are weighted very heavily... the score nearly tripled because an I/O test completed a little quicker. There's a significant problem with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well realistically speaking even without the I/O exploit the none pro version never had any meaning to it..why?
Well it measures:
CPU
Memory
I/O
2d
3d
Now lets look at it from perspective..lets say we have a score of 3000 and 99% of it comes from 3d..the phone would still be laggy because even though it may have a good gpu it won't have the other things to back it up.
Quadrant weighs everything evenly...it exists for the sole purpose of getting people to buy the pro version..
So its not Quadrant that is flawed but the people who actually think a large number means everything is automatically super fast...
So in most cases yes, the I/O increase would be almost useless as nothing would utilize it to the point where you would need to utilize such high I/O..unless maybe you plan to run a database server on your phone? lol
But like any benchmark we have to not only look at the number but understand what the number means..similar to how on a linpack gets cheated on with use of a VFP since it measures with floating points...
Heck I can write a program called gTen Score which does an md5 sum of every file on the device and the closer the device is to mine the higher score it would get..would that make the device with the highest score the best? lol..benchmarks are benchmarks...we have to understand them and look at the details to how the numbers got there..In my opinion if its not Quadrant Pro people are wasting their time with the benchmark...

gTen said:
Well realistically speaking even without the I/O exploit the none pro version never had any meaning to it..why?
Well it measures:
CPU
Memory
I/O
2d
3d
Now lets look at it from perspective..lets say we have a score of 3000 and 99% of it comes from 3d..the phone would still be laggy because even though it may have a good gpu it won't have the other things to back it up.
Quadrant weighs everything evenly...it exists for the sole purpose of getting people to buy the pro version..
So its not Quadrant that is flawed but the people who actually think a large number means everything is automatically super fast...
So in most cases yes, the I/O increase would be almost useless as nothing would utilize it to the point where you would need to utilize such high I/O..unless maybe you plan to run a database server on your phone? lol
But like any benchmark we have to not only look at the number but understand what the number means..similar to how on a linpack gets cheated on with use of a VFP since it measures with floating points...
Heck I can write a program called gTen Score which does an md5 sum of every file on the device and the closer the device is to mine the higher score it would get..would that make the device with the highest score the best? lol..benchmarks are benchmarks...we have to understand them and look at the details to how the numbers got there..In my opinion if its not Quadrant Pro people are wasting their time with the benchmark...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You make some very good points, but Quadrant IS flawed in that it should be able to test performance in a manner that is more consistent with real-world performance. A benchmark tool that provides poor results for a different configuration of hardware or software (in this case, Samsung's RFS file system) when performance is in on par or even superior to a higher-scoring configuration is a benchmark tool with serious flaws.

Electrofreak said:
You make some very good points, but Quadrant IS flawed in that it should be able to test performance in a manner that is more consistent with real-world performance. A benchmark tool that provides poor results for a different configuration of hardware or software (in this case, Samsung's RFS file system) when performance is in on par or even superior to a higher-scoring configuration is a benchmark tool with serious flaws.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The flaw of quadrant is grouping up all of those categories into 1...usually as you said things are weighted into a benchmark and each benchmark measures things like 3d performance, i/o performance an etc would each be a separate benchmark..Quadrant will never do that because their goal is for you to buy the pro version...it was never intended to be used for anything other then a proof of concept for selling the pro version...
Since people are not gonna buy Quadrant Pro..the best way is to get them to use a different benchmark...I hear some people touting GLBenchmark is it any better?

gTen said:
The flaw of quadrant is grouping up all of those categories into 1...usually as you said things are weighted into a benchmark and each benchmark measures things like 3d performance, i/o performance an etc would each be a separate benchmark..Quadrant will never do that because their goal is for you to buy the pro version...it was never intended to be used for anything other then a proof of concept for selling the pro version...
Since people are not gonna buy Quadrant Pro..the best way is to get them to use a different benchmark...I hear some people touting GLBenchmark is it any better?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've been following GLBenchmark and it seems pretty accurate as far as I can tell. A buddy of mine outed the HTC Glacier (Mytouch 4G) when he found that a developer had erroneously left scores posted on GLBenchmark.com. We could tell it was a next-gen Snapdragon by the scores, and that it wasn't running an Adreno 200. Became big news soon thereafter.

Electrofreak said:
I've been following GLBenchmark and it seems pretty accurate as far as I can tell. A buddy of mine outed the HTC Glacier (Mytouch 4G) when he found that a developer had erroneously left scores posted on GLBenchmark.com. We could tell it was a next-gen Snapdragon by the scores... became big news soon thereafter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then the best bet is to contact rom developers and ask if they could include GLBenchmark instead of quadrant and explain the benefits of having a specified benchmark over a general unweighed one..
and yeah I saw th HTC Glacier thing..

Electrofreak said:
This was the whole point of my post... I think you might have missed that. I would also recommend this article as well: http://briefmobile.com/cyanogen-demonstrates-quadrants-flaws
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right, I originally DID miss your point. My bad... I thought you were just another fanboi raving about the awesomeness of Quadrant. I should have read more carefully
But in essence, you and I were saying the same thing all along: Quadrant is bunk and can easily be manipulated by a tmpfs tweak
As for my other point about lagfixes offering real-world performance boosts in other phones, I was saying "yes" in a general way as often times they do, not "yes" specifically regarding Dameon's tweak

biff6789 said:
You're right, I originally DID miss your point. My bad... I thought you were just another fanboi raving about the awesomeness of Quadrant. I should have read more carefully
But in essence, you and I were saying the same thing all along: Quadrant is bunk and can easily be manipulated by a tmpfs tweak
As for my other point about lagfixes offering real-world performance boosts in other phones, I was saying "yes" in a general way as often times they do, not "yes" specifically regarding Dameon's tweak
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, and from what I understand (forgive me, I am still a relative newcomer here) the other Galaxy S phones mount their file directory a little differently than the Epic does, negating the need for a real lag fix. However, the Captivate lag-fix, for example, does indeed provide actual performance improvements. Perhaps this misunderstanding is what is causing people to believe that the Epic needs to have some sort of lag fix too.

Electrofreak said:
Yeah, and from what I understand (forgive me, I am still a relative newcomer here) the other Galaxy S phones mount their file directory a little differently than the Epic does, negating the need for a real lag fix. However, the Captivate lag-fix, for example, does indeed provide actual performance improvements. Perhaps this misunderstanding is what is causing people to believe that the Epic needs to have some sort of lag fix too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're exactly right. Dameon himself stated that the other Galaxy phones need a lagfix while the Epic does not (read the last line of the following post):
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=9440522&postcount=1174

quadrant has been known to very inaccurate. I forget who it was but someone tweaking their evo was able to get like 6000 on quadrant awhile ago. After that it has been tricked many times into giving big numbers with no actual improvements over the actual phone itself.

EVO to its fullest

So I have a question.. our EVOs have decent hardware.. why is it we can barely handle some UI and some function when the hardware is simular? Like realistically, I think our phones could handle a lot more if we develop it a different way. Look at the system requirements of Windows... We have the basics and what not.. what's holding us back from making the EVO not even slightly break a sweat? From what I've noticed with most roms, our phones will work 90% of its systems while playing angry birds space or space consuming apps.. if we made a ROM in such a way where we can take that 90% and turn it to 20%, I think we would be doing the impossible or best possible thing.. Im an idiot in some aspects like how hones may work but I'm just trying to get everyone thinking here.. are we not that far in the tech age or is it that it would take forever to build it from the ground up not being payed?

for the most part, whatever's in the rom is needed for it to run. you can run a rom without sense if you want to save memory, but it won't look as pretty. as for trimming it down, down to what? we take out everything that the carrier puts in, and we're left with what is required for android to run for the most part. a lot of problems with newer roms is drivers. we need drivers. they won't release them.

http://oreilly.com/catalog/linuxkernel/chapter/ch10.html
prepare for brain hurt. as you are saying, you can strip it down, but scheduling processes, including background is still important and requires resources.

The biggest issue with the evo is its older and lower amount of ram that is the one thing its seriously lacking in. It has an older generation and lower amount of ram than newer devices. Newer devices with the same amount of ram are using a newer generation of ram which performs better than the older version, the Evo is using mobile DDR vs newer devices using mobile ddr2 or ddr3 ram which at the same amount handles processes much more efficiently making the device perform better, just like if you have 4gb of DDR ram in your PC and upgrade to 4gb of DDR 3 you will see a massive performance increase even tho the quantity is the same the quality is far better
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

The ram and CPU hold it back a lot. Remember, the evo launched on 2.1 and is on its third os update. Gb uses a lot more resources than froyo and eclair so the ram is all hogged up by just system services. In my opinion, the evo doesn't run gb sense very well, so of course ics roms will be somewhat limited since there will be no ota with ics and no source kernel for evo
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Anyone still running Froyo on their EVO with better performance than GB? Just curious because I've often thought about rolling it back just to see how it goes for a while. Also,anyone know of anyone keeping any Froyo Sense ROMs up to date?
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

You can actually get a lot more out of the device if you are careful with what rom's and optimizations you have. For example, swagged out stock n barely uses resources at all. Sio scheduler reduces CPU load, noatime mounting helps a lot.
I have seriously awesome performance on swagged put stock n after i used ttitanium backup to remove crap I don't use, with sio , and smartassv2 with nstools setting all the CPU settings to the least performance settings (battery saving settings)

As for froyo vs GB, I feel like I had better battery and speed on froyo. Could be that my batteries are 2yrs old, could be netarchys old wicked kernels. I actually haven't even been on GB for the last 6mo. ICS is beautiful.
sent from 2yr old Evo on ICS