Related
According to this link, the upcoming Epic 4G has an I/O benchmark that is much higher than Vibrant (and therefore the similarly handicapped Captivate and international and Bell Galaxy S i9000). I started wondering whether this is due to actual hardware differences, or if there have been tweaks incorporated into the firmware that are helping. Then I found an Epic 4G system dump here. I haven't personally downloaded the dump from that link, because even if I did, I wouldn't know how to find anything. Could someone with more ability study this dump and possibly learn something useful for us?
I have also heard reports that Epic 4G has a GPS that works well. This is less of an issue for me personally, as I am on JH2, and find my GPS adequate for the occassional use I have put it through. This is another area that might be worth looking at.
Edit:
alternate Epic 4G dump download location
Interesting to say the least. Wonder if they dumped RFS or if they just figured out how to optimize it. The hardware differences between the devices shouldn't be significant enough to show that big of an I/O difference.
Who knows, maybe this indicates that Samsung has an idea what's going on with the performance issues and will eventually filter it down to the SGSs variants
Zilch25 said:
Interesting to say the least. Wonder if they dumped RFS or if they just figured out how to optimize it. The hardware differences between the devices shouldn't be significant enough to show that big of an I/O difference.
Who knows, maybe this indicates that Samsung has an idea what's going on with the performance issues and will eventually filter it down to the SGSs variants
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
QFT .................
I am going to go ahead and download the system dump zip file for archiving purposes. I'll probably put it up at an alternate download location, once I have it.
I'm not 100% sure on this but I think the Epic's total internal memory is NAND (1GB) unlike the other phones that use an internal SD card. Much different memory transfer speeds.
Thats why the one lag fix works so well, it copies data/data to the internal NAND.
I am already running the gps fix from the dump(haven't tested it yet). There is no lag fix as far as I can tell. The epic gets 850+ in quadrant. If it had a lag fix it would get a lot higher score.
I believe derek4484 is right on the 1gig of NAND. I just checked it out on a review site.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Yeah doublechecked derek too... it appears it comes with 1GB ROM only, all other storage is via microSD.
False alarm =P Samsung didn't fix or optimize anything, they just used a cheaper, more shortsighted method to avoid having to give up their precious RFS
Those test results are questionable. You can click on the link under the graph and compare other phones. They have Droid X edging out SGS in linpack: SGS- high 7's; X- low 8's.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
tiger4j said:
Those test results are questionable. You can click on the link under the graph and compare other phones. They have Droid X edging out SGS in linpack: SGS- high 7's; X- low 8's.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dont think they are right either. If the phone had that fast of a file system it would kill in quadrant. The epic has been reported to only get 850+ in quadrant.
Unless you're actually running an epic, the GPS fixes out there only dump the GPS files, so it wouldn't do anything to indicate the speed of the actual Epic in terms of file system performance =P
why would they let sprint have the nicest version of the galaxy s ugh -___-
Zilch25 said:
Unless you're actually running an epic, the GPS fixes out there only dump the GPS files, so it wouldn't do anything to indicate the speed of the actual Epic in terms of file system performance =P
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Two different issues regarding GPS locking and file system I/O performance
rajendra82 said:
Two different issues regarding GPS locking and file system I/O performance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know, I was commenting on sheps post =P He seems to be saying that using the gps fix from the epic would alter file system performance.
No I am saying people with epics have tested them with quadrant and are getting 850+. I cant see it getting so high scores from laptopmag.com under the file sytem benchmarks but only get 850+ in quadrant. laptopmag.com says the droid x file system benchmarks the same but it gets over 1200 in quadrant with slower cpu and gpu.
shep211 said:
No I am saying people with epics have tested them with quadrant and are getting 850+. I cant see it getting so high scores from laptopmag.com under the file sytem benchmarks but only get 850+ in quadrant. laptopmag.com says the droid x file system benchmarks the same but it gets over 1200 in quadrant with slower cpu and gpu.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah okay Thanks for the clarification. The posts were a little confusing as to what you were saying.
shep211 said:
No I am saying people with epics have tested them with quadrant and are getting 850+. I cant see it getting so high scores from laptopmag.com under the file sytem benchmarks but only get 850+ in quadrant. laptopmag.com says the droid x file system benchmarks the same but it gets over 1200 in quadrant with slower cpu and gpu.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
FYI, Quadrant scores MEAN JACK
andy2na said:
FYI, Quadrant scores MEAN JACK
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unless youre comparing the same phone. Especially when one with lag vs one without it get the same score. Even though quadrant isn't the best thing to use you can still use it to show an improvement after a fix or a mod from the base number. So his question was why do the phones get the exact same score but one has lag.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
Clienterror said:
Unless youre comparing the same phone. Especially when one with lag vs one without it get the same score. Even though quadrant isn't the best thing to use you can still use it to show an improvement after a fix or a mod from the base number. So his question was why do the phones get the exact same score but one has lag.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant only tests throughput bandwidth not latency, etc. The internal NAND may be just as fast in terms of MB/s but it could have lower latency or other charecterists that Quadrant does not test.
I got 1932
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Without any lagfix?!
You should really give more detail, which lagfix if there was one or just stock froyo from Samsung?
leoon said:
Without any lagfix?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, I'm sure he's got OCLF. Without lagfix froyo isn't any quickier than eclair as of now. Actually, it's slower. I used to get 2200 points with JM9 + OCLF. Now with JP6 + OCLF i get 1850p.
aitzo said:
No, I'm sure he's got OCLF. Without lagfix froyo isn't any quickier than eclair as of now. Actually, it's slower. I used to get 2200 points with JM9 + OCLF. Now with JP6 + OCLF i get 1850p.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah that's what I thought, though I don't know why people post like he does there is no point to it, in no way does it help benifit the community.
aitzo said:
No, I'm sure he's got OCLF. Without lagfix froyo isn't any quickier than eclair as of now. Actually, it's slower. I used to get 2200 points with JM9 + OCLF. Now with JP6 + OCLF i get 1850p.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you mean it's slower, or rather that it gets a lower Quadrant score? Those are two entirely different statements. I realize the OP mentions Quadrant scores specifically and I apologize for sort of imposing my opinion, but such benchmarks, especially with such little score difference and such major operating system differences, do not tell you a whole lot at all.
One separate test of Quadrant might bottleneck the entire score, even when all other parts of the system are much faster. Just look at how a simple 'lag fix' suggests the phone is twice as fast (quadrant goes from 1k to 2k) which of course, is not the case. Also look at how Cyanogen gets a 3K score with a simple hack, where the phone speed was barely altered.
So I am curious about real world performances:
Do you still get lags on Froyo?
Does the GPS take only a few seconds to get a fix?
Does it launch apps almost instantly stock or with some lag fix?
Does it feel ultra responsive, as should be the result of using a JIT compiler?
Does it render webpages faster than iPhone 4 like the Nexus One, like it should?
Does it still run actual applications, such as Quake 3, faster than any HTC despite their higher Linpack scores, and is there an increase in FPS since Eclair?
Would love to hear about this!
Do you still get lags on Froyo?
- I think it lags more than last eclair builds
Does the GPS take only a few seconds to get a fix?
- Same as JM9. Haven't played with gps in outdoors so can't be specific with fix times
Does it launch apps almost instantly stock or with some lag fix?
- Same as JM9, or slower. Lagfix makes it ok.
Does it feel ultra responsive, as should be the result of using a JIT compiler?
- No, even though others have said that JIT is on.
Does it render webpages faster than iPhone 4 like the Nexus One, like it should?
- Webpages are ultra laggy when there is flash content
Does it still run actual applications, such as Quake 3, faster than any HTC despite their higher Linpack scores, and is there an increase in FPS since Eclair?
- Don't know
nin2thevoid said:
So I am curious about real world performances:
1 Do you still get lags on Froyo?
2 Does the GPS take only a few seconds to get a fix?
3 Does it launch apps almost instantly stock or with some lag fix?
4 Does it feel ultra responsive, as should be the result of using a JIT compiler?
5 Does it render webpages faster than iPhone 4 like the Nexus One, like it should?
6 Does it still run actual applications, such as Quake 3, faster than any HTC despite their higher Linpack scores, and is there an increase in FPS since Eclair?
Would love to hear about this!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1: yes (when no lagfix applied)
2: yes <5s on warm start, <30s on cold start
3: yes with lagfix only
4:i don't think thats the result of the compiler, just the lagfix but yes, and the JIT does make things a little faster overall
5: no the browser is a bit slow i don't know why. Even Fennec alpha is much faster.
6: yes Q3 is extremely smooth, full details + lightmap, getting 56-60fps (=FPS cap on the SGS), it never slows down
Note that Q3 is using the NDK as in native app. I don't know if Linpack tests native code.
Do you still get lags on Froyo?
Not that i've noticed but I will be installing Voodoo anways.
Does the GPS take only a few seconds to get a fix?
GPS is A LOT better.
Does it launch apps almost instantly stock or with some lag fix?
Certain Apps launch almost instantly where others take a few seconds such as PikPok Games, Fruit Ninja, etc.
Does it feel ultra responsive, as should be the result of using a JIT compiler?
Seems fast to me but only as it's a new install will wait a few days, plus I install Voodoo's fix anyway for the screen fixes too.
Does it render webpages faster than iPhone 4 like the Nexus One, like it should?
No, we have flash it's more demanding but you can set it to be on demand then its just on par with them no major difference.
Does it still run actual applications, such as Quake 3, faster than any HTC despite their higher Linpack scores, and is there an increase in FPS since Eclair?
Not sure but all games i've played are smooth without a hiccup.
hope this helps
1000 in Quadrant and 14 in Linpack
New Froyo+OCLF = 1722 Quadrant
No problems. Gps, camera,market... all is ok.
How are you guys getting such a large score? I'm getting about 1000 and it shows the Samsung Galaxy S on the graph even less (I assumed 1000ish was better than the average score). Or am I using some newer version of the app?? :/
XXJPK with OCLF
I've tested 3 times with Quadrant. Scores: 1550, 1764, 1995.
Phone works much faster after OCLF.
I takes 2 seconds to open a book in Aldiko instead 10.
My galaxy s with froyo, one click root and one click lag fix scores 2029. If i could post a url of the picture i would, but i'm not allowed
ive tried jp6 and jpm and not impressed with either. still getting some lag, even when switching home screens with a live wallpaper.
If you use oclf with quadrant you want get a real result.
What i understand it's one database test that is not real.
It don't do it right. The result is that it seems faster then it is.
Sent from GT-I9000 Jpm OS kernel with z4mod
My quadrant bench mark is 2017.
I've got JPK, OCLF v2.2 and SETCPU installed.
If anybody is interested in a little comparison to the HTC Desire:
1550 on LeeDroid 2.2f (Froyo) with OC to 1153 MHz. Some got speeds upto 1700 with more overclocking, but that'll heat up the phone beyond healthy values, I guess. Do not want to put in a fan there .
So with some optimizations like lag fix and file system enhancement the Galaxy S is a really fast Smartphone indeed, let alone the 3D graphic performance. Cudos!
I see many say they are installing the lag fix on the Tab but is it really needed? Can't say I have noticed much lag on my Tab so just wondering what I would gain if I install the lag fix?
Regards,
BTJ
i dont see the need.
It depends on whether you want to show off your Quadrant score or not, really. In all the tests I've done the only measurable impact of installing the lag fix is on the Quadrant IO score (which it increases by about x10).
If you're not interested in the benchmark, I don't think you'll notice any difference at all.
ok, that's what I thought.. Thx..
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA App
No lag here. Quadrant gives a score of about 900-1000.
I don't get it still.
From what I've seen so far, is that the Tab is one of the fastest Android device I've seen, but for some odd reason Quadrant is reporting a very low score. And what's funny is that it's much faster and snappier then my Nexus One (blows it off the water to be exact).
If a lag fix can fix this then it only shows how unreliable Quadrant benchmark is.
Maybe someone can shed some light here.
I installed the fix and I'm getting a 2100+ score in quadrant.
Sent from my SGH-T849 using XDA App
xoltrix2000 said:
only shows how unreliable Quadrant benchmark is.
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant is the worst benchmarking tool ever.
So which is the best benchmarking tool?
Ok so ive rooted this toy, flashed the 1.2ghz kernal and ran quadrant on it. I hit anywhere from 1080 to 1180. Have setcpu on demand at 800 min and 1200 max so why on earth is my rooted nook color running android 2.1 and a flashed 1100mhz kernal hitting wayyyy higher scores? (Around 1280) doesnt seem logical at all. Specially cause this is an actual tablet and thats just a rooted e reader. Did I do something wrong?
Sent from my SCH-I800 using XDA App
Quadrant is a bad benchmark. It weights i/o far too heavily.
The Tabs RFS filesystems bring its Quadrant score way below where it should be, though in actual use it's very fast.
If you move to EXT4, your Quadrant scores will shoot up by around 80%.
Regards,
Dave
O sweet love of mary. 80% you say. Ok ive seen some posts redarding this ext4 thingymabob. Ill check it out. So if im understanding you correctly by changing to this my tab will perform even better than it does now? Or ill just see a genaric increase on this quadrant test that really means nothing? Sorry im noobish lol
Sent from my SCH-I800 using XDA App
Well, my tab is currently on ext4 and my quadrant scores completely destroys my rfs score taken earlier.
However, that said, i don't really feel any performance improvements except the satisfaction knowing that my toy is now on an open and faster file system as opposed to a propriatory and slower one ;-)
Sent from my GT-P1000
Ok so ive looked at some threads containing info but I see no post telling me how to do this magic. Could one of you nice, young, kindhearted souls link me to where I need to go to put this thing on my verizon cdma galaxy tab? Please and thank you sirs?
Sent from my SCH-I800 using XDA App
Quadrant scores aren't as accurate as people think you know...
Sent from zombie infested Gingerbread.
There's an app called OCLF that will transparently add an EXT4 area on the RFS filesystem without needing to convert the whole thing to EXT4, giving you EXT4 IO performance in an easily installable and reversible way. Probably your best choice for trying it out. Otherwise, for the complete conversion, you could try this Modaco ROM/Kernel, which includes a complete conversion to EXT4.
As far as performance differences go, it makes a huge (10x) difference to the Quadrant IO score (measured before and after figures), but no measurable difference to actual performance (measured real-world usage figures). Some people claim to notice a subjective difference, but I never did.
Im using the modaco rom and kernel with ext4.
And it does make a huge difference. I get around 1800 in quadrant now.
conan1600 said:
Ok so ive looked at some threads containing info but I see no post telling me how to do this magic. Could one of you nice, young, kindhearted souls link me to where I need to go to put this thing on my verizon cdma galaxy tab? Please and thank you sirs?
Sent from my SCH-I800 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hi,
please be aware that the modaco kernel (rfs/ext4) will not work on CDMA Tabs.
from modaco kernel thread
This kernel is ONLY tested on a UK Galaxy Tab. It MAY work on other GSM Tabs, it almost certainly WON'T work on a CDMA Tab. If you have a non UK Tab and want to test (and know how to flash back to a regular version), then go ahead and report your results. At your own risk.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
regards,
mike
robertsydbrink said:
Im using the modaco rom and kernel with ext4.
And it does make a huge difference. I get around 1800 in quadrant now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the point!
It makes a huge difference in Quadrant, which is a synthetic benchmark, but far, far less difference in real world usage - hence it is a crap benchmark!
Pre-EXT4 my Tab would pull around 1000 in Quadrant, whereas my Desire HD would pull around 1800. However in real usage, they seem to perform pretty much the same which is not too surprising as they are similarly specified. On EXT4, my Tab pulls around 1800 now, but still performs much like my DHD.
I so wish people would stop bandying about Quadrant scores because they are meaningless.
Regards,
Dave
If you look at the scores in quadrant , they are split by colour so you can see how good the graphics capabilities are for example and compare to other phones. The colour codes are at the bottom of quadrant by the way
Linpack is a better benchmark. Not perfect, but better
Not really - Linpack only tests floating point performance.
Regards,
Dave
Wow, I started a heated discussion lol. Well ive downloaded the one click lag fix but have not applied the ext2 tools as yet. Want to do more reading about it first. Obviously I want my yab to be the best it can be but I surely dont want to make it genericly better at the expence of my video grafix as one user said he suffered in that thread.
More reserch required
Sent from my SCH-I800 using XDA App
Taking Quadrant scores aside, when I made the switch from CF-Root to the Ext4 MCK, I really did notice a huge improvement in real world usage. I'm not sure if it is really because of the change in file system, but nevertheless thats the only big thing present in that kernel aside from CWM.
Everything said make sense and seems to be valid but let me share my experience.
I have Samsung Galaxy Vibrant and T-mobile Tab. Now both are using EXT4 file system and have fully functional recovery allowing for flashing straight from the phone.
Both now have Quanrant score around 1700-1800 and run very smothly.
Is I/O speed important? I think it is very important because task switching requires reading of huge chuncks of memory. Until read operation completed the user is essencially suspended. Multitasking is the major distinction of Android and lags associated with the tasks switching might be the most noticeable issue since its used so much. Converting of the RFS file system to EXT4 practically reduced lags to unnoticeable level. I don't need any better.
Another critical area for I/O is playing video and especially capturing HD video. The latter works only if I set internal storage and shut down all tasks.
This is work in progress but it seems it reached level of usability when most critical bugs eliminated.
It should be noted that the Tab is flashed with Rotohammer KM2 v1 ROM and Paul Obrien's kernel on a top. The kernel contains scripts converting the file system and flashing recovery. This combination works well, no issues so far.
Well I decided to give it a try and after install my quadrant is 2556 and linpack is 16.865 mflops at 1200mhz. Good scores but just numbers. I do however believe im seeing a bit of snap that I didnt have before when accessing my library. Still really unsure if this is a good thing as im not sure if I can use apps to sd anymore so I may uninstall at some point in the future but thanks to all you who helped the old man out. Atm im quite happy
Now lets get ta craka lackin on a 1.5 ghz update for our tabs
Sent from my SCH-I800 using XDA App
Of course you can use a2sd. Froyo does it by default
Sent from my Legend using XDA App
I think you are pushing!
Overclocking will raise processor/RAM heat dissipation and thus might lead to a catastrophic failure. It would be great to have temperature sensor on the board or at least measure current consumption from the battery but it is not easy.
Of course im a pushin lol. Only way to achieve is to try. Course ive read about the tab proccessor being able to handle 1.4 stable and can handle 1.6... Not that id know about these things first hand. Just taking the words of better men.
Just an old man with a little time to kill and a dream to be able to play facebook cityville on my tab haha. Well that and I have always enjoyed souping up my toys lmao.
Sent from my SCH-I800 using XDA App
Hello,
two days ago i changed the size of my Vm-heap to 32mb. I was curious after i read in some posts that this could affect the performance of resource-intensiv apps. As i am using navigon-navigation a lot i had to give it a try...
After ive changed it and rebootet the device, navigon works MUCH better then before, track calculation is much faster and the app is much more responsive and running fluent. The difference is highly noticeable. For other apps like my browser i experiecend the same.
I read that the downside of it is that it is possible that apps could be moved out of memory because some other apps now use more ram and so the jumping between apps could be more time intensive. But i have noticed no slow down at all.
(Wildfire is not a fast phone, but i think 384 mb ram is really good for that kind of phone, some other phones like galaxy ace have only 287 RAM with better cpu)
My experience is that a lot of apps running much better know, and for me its a absolute performance enhancement, I would even go so far that i would say it was the best performance-enhacement after overclocking the device. So if you are running resource-intensive apps (like navigation browsing) you should definitely give it a try.
Whats your experience with that ? Ever changed the vm heap size? Noticed differences??
Cheers.
im rocking 32 since i s-off my phone with alpharevx beta,and yes its better for intensive apps (imo) but the one thing i cant understand is way my phone i lagging when i get a call??some times the ringtone is playing and the screen is black,any tips thx
darkstep said:
im rocking 32 since i s-off my phone with alpharevx beta,and yes its better for intensive apps (imo) but the one thing i cant understand is way my phone i lagging when i get a call??some times the ringtone is playing and the screen is black,any tips thx
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
im running my phone with the ondemand governor with cpu-min:528 and cpu-max:691 and i have no lag when someone is calling.
Nhs666 said:
im running my phone with the ondemand governor with cpu-min:528 and cpu-max:691 and i have no lag when someone is calling.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is indeed said that such lag is due to the 'extreme' underclocking of the processor.
I'm on CM7 RC1, use SMARTASS with 245 as a minimum, and haven't noticed any lag yet..
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using XDA App
ErwinP said:
It is indeed said that such lag is due to the 'extreme' underclocking of the processor.
I'm on CM7 RC1, use SMARTASS with 245 as a minimum, and haven't noticed any lag yet..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't want to implicate that the ringing lag is about the low freq., but i noticed that with such low freq's the phone is not so responsive when pulling suddenly the notificationbar, get it out of standby and such things. Never noticed something like that??
I was testing about it too. i settled with 32mb heap size, which i've found to be the best practice. Anything lower would make apps like navigon or opera lag, anything higher, would give me force closes on apps for some reason.
I also tried to experiment with compcache, with the following settings "disabled, 18%, 26%" and i think 26% makes my wildfire a bit snappier, although it might be just a placebo effect, because there's no difference in quadrant/linpack benchmarks.
why placebo effect....the question is how good can a benchmark represent the practial application in daily usage. Anybody?
I tried vm heap bigger than 32mb too. But while running navigon it seems to me not much as a big improvement so i switched back.
The compcage thing will be the next thing im testing.
Nhs666 said:
why placebo effect....the question is how good can a benchmark represent the practial application in daily usage. Anybody?
I tried vm heap bigger than 32mb too. But while running navigon it seems to me not much as a big improvement so i switched back.
The compcage thing will be the next thing im testing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to agree with you Whatever makes my phone "feeling" snappier and faster is good enough in my eyes!
You should really check Juwes Ram optimization thread in the Android development section for some serious performance gain. I flashed it yesterday in CM 7.1 Nightly 144 and the responsiveness boost is quite noticeable.
i agree the synthetic benchmarks are not that important its the daily use performance that mater to me
I have disabled compcache and enabled swap and my phone is snappier than 18%compcache may be Coz of compressing and decompression techniques that slow the process in compcache and scores 3.9 to 4.1 on linpack score with 576 MHz speed...
Sent from my HTC Wildfire
vijaykirann said:
I have disabled compcache and enabled swap and my phone is snappier than 18%compcache may be Coz of compressing and decompression techniques that slow the process in compcache and scores 3.9 to 4.1 on linpack score with 576 MHz speed...
Sent from my HTC Wildfire
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm i have a swap partition already made just in case and i might try it, but in theory a swap partition (even worse if it's a file) is much slower than the compressed cache due to the SD Speed limitations, unless we are discussing about class 10 cards.
anyone ?