Related
I'm really curious to see the "Quadrant Advanced" or "Quadrant Professional" scores. In particular, the cpu score. Wondering how 2.3 runs on the Hummingbird, since the Dalvik JIT Compiler in 2.2 didn't really offer the Hummingbird the same amount of cpu performance gain as the Scorpians did.
Can't find it anywhere on the internet, if you get your hands on a Nexus S, please run Quadrant Advanced, and post the screen shot. Thanks!
SamsungVibrant said:
I'm really curious to see the "Quadrant Advanced" or "Quadrant Professional" scores. In particular, the cpu score. Wondering how 2.3 runs on the Hummingbird, since the Dalvik JIT Compiler in 2.2 didn't really offer the Hummingbird the same amount of cpu performance gain as the Scorpians did.
Can't find it anywhere on the internet, if you get your hands on a Nexus S, please run Quadrant Advanced, and post the screen shot. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pretty sure there will be plenty of scores on the 16th
slowz3r said:
Pretty sure there will be plenty of scores on the 16th
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya but some people get their hands on it early, like some of the tech sites do, i.e. phonedog. Maybe someone had found a review video showing Quadrant Advanced being run, and could post it Thats all.
SamsungVibrant said:
Ya but some people get their hands on it early, like some of the tech sites do, i.e. phonedog. Maybe someone had found a review video showing Quadrant Advanced being run, and could post it Thats all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know that if androidandme get ahold of one early theyll bench it
SamsungVibrant said:
I'm really curious to see the "Quadrant Advanced" or "Quadrant Professional" scores. In particular, the cpu score. Wondering how 2.3 runs on the Hummingbird, since the Dalvik JIT Compiler in 2.2 didn't really offer the Hummingbird the same amount of cpu performance gain as the Scorpians did.
Can't find it anywhere on the internet, if you get your hands on a Nexus S, please run Quadrant Advanced, and post the screen shot. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant is obsolete. It was designed for Snapdragon architecture.
Engadget just ran the dual core LG Star running 2.2 through quadrant and it only scored 2100. I know Galaxy s phones with the file system fix has beat this easily, which makes me wonder, will the Nexus S have the same file issue problem?
If the dual core lg star was coming out next Thursday as well, I would still get the Nexus S.
the nexus s will have ext4 on the system, data, cache etc. and vfat on the sdcard. so there won't be any file system problem like the SGS already has.
Can't wait for futuremark to release their mobile benchmark and not have to rely on this quadrant bs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_3QG4U63I&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Also its been said million times galaxy s lag fix trick quadrant I/O scores not actual performance gain.
I don't see nexus s getting any higher than 16K at moment vibrant around 12-13 with Eugene new non lag fix that's base off new leaked firmware for i9000
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
I'm fully sure that the Nexus S will have a wonderfully smooth experience.
And I think that this is all that matters.
someone talked about 1631 quadrant score in another thread
bananenlarry said:
someone talked about 1631 quadrant score in another thread
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya I don't know why he made a whole new thread instead of posting it in here. Anyway, I think he referenced phonedog, but I can't find it anywhere on phonedogs site.
SamsungVibrant said:
Ya I don't know why he made a whole new thread instead of posting it in here. Anyway, I think he referenced phonedog, but I can't find it anywhere on phonedogs site.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He did it because he was at work at the time, found the info and was excited to share it.
bananenlarry said:
someone talked about 1631 quadrant score in another thread
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ummm..... 1631 is not a very compelling score for my N1, so the NS had better exceed 1631 by a mile, or else what's the point???
makelegs said:
Ummm..... 1631 is not a very compelling score for my N1, so the NS had better exceed 1631 by a mile, or else what's the point???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant score is obselete. You will see drastic actual UI improvements.
Anderdroid said:
Quadrant score is obselete. You will see drastic actual UI improvements.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How is quadrant obsolete? Mind stating some factual evidence that shows quadrant is obsolete, or were you just stating your opinion as fact?
irishrally said:
If the dual core lg star was coming out next Thursday as well, I would still get the Nexus S.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
U LIE!!!!!!!
I don't I will still buy NS instead of that LG Star with dual core!
Reasons:
1. I am so tired waiting manufacturer or mobile operator to provide software update. So, pure Google experience is my biggest reason. I want to get the first update, always
Oh yeah, I don't have much time for rooting and ROM flashing.
2. The LG Star dual core benchmark are not that impressive. It is faster, but not by far, not fast enough to be significant. Hummingbird CPU + sgx 540 gpu platform is still not fully utilized.
I think, the dual core is more towards tablet. Good single core platform is more than enough to handle Android mobile phone, at least right now
andyandrwew said:
U LIE!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Check it out
YoutubeDotcomSlashwatch?v=wcOMLbIRmoQ
It's only the standard version and doesn't work at all...
Anderdroid said:
Quadrant score is obselete. You will see drastic actual UI improvements.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant, used as a benchmark standard, clearly isn't obsolete, because here we are talking about and comparing quadrant scores.
I think what you mean is that the score itself is pretty much useless as a predictor of user experience. In that sense, I couldn't agree more!!! I've seen ROMs that get higher scores run like total crap, and ROMs with lower scores run like a dream. I've also seen ROMs with high scores run super-fantastic, too!
My point is...that the Nexus S had better outperform my Nexus 1 on Quadrant, otherwise it's just not that impressive of a statement for the Nexus S hardware OR the Gingerbread software, when compared to my N1 (on CM).
I really hope this phone kicks ass, b/c I hope to upgrade my wife's bb to the Nexus S. But, I know that I'm gonna play with a lot, too.... so I want the goods!
Just my .02
Okay so I ran Nenamark on both my Vibrant and Nexus S. To my surprise, Nexus S scored 39.5 FPS while the Vibrant scored 51.8 FPS.
Anyone know what GPU is in the Nexus S? I was under the impression it would be the same as the SGS line; there doesn't seem to be a definite answer either on the forums.
EDIT: Bleh, stupid me. Nenamark displays the GPU information. According to Nenamark, both Nexus S and Vibrant have a PowerVR SGX 540. So why the huge difference in benchmarks?
DarkAgent said:
Okay so I ran Nenamark on both my Vibrant and Nexus S. To my surprise, Nexus S scored 39.5 FPS while the Vibrant scored 51.8 FPS.
Anyone know what GPU is in the Nexus S? I was under the impression it would be the same as the SGS line; there doesn't seem to be a definite answer either on the forums.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
*sigh* these benchmarks are so unscientific
There is some suspicious stuff in the kernel sources that refers to the PowerVR SGX 535 chip. Hope Samsung isn't trying to pull a fast one on us by using a 535 and making it look like a 540 to apps. Interestingly, when trying to boot the Nexus S kernel on a Galaxy S, supercurio ran into display driver failures. Maybe because it's trying to use 535 drivers with a 540?
Something is definitely up... it makes no sense that with the same hardware Nexus S scores less than Vibrant.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/7h7r8b
And a Google employee confirmed the same GPU
slowz3r said:
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/7h7r8b
And a Google employee confirmed the same GPU
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I already edited the OP to state that Nenamark reads both as a 540. Now the question why are they benchmarking so differently.
DarkAgent said:
I already edited the OP to state that Nenamark reads both as a 540. Now the question why are they benchmarking so differently.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh sorry, didnt read the edit
Hmmm, Maybe Touchwiz does add some good lol
Idk though
Galaxy s/ vibrant only scores over 50 FPS on nenamark if you're OC
but yea score seems kind of low score 47 on my vibrant noticed some stuttering and not as smooth on NS scored 42
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=9792903&postcount=33
demo23019 said:
galaxy s/ vibrant only scores over 50 FPS on nenamark if you're OC
but yea score seems kind of low
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=9792903&postcount=33
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not OC'ed though :-( I am running completely stock, minus a few bloatware apps on the Vibrant.
Now that you mention it, though, I don't recall my Vibrant ever hitting 50 FPS on nenamark before. This is odd...
I wouldn't worry good things will come with the great developers here im sure it will be tweaked
also neocore bench is pretty much the same as my vibrant 55.6
The "old" Vibrant Froyo leaks performed worse on 3d rendering than the original eclair believe it or not. Not MUCH worse, but a bit worse. Don't know about the latest leaks. Not noticeable enough to care.
If there is any remaining doubt. Here's the iFixit teardown of the Nexus S:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nexus-S-Teardown/4365/2
Note the CPU: S5PC110A01
Google that up, it's a 540.
maybe the nexus S has the gpu clocked lower?
demo23019 said:
I wouldn't worry good things will come with the great developers here im sure it will be tweaked
also neocore bench is pretty much the same as my vibrant 55.6
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah but any half decent GPU hits 55ish on Neocore.
DarkAgent said:
Yeah but any half decent GPU hits 55ish on Neocore.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only one ive seen that's currently available is Adreno 205 that can keep up in neocore
DebauchedSloth said:
If there is any remaining doubt. Here's the iFixit teardown of the Nexus S:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nexus-S-Teardown/4365/2
Note the CPU: S5PC110A01
Google that up, it's a 540.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Case closed
DarkAgent said:
Yeah but any half decent GPU hits 55ish on Neocore.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which ones
jasonyump said:
maybe the nexus S has the gpu clocked lower?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
someone should give you a cookie. yes this makes sense but it also could have something to do with more tasks moved to the gpu, a different driver, or the changes in gingerbread 3d api that the benchmarks arnt written for
Hmm that's odd. I think it's a problem with Gingerbread and not so much the actual hardware. Quadrant standard runs terribly on the Nexus S and now Nenamark is giving unusual scores. These developers really need to update these benchmarks, seriously. Quadrant hasn't been updated in so long so undoubtedly that will have problems with the new framework from Gingerbread.
I agree with Arcadia310 I believe its also a software issue not a hardware and like he said the apps needed updating.
You guys are probably right, although it seems weird apps wouldn't work on 2.3 seeing as it isn't as big of a update as 2.1 -> 2.2 was.
Seems like I got a pretty quick device I got a best of 1703
fifedogg said:
Seems like I got a pretty quick device I got a best of 1703
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice score man, I would suggest running Smartbench 2010 however. Quadrant is skewed towards Snapdragon processors so its really not a good benchmark.
kenvan19 said:
Nice score man, I would suggest running Smartbench 2010 however. Quadrant is skewed towards Snapdragon processors so its really not a good benchmark.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Compared to other types of processors your right. But as far as our phones go I think its a pretty good score.
Smartbench is byast to phones with higher GPU's like the Epic just like quadrant is more byast to CPU speed, with Snapdragon having the upper hand. I'm sure the Epic will do much better on quadrant with a legit 2.2 build and JIT enabled. From what I understand Quadrant uses more CPU when processing the 2d/3d as opposed to Smartbench using mainly the GPU. IMO quadrant gets high scores with fast cpu's and Smartbench gets super high scores with high GPU phones. I have an Epic and my Shift is faster all around except when its something to do with pure GPU.
fifedogg said:
Compared to other types of processors your right. But as far as our phones go I think its a pretty good score.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh I wasn't saying you had a bad score, its just that Quadrant scores are meaningless, sure you can compare a Shift to a Shift but it won't give you any scores that are applicable in the real world. If you're just looking for a big number then quadrant is great for that, however if you want something that provides an accurate representation of your phone's power Smartbench is the ticket!
~Edit~
Also, I forgot to mention how easy it is to trick quadrant and fake scores. People have gotten it to give last gen devices 2500+ scores. Quadrant is just a terrible benchmarking tool all around.
~Edit #2~
I know I sound like a **** who is trolling you but what I'm really trying to do is prove to the Evo and Epic fanboys that this device is really great. If you quote a big quadrant score they'll jump all over you and discredit you. If you quote a Smartbench score they will 1) have to go look up what smartbench is (c'mon its really new lol) and 2) make up some other fake reason to claim the other devices are better.
My point is that having owned an Epic since launch day, an Evo for a few days and my wife owning a Shift for a few days I can find only one thing I dislike about the shift whereas I have a myriad of issues with the others (that one issue is the screen size).
Thread cleaned, let's get this back on track
Sorry for taking it down that path Impaler
Sent from my HTC Evo Shift 4G
My bad
Sent from my HERO200 using XDA App
BrandoKC said:
Sorry for taking it down that path Impaler
Sent from my HTC Evo Shift 4G
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the5ifty said:
My bad
Sent from my HERO200 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's ok guys, just trying to get stuff back on track
Anyway...i ran a smartbench on the wifes shift and it scored considerably lower than the G2...i get ~1650s in quadrant
Sent from my HERO200 using XDA App
fifedogg said:
Compared to other types of processors your right. But as far as our phones go I think its a pretty good score.
Smartbench is byast to phones with higher GPU's like the Epic just like quadrant is more byast to CPU speed, with Snapdragon having the upper hand. I'm sure the Epic will do much better on quadrant with a legit 2.2 build and JIT enabled. From what I understand Quadrant uses more CPU when processing the 2d/3d as opposed to Smartbench using mainly the GPU. IMO quadrant gets high scores with fast cpu's and Smartbench gets super high scores with high GPU phones. I have an Epic and my Shift is faster all around except when its something to do with pure GPU.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Slight correction - Smartbench simply reports the performance of each phones in comparison to Nexus One. Productivity Index scores aren't supposed to be compared with Games Index scores since the bases for each are different.
I own a G2, Vibrant and N1 (also Optimus One). I am pretty happy with what Smartbench reports vs real experience.
The numbers may change drastically in v2011 if another phone is chosen as the base (I am tempted to do this since it appears that almost every phone in the market today grossly outperforms Snapdragon QSD8x50 in GPU by a big margin...
I scored a little over 1500 on Quadrant. Smart bench gave me 759/1097 and 693/1116
not sure if that is good or not. But my phone does seem a little sluggish.
Heelfan71 said:
I scored a little over 1500 on Quadrant. Smart bench gave me 759/1097 and 693/1116
not sure if that is good or not. But my phone does seem a little sluggish.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For some reason, Evo Shifts (in general) aren't reporting numbers as high as the G2 or Desire Z. Have a look at http://smartphonebenchmarks.com you will see some numbers for G2 and Desire Z, both stock and overclocked.
I also found my Shift scores are considerably lower than the G2, but then again I don't put too much stock into benchmarking programs. I find that out of the box the Shift is buttery smooth and at 800Mhz the quadrant/SB scores soundly beat my EVO clocked at 1Ghz and the EVO is pretty beastly.
Also considering people have been able to overclock the processor in the G2 from 800 to 1.9Ghz, we should be able to boost the Shift considerably once we have root. Hopefully the Shift is embraced by the dev community because overclock plus AOSP will be a beautiful thing.
I'll be adding Evo Shift score to the chart shortly. So far, 759/1097 is the best score I've seen on here. If anyone can beat this score (in a stock form), please let me know here!
Acei said:
I'll be adding Evo Shift score to the chart shortly. So far, 759/1097 is the best score I've seen on here. If anyone can beat this score (in a stock form), please let me know here!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Will do, man thanks!
Acei said:
I'll be adding Evo Shift score to the chart shortly. So far, 759/1097 is the best score I've seen on here. If anyone can beat this score (in a stock form), please let me know here!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
832/1240 is what I got 1st try. I'm gonna try a few more times and see what she does. I can post screen shots if need be as well.
fifedogg said:
832/1240 is what I got 1st try. I'm gonna try a few more times and see what she does. I can post screen shots if need be as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great! Thanks.
I know about the differences in benchmarks and how they arent set up for dual core, but I just ran smartbench 2011 and my gaming score is off by 1000 points on a stock xoom, I am rooted and running stock kernel. I am not sure why, maybe something is wrong with it.
My quadrant scores are lower than my dx but my linpack score is 64mflops! Don't know why our quadrant scores are so low but I'm having the same problem.
Sent from my Xoom using XDA App
Off from what? A phone? Synthetic benchmarks say almost nothing about real world performance, and they will always be different with devices at different resolutions.
A 1280x800 tablet will always score unusually low on a graphics benchmark that scales to resolution compared to a phone.
Usmc7356 said:
My quadrant scores are lower than my dx but my linpack score is 64mflops! Don't know why our quadrant scores are so low but I'm having the same problem.
Sent from my Xoom using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant also places a lot of weight on the filesystem, and my Xoom always hangs quite a while during database writes.
Also I think that getting ~6 FPS on their first 2D animation test can't help.
The Xoom is really zippy, take the benchmarks with many, many grains of salt.
I was just talking about smart bench, everything else is working fine, but the smartbench 2011 shows a galaxy s as being more powerful than my xoom, and the half the speed of a stock xoom. I am just wondering if other people were showing that they are below what a stock xoom should be too.
you have to make sure that these benchmarks are compatible with dual core processors. otherwise the results are moot.
I know that, but it is shows below the average xoom, thats the problem I am seeing, average xoom gets like 2k I get 1k
I was having the same issue, I believe it is because of spare parts for gaming full screen. I factory restored my xoom and scored higher than average. The benchmark ran on a much smaller screen when I ran it on a fresh xoom.
joepfalzgraf said:
I was having the same issue, I believe it is because of spare parts for gaming full screen. I factory restored my xoom and scored higher than average. The benchmark ran on a much smaller screen when I ran it on a fresh xoom.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Confirmed that is it, thanks for this I guess I was overlooking it and thinking my xoom wasnt up to par.
After updating to 3.1 I ran a few quadrant tests and instead of the 2000-2100 scores i normally get i am not getting 1500-1600 ... Usually updates boost performance not lower it
so i guess that begs the question: is your TF's performance lower?
Dark lord me said:
After updating to 3.1 I ran a few quadrant tests and instead of the 2000-2100 scores i normally get i am not getting 1500-1600 ... Usually updates boost performance not lower it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I noticed this too... BUT... the system seems a lot faster and more responsive, so i guess scores arent everything.
For sure score isn't everything, even more with quadrant.
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA App
quadrant came out and has not been updated since the nexus 1 got 2.2. so its kind of flawed and old. current best benchmark is either Vellamo or AnTuTu
Vellamo is a web browser benchmark IIRC, where as Quadrant is a CPU/GPU benchmark. I dont know about the other one you mentioned.
15xx is pretty damn low, I'm getting around 35xx with Quadrant at 1.5 GHz. Check your clockspeed in setcpu to make sure nothing is out of wack.
mrevankyle said:
quadrant came out and has not been updated since the nexus 1 got 2.2. so its kind of flawed and old. current best benchmark is either Vellamo or AnTuTu
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or CF Bench
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA Premium App
Or actually using the tablet. If it seems faster when you use it, its better. Benchmarks are pretty useless, especially since they can be skewed or manipulated
quadrant is a horrible benchmark. there are hacks and tweaks to get you stupid high scores.
Wierd i get2 2600
Tortel1210 said:
Or actually using the tablet. If it seems faster when you use it, its better. Benchmarks are pretty useless, especially since they can be skewed or manipulated
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's dumb. I clearly spent 400 dollars so I can get my electronics to tell me that I am cool. If my number is lower, then I am not cool.
sassafras
My quadrant is 1.7 not rooted or anything. I must say this tab runs extremely fast and I have no problems with it minus apps crashing once in a blue moon. If quadrant ment something my vibrant has 2.2k and it still doesn't run as smooth as my tab
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Dark lord me said:
After updating to 3.1 I ran a few quadrant tests and instead of the 2000-2100 scores i normally get i am not getting 1500-1600 ... Usually updates boost performance not lower it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I too used to be quadrant this or that using it as a gauge...then after I owned a few android devices...I came to the conclusion...its a piece of ****... First its inaccurate...my EVO. 3d is way faster then my color nookut yet I get better scores with the nook...same with the tf...second...it uses testing methods that can be cheated by some settings...hardware stuff..3rd...if you run it 3 times...you will usually get 3 different darn scores that range widely. To me using is the best test...not benchmarks..however if you need to use this as a guage...do it...but be warned...for real life...it don't mean anything
sassafras_ said:
That's dumb. I clearly spent 400 dollars so I can get my electronics to tell me that I am cool. If my number is lower, then I am not cool.
sassafras
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not dumb when the software is deeply, deeply flawed....quadrant that is.
life64x said:
It's not dumb when the software is deeply, deeply flawed....quadrant that is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think your sarcasm meter is broken.
...
Quadrant is broken because it doesn't weight different aspects of the benchmark equally. The Nexus One has a terrible GPU but a fast CPU, so it gets decent scores. The BN Nook Color has a mediocre CPU and a decent GPU so it scores better than the N1 even though the N1 is clearly the superior device.
Changing the file system to something journaled can bump your Quadrant score a few hundred points, which is dumb.
The ideal benchmark would somehow score in a way that represented the overall user experience. Unfortunately, no such benchmark exists for Android. Until then, it's just these pieces of crap that only exist so teenagers can show off their e-peen on the internet.
sassafras
sassafras_ said:
I think your sarcasm meter is broken.
...
Quadrant is broken because it doesn't weight different aspects of the benchmark equally. The Nexus One has a terrible GPU but a fast CPU, so it gets decent scores. The BN Nook Color has a mediocre CPU and a decent GPU so it scores better than the N1 even though the N1 is clearly the superior device.
Changing the file system to something journaled can bump your Quadrant score a few hundred points, which is dumb.
The ideal benchmark would somehow score in a way that represented the overall user experience. Unfortunately, no such benchmark exists for Android. Until then, it's just these pieces of crap that only exist so teenagers can show off their e-peen on the internet.
sassafras
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was saying that!!! I figured from your first reply...if you spent 400 it should be off the chain for the score. Quadrant is deeply, deeply flawed. If I mis-read your reply then it is my fault but I was not using sarcasm or being flippant but just stating what we both said.
life64x said:
I was saying that!!! I figured from your first reply...if you spent 400 it should be off the chain for the score. Quadrant is deeply, deeply flawed. If I mis-read your reply then it is my fault but I was not using sarcasm or being flippant but just stating what we both said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
he wasn't accusing you if being sarcastic, he was being sarcastic.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk
Thanks, my bad. I am a optimist and thought my pessimist came out... With only a couple hours sleep my mind plays tricks on me. Oh well, go back to watching dune...I would have used my gom jabber( watch dune to know what I mean).
Only thing worst than benchmark nerds are benchmark nerds who are stupid enough to still be using quadrant software that's over a year old and is not optimized for dualcore or honeycomb.