Related
Look at this (from 1:44 on):
It's a quadrant benchmark run on a android port on the HD2. Graphics are really bad, but in the end it has approximately the same score as the benchmarking score of the Galaxy with the original firmware. I mean what is in a score? If I look at the beginning of the movie, the UI is very slow and not as responsive as the Galaxy
(BTW i got 55.7 FPS with the neocore benchmark on JM2)
This is not to say that I don't have deep respect for what the HD2-android development team is doing. Really amazing job. I just can't wait to get my HD2 back from repair.
appelflap said:
Look at this (from 1:44 on):
It's a quadrant benchmark run on a android port on the HD2. Graphics are really bad, but in the end it has approximately the same score as the benchmarking score of the Galaxy with the original firmware. I mean what is in a score? If I look at the beginning of the movie, the UI is very slow and not as responsive as the Galaxy
(BTW i got 55.7 FPS with the neocore benchmark on JM2)
This is not to say that I don't have deep respect for what the HD2-android development team is doing. Really amazing job. I just can't wait to get my HD2 back from repair.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant scores have been criticized for their non-descript breakdowns, at least on their free suite. Also, the fact that they chose the weighting of the scores, so should they chose 2D is equal to 3D weight, I don't know their formula (and for all I know, they give equal weighting to all or they give equal weighting to all test where the CPU has 12 tests and the 3D graphics has 4), but the fact that we, as users don't have access to their formula on their website is a bit unnerving.
Add to that the fact that many reviews and videos rely on it so heavily leaves users a bit misinformed. In reality, and thorough review should definitely run a custom test suite to give individual scores to:
CPU
Memory
I/O
2D graphics
3D graphics
That way users can compare what's important to them. The Galaxy S suffers from terrible I/O and the hacks that have given the fixes typically boost Galaxy scores to nearly double their rates, and it's majorly attributed to improving a bunk I/O score.
Totally agree. In addition, it would be really nice to know which benchmarked factors are responsible for which functions. For example it is really interesting to see how the hd2 performs before the user is running the tests. When the user is scrolling through the setting menu there is a very noticible lag. Given the fact that the total score is nearly the same as the scrore for the SGS, and thar the graphic score of the hd2 is bad in comparisson to the SGS, I would conclude that graphic performance is very important for the way the ui responds.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
appelflap said:
Totally agree. In addition, it would be really nice to know which benchmarked factors are responsible for which functions. For example it is really interesting to see how the hd2 performs before the user is running the tests. When the user is scrolling through the setting menu there is a very noticible lag. Given the fact that the total score is nearly the same as the scrore for the SGS, and thar the graphic score of the hd2 is bad in comparisson to the SGS, I would conclude that graphic performance is very important for the way the ui responds.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I can tell, the HD2 got a decent score 'cos it was running Froyo. When we get bumped up to an official froyo build with JIT fully optimized, We should be top of the pile.
don't forget, android isn't working 100% on the HD2.
I personally think it's pointless comparing to a not complete port.
woops dbl post
alovell83 said:
Quadrant scores have been criticized for their non-descript breakdowns, at least on their free suite. Also, the fact that they chose the weighting of the scores, so should they chose 2D is equal to 3D weight, I don't know their formula (and for all I know, they give equal weighting to all or they give equal weighting to all test where the CPU has 12 tests and the 3D graphics has 4), but the fact that we, as users don't have access to their formula on their website is a bit unnerving.
Add to that the fact that many reviews and videos rely on it so heavily leaves users a bit misinformed. In reality, and thorough review should definitely run a custom test suite to give individual scores to:
CPU
Memory
I/O
2D graphics
3D graphics
That way users can compare what's important to them. The Galaxy S suffers from terrible I/O and the hacks that have given the fixes typically boost Galaxy scores to nearly double their rates, and it's majorly attributed to improving a bunk I/O score.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even then though, it's possible to write a benchmark which wins constantly for any phone.
In regards to "terrible I/O", that might even be due to a bug in the FAT32 drivers. Yes you can benchmark it, but it wont mean much. The best way is to actually TEST the applications you need, rather than select a phone based on benchmarks. However, you are possibly best off looking at the component specs, because they ignore software bugs.
scrizz said:
don't forget, android isn't working 100% on the HD2.
I personally think it's pointless comparing to a not complete port.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But the topic is about "what's in a score". Maybe one can generally say that is pointless to compare devices this way. I think that such benchmark scores are only (a bit) relevant at the two poles of the benchmark score spectrum. Everything in between can be neglected due to the uninformed way sub-scores are evaluated.
You got 55.7 FPS on Neocore as the sgs has vertical sync enabled, the refresh rate on the sgs'es screen is 56 fps and thus you can only go up to 56 fps as the v-sync is on. This proves that the sgs is indeed a much more powerful device that is actually being held back. If you can disable the v-sync then you can get a higher fps score
appelflap said:
But the topic is about "what's in a score". Maybe one can generally say that is pointless to compare devices this way. I think that such benchmark scores are only (a bit) relevant at the two poles of the benchmark score spectrum. Everything in between can be neglected due to the uninformed way sub-scores are evaluated.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just read in a post that the Galaxy S gets a 0 on the 2D score:
"JIT isn't fully enabled in the current froyo versions, and quadrant, frankly, is bull**** (for exmple, 2d acceleration gets the same weight in the final result as 3D. Due to the fact that the SGS doesn't have a dedicated 2D accelerator, quadrant doesn't try to use the cpu- it just gives a round zero in that part)"
I can't confirm this, but that definitely seems like a terrible set-up, seeing as how I'm pretty sure I have games run in 2D, so to say that it can't do it just seems wrong regardless of if the SGS has a dedicated 2D accelerator or not (so if you aren't testing the way it performs in real-world, why are you testing?)
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=737787&page=3
Qazz~ said:
You got 55.7 FPS on Neocore as the sgs has vertical sync enabled, the refresh rate on the sgs'es screen is 56 fps and thus you can only go up to 56 fps as the v-sync is on. This proves that the sgs is indeed a much more powerful device that is actually being held back. If you can disable the v-sync then you can get a higher fps score
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It isn't really being held back - the screen can't display more than 56 fps as you say, and it wouldn't really be visible even if it could. Disabling v-sync isn't really that important, we need a benchmark that can actually use the advanced features in the SGS GPU (Neocore just pushes a fairly small amount of polygons with no real extras.) Using current 3D benchmarks to benchmark the SGS is like using quake 1 to benchmark the brand new ATI/nVidia cards.
The benchmark is what is at fault here, not the device
RyanZA said:
It isn't really being held back - the screen can't display more than 56 fps as you say, and it wouldn't really be visible even if it could. Disabling v-sync isn't really that important, we need a benchmark that can actually use the advanced features in the SGS GPU (Neocore just pushes a fairly small amount of polygons with no real extras.) Using current 3D benchmarks to benchmark the SGS is like using quake 1 to benchmark the brand new ATI/nVidia cards.
The benchmark is what is at fault here, not the device
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't want to speak for the other poster, and I agree with your premise, however, it isn't actually solving the issue at hand. Better FPS wouldn't be noticed, however, it would give a better score and, more importantly, indicate it's potential. So, getting 56FPS isn't doing the phone any justice within the score, which is what reviews are using, giving it an artificially low score, and putting it more in line with units that can't compete on higher end games. So, when a site like anand pushes 150FPS on a game, I know that means that their rig is entirely too powerful for the game in question, but it still means something when you compare it to the lower end graphics card that only gets 90...then when they run Crisis you see these results play out more with differences that we can notice with the eye.
I think the HD2 gets that score because, as I can see in the video, the CPU tests run faster compared to my SGS, probably because of Froyo, and I know, from the time I had the Diamond and the HD2, that the internal memory and RAM are very fast. Sadly SGS has a slow internal memory, atleast when used by the phone`s software, when copying from PC is faster than my class 6 microSD. Luckily, we have mimocan`s fix. Hope this will be fixed in future FW`s.
NexusHD2 with-FRG83D V1.7 with hastarin r8.5.1 On my HD2 got 1920 in quadrant,31.5 on neocore, and 37 on linmark.
The lag might be because you are using launcher pro, I use launcher pro and sometimes it makes the the lock lag on my phone but it doesn't happen when I use the default lock also if you have alot of Widgets on your screen it will cause lag also
appelflap said:
Look at this (from 1:44 on):
It's a quadrant benchmark run on a android port on the HD2. Graphics are really bad, but in the end it has approximately the same score as the benchmarking score of the Galaxy with the original firmware. I mean what is in a score? If I look at the beginning of the movie, the UI is very slow and not as responsive as the Galaxy
(BTW i got 55.7 FPS with the neocore benchmark on JM2)
This is not to say that I don't have deep respect for what the HD2-android development team is doing. Really amazing job. I just can't wait to get my HD2 back from repair.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
same galaxy s scores 6000+ in quadrant with custem roms
The HD 2 is a better fit for quadrent then the sgs as quadrent was made for the snapdragon processor which the hd2 has and the sgs does not. Comparing apples to orenges in an apple juice contest doesn't really prove much. Use real life feel. If you care about the scores a rom can be made to get you over 3000 quad score but is laggy as hell. Don't believe me? Look at my sig
interesting... I was using quadrant to see how a stock xxjvo and gingerreal compared. Surely that would indicate a real speed difference and not just be some kind of "hack" ?
zelendel said:
The HD 2 is a better fit for quadrent then the sgs as quadrent was made for the snapdragon processor which the hd2 has and the sgs does not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's right.
HD2 uses two android OS :
- Cyanogenmod, that is faster than our samsung os..
- Nexus one's port to HD2, greatly optimized by google...
It's really fast. I upgraded my father's HD2 last month, replacing windows in the NAND with CM7. It really makes a big change, the phone is like brand new ^^
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1012556
Quadrant is pretty flawed. And I say that being someone who had a phone (before modifications) that was mid-range in Quadrant (Galaxy S), and having a phone that's right top of the heap (Galaxy S II)
One of my coworkers has a tmobile vibrant with some lag fix according to him.. he did a quadrant benchmark right in front of me and it was showing 2500 plus everytime.. Im very curious as to what is making his phone so fast. And can it be dont to ours. Hes not running a custom rom or overclocking. Im only getting 1030 with mine clocked at 1.2ghz. Any Ideas? I couldnt get into too much details with him yesterday and I dont know whens the next time ill see him..
If you were to look at a test break down you would see generally all the scores are identical or the epic a little ahead except in the read/write area. The scores from their read/write are just inflating their overall score. It's a issue with quadrant and how it handles its overall score. Basically it just makes the system easy to abuse/cheat. So I wouldn't worry much about the difference in your score and his.
Sent from my Samsung Epic
The reason other Galaxy S phones score high in quadrant is because of the lag fix they use. The lag fix mounts a different file system on the phone with DRAMATICALLY increases read-write times. That portion of the quadrant benchmark gets inflated beyond reason. Using this game technique, Cyanogen was able to score more than 3000 on a snapdragon phone.
All of the Galaxy S phones have the same processor. Also, quadrant is a terrible benchmark. It's the most over-quoted and abused benchmark for android phones
Ahh ok.. thats good to know.. so what would be a better benchmark to use? Linpack?
jok3sta said:
Ahh ok.. thats good to know.. so what would be a better benchmark to use? Linpack?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Linpack is good for measuring raw CPU processing power... but only on devices running the same version of android. Phones with 2.2 will score insanely high due to the JIT compiler. For example, a snapdragon phone with Froyo can score ~40 Mflops. A snapdragon phone with eclair scores around 7 Mflops. Does Froyo make the phone run 5-6X faster? Hell no. In some cases, the difference is almost unnoticeable to the human eye.
Here is a rundown of what I believe to be the pros and cons of various benchmarks:
Linpack
Pros:
- Good for measuring CPU processing power on the same version of Android
- Great tool for measuring the performance gain from overclocking
Cons
- Scores are boosted unreasonably by Froyo's JIT compiler on snapdragon phones
Quadrant
Pros:
- Great tool for measuring the performance gain from overclocking
- Decent tool for measuring 3D graphics performance (just pay attention to FPS, not the end result)
- Decent tool for measuring 2D graphics performance (again, look at FPS)
- The paid version ("Quadrant Pro" I believe) shows which parts of the benchmark contributed to the score. Easier to spot the inflated CPU or I/O inflation
Cons:
- I/O portion isn't valued as much as others, but can boost scores beyond reason via exploits, hacks, fixes, etc.
- CPU portion is inflated on phones running 2.2. A Nexus One is not faster than any Galaxy S, Droid X, Droid 2, etc.
Neocore
Pros:
- Good tool for measuring graphics processing power
Cons:
- Graphics are not intense enough to push the power of very fast GPU's. Some phones will hit their FPS limit
- Only measures graphics processing power.
Nenamark1
Pros:
- Great tool for measuring graphics processing power
- Effects are advanced enough to show the performance of faster GPUs in relation to phones with lesser GPUs.
Cons:
- Only measures graphics processing power.
Sweet thanks for all the info man..
Agreed, this is great info thanks. I think the quadrant score is the most quoted becuase it provides a very easy to read graph built in with it for instant comparing/gratification. I guess I am gonna start going by linpack and nenamark1.
hydralisk said:
Linpack is good for measuring raw CPU processing power... but only on devices running the same version of android. Phones with 2.2 will score insanely high due to the JIT compiler. For example, a snapdragon phone with Froyo can score ~40 Mflops. A snapdragon phone with eclair scores around 7 Mflops. Does Froyo make the phone run 5-6X faster? Hell no. In some cases, the difference is almost unnoticeable to the human eye.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Linpack is ok for when your using same CPU comparison, different CPU's can cause issues...The reason why snapdragon gets scores of 5-6x is for some reason the snapdragon utilizes the VFP rather then using raw processing power..aka snapdragon cheats on the Linpack.
In reality our I/O scores should be a lot higher then it is as even in the Epic some of samsung's crappy file system still exists. But not as high as the lagfixed Vibrant of course.
Quadrant Pro is probably best indicator out of them all(The non-pro version is pretty much useless unless your comparing the same phone)...the con of having 2.2 show is higher is expected as it is a measure of efficiency of JIT in comparison to the current. The OS always played a role in Benchmarks so it is expected.
it can be faked by using a different partition to test on. IIRC the data partition making the speeds much faster than they should be so be careful when accepting those high scores
rjmjr69 said:
it can be faked by using a different partition to test on. IIRC the data partition making the speeds much faster than they should be so be careful when accepting those high scores
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is not exactly faking it..as you are increasing performance..thing is you cannot see at what it performs well at unless you see the individual scores from the Pro version....
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.
Now that's better mm? What do you think
http://www.inspiredgeek.com/2011/03...4210-vs-tegra-2-which-version-will-be-better/
http://smartphonebenchmarks.com/for...xy-s2-featuring-samsung-exynos-4210-revealed/
Feel free to comment, interpret and discuss. This is the latest I could find.
Links to benchmark of a tablet using same CPU/GPU and same clock frequency
as SGS2. Exynos seems capable to do much better than in the benchmarks you included.
It could be a indication that the SGS2 SW is pretty old.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=12361281&postcount=377
The tablet benchmark is pretty impressive. Even with its higher resolution, it beats tegra. Hopefully the performance will reflect on the Galaxy S 2.
Impressive benchmark. I didn't know about GPU Exynos is good.
But battery draining is less maybe!
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
These benchmarks are not new at all, they are here for weeks, get up...
LG Optimus Speed kicks SGS2's Ass?
Check this out!
http://translate.google.com/transla...est-lg-optimus-speed-schneller-als-galaxy-s2/
HTC_Spree said:
Check this out!
http://translate.google.com/transla...est-lg-optimus-speed-schneller-als-galaxy-s2/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice to see a tuned LG getting hi bench.
Real question is, what will the SGS2 get when it;s tuned.
Or what will the 2 devices straight out the box score (as most consumers will use it that way).
These benchmarks are for the e-penis , what counts how fast it feels , how it feels in the hand , how the ui is , how the sound is , how the camera is and what it can run smoothly and countless other things.
Still a good result for the sgs2 though , big quadrant scores and all stock. We all how Quadrant can drastically change with lil changes.
HTC_Spree said:
Check this out!
http://translate.google.com/transla...est-lg-optimus-speed-schneller-als-galaxy-s2/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It looks like it s not even an O2X ! I bet it s a Nexus S looking at the top bar, an overclocked Nexus S
Btw everyone know that quadrant is flawed
Tegra got smoked
http://androidcommunity.com/galaxy-s-iii-quad-core-benchmarks-blow-us-away-20120503/
Hm.. Tegra 3 seems to win the GPU bench?
Quadrant sucks though. Will be waiting for more benchs.
Here are some other benchmarks (next to quandrant also SunSpider and browsermark)
Quadrant scores -
sgs3
cpu - 12781
memory - 4652
io - 7606
2d - 1000
3d - 2171
total - 5642
S4
cpu - 8505
memory - 7547
io - 6394
2d - 990
3d - 2204
total - 5128
tegra3
cpu - 12493
memory - 3472
io - 4769
2d - 962
3d - 2346
total - 4804
they seem pretty even in cpu/gpu capability. the s4 gets smoked in cpu performance according to those quadrant scores. interesting.. i thought it was faster.
Wow, the S3 doesn't seem to smoke the competition.
im interested about the antutu...can someone bring some more benchmarks?
Even if Tegra got smoked games will look better, so i'm really thinking how the S3 will be better in general use except for benchmarks...
Sent from my Quad Core Monster the HTC One X using Tapatalk v 2
GPU performance gap between Tegra3 and Exynos4 Quad is huge
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5810/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-performance-preview
Faster than iPhone4S' powervr sgx543mp2
LOL quadrant sucks so hard. the new mali 400 is killing tegra 3. according to http://www.anandtech.com/show/5810/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-performance-preview
The benchmarked result http://www.icsforums.com/news/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-gets-benchmarked-shows-plenty-promise.html
bocautrang.pt said:
The benchmarked result http://www.icsforums.com/news/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-gets-benchmarked-shows-plenty-promise.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
um no
That's stolen straight out of engadget and they have recorded the lowest performance out of any of these tech blog/news sites
Antutu Benchmark available here:
ph00ny said:
um no
That's stolen straight out of engadget and they have recorded the lowest performance out of any of these tech blog/news sites
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the video above it's got 5324 Quadrant and 11492 Antutu. Not much different from HOX.
Here are some results from the Swedish androidsite "Swedroid". It's in swedish (doh!) but you should be able to look thru the scores anyway
http://www.swedroid.se/hands-on-med-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-forhandsitt/#disqus_thread
In my humble opinion. To say that the exynos "kills" the Tegra 3 is just...plain...wrong.
They seem to be very capable CPUs in both of these beasts!
umd said:
In the video above it's got 5324 Quadrant and 11492 Antutu. Not much different from HOX.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you see the gpu scores. Kills tegra 3.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
Imo they are very close to eachother, i would say exynos wins by a little margin could be just the software dragging it down, would love to see a pure ICS build doing the test.
Benchmarks mean squat.. it comes down to user experience.. if u can really feel the difference.. also, apps need to be fine tuned for quad core too.. so I guess u won't feel an actual difference..
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA
jits1988 said:
Benchmarks mean squat.. it comes down to user experience.. if u can really feel the difference.. also, apps need to be fine tuned for quad core too.. so I guess u won't feel an actual difference..
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
good benchmark do shows the raw power of the mobile, its never meant to test the user experience.
jits1988 said:
Benchmarks mean squat.. it comes down to user experience.. if u can really feel the difference.. also, apps need to be fine tuned for quad core too.. so I guess u won't feel an actual difference..
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All the hands-on video clip made it seemed as if s3 is doing great in general ui transitions. It was noticeably quicker when used side by side.
Always astounds me how people are judging by benchmarks. I mean, its a phone, not a server station.
I wont be running virtual machines for rendering movies on it. I wont be playing Crysis 3 on it.
I`ll phone, message, watch clips, pictures, surf and use navigation. Even the single core phones can do that perfectly.