We have the Deodexed Stock Rom and a new Rom in the Android Development section. I am hopeful that we will be seeing more options for our device. I thought I would start this thread to give our users the opportunity to identify those things they would like to see in a Rom or a Mod.
As a starter even a mod for the Deodexed Stock Rom would be nice. Over in the 10.1 forum they have mods for the stock rom for battery icons and 3 or 4 way reboots. I would also like to see some tweaks for the gps, I find mine slow to connect.
Give us your ideas!
Want to thank Civato for the Battery Mod in the Themes Section.
I thought with all the interest in getting custom Roms for our device our users would like to let potential developers know what is of interest to them. I am very surprised that no one has commented. It seems that no one is interested.
Cm10.1
Sent from my GT-N5110 using xda premium
AndroidFanNetwork said:
Cm10.1
Sent from my GT-N5110 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Overclocking support (especially GPU overclocking), some of the S$ features would be nice aswell.
I'd love to see Tweaked ROM ported over. I have it on my Note 2, it's awesome. Touchwiz based with some nice AOSP flavoring. I don't have the time to attempt to port a ROM, nor the knowledge.
Sent from my SGH-T889 using Xparent Skyblue Tapatalk 2
To me, battery life is the weak point of the 8. We have good high-end cpu performance, stock rom and apps are reliable, but compared to other devices I have like the 7.7 and note 10.1, the 8 needs more frequent charges. Some investigation and tuning in that area would be worthwhile - the custom roms with 'lean or lite' mode are a step towards this.
My two favourite things are option for navigation bar and centre clock on the status bar
I would love to see support for note 10.1 cascading windows. I would also like it to remain touchwiz based, but without most of the sammy apps, just keeping Snote and other necessary apps for touchwiz.
Still waiting for custom roms.....
Sent from my GT-N5100 using xda premium
The only mod I really want would be Note 10's Cascade view. Other than that, everything feels solid enough on Note 8 for me that I don't really feel the need for a custom rom like my phone does. Should any roms be made for Note 8, I'd like to see SNote be kept in there.
I use the full sized s pen with the eraser; so a good mod for me would be getting a toggle for the s-pen layer.
I currently keep it off when the spen is inserted to save battery, but then its a little annoying to have to pull the spen out each time i want to use the full sized one. it would be nice to be able to toggle that from a widget or the pulldown menu.
A working ums mod would also be nice too (the galaxy 3/note 10.1 doesnt seem to be working for me and I'm not a fan of MTP.)
+1 for cascade Windows
toggle for Capacitive buttons
Allow the free draw Screen crop to use rectangle Crop( can do this with Screen cup crop then insert, as opposed to dragging into S note)
More pen modes with button press
Write with spen anywhere on screen, as opposed to yellow box (or make transparent)
intergrate those modded gesture controls
Wondering if you guys would be interested in a Miui5 port, based on stock of course.
Whatever you make would be great. I'm not one to make demands. I'm grateful to flash anything.
Sent from my SGH-T889 using Xparent Skyblue Tapatalk 2
Planning to get this device and I think any custom rom has to preserve the S-pen functionality, meaning it must retain some necessary TW features. I also think a Siya kernel port would greatly improve battery life.
Sent from my SGW powered by CM10.1
I am interested in what beans already has for the Note II. Touchwiz that is completely revamped to look like AOSP. Only thing better than that would be a 4.2.2 Touchwiz made to look and function like AOSP!
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda premium
NYCguy2020 said:
Overclocking support (especially GPU overclocking), some of the S$ features would be nice aswell.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this. Id like to see a little more juice squeesed out of the mali400 processor.
Assuming its the same as the one in the s3 (upto 440mhz stock) id like to see it at 533 or may be even 600/640. I wouldnt want to push it too far as i wouldnt want to impact the battery life too dramatically.
quote from a galaxy s3 oc thread.
"By default stock mali 400 GPU has 4 steppings , its clock frequencies are as follows
160 Mhz - 875 mv
266 Mhz - 900 mv
350 Mhz - 950 mv
440 Mhz - 1025 mv
Once you install siyah you will be having an additional GPU stepping(totally 5) along with the following available frequencies to choose from.
54 Mhz
108 Mhz
160 Mhz
266 Mhz
275 Mhz
300 Mhz
333 Mhz
350 Mhz
440 Mhz
533 Mhz - 1025 mv
600 Mhz - 1050 mv
640 Mhz - 1050 mv
666 Mhz - 1075 mv
700 Mhz - 1100 mv
800 Mhz - xxxx mv"
A tweak to be able to increase the headphone volume would be good. Upper volume limit is quite low on stock
How about something like this?
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
hertsjoatmon said:
this. Id like to see a little more juice squeesed out of the mali400 processor.
Assuming its the same as the one in the s3 (upto 440mhz stock) id like to see it at 533 or may be even 600/640. I wouldnt want to push it too far as i wouldnt want to impact the battery life too dramatically.
quote from a galaxy s3 oc thread.
"By default stock mali 400 GPU has 4 steppings , its clock frequencies are as follows
160 Mhz - 875 mv
266 Mhz - 900 mv
350 Mhz - 950 mv
440 Mhz - 1025 mv
Once you install siyah you will be having an additional GPU stepping(totally 5) along with the following available frequencies to choose from.
54 Mhz
108 Mhz
160 Mhz
266 Mhz
275 Mhz
300 Mhz
333 Mhz
350 Mhz
440 Mhz
533 Mhz - 1025 mv
600 Mhz - 1050 mv
640 Mhz - 1050 mv
666 Mhz - 1075 mv
700 Mhz - 1100 mv
800 Mhz - xxxx mv"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm pretty sure it's clocked at 533 mhz, same as the note 2.
Sent from the mighty Note II
Related
try this to speed up your pocket pc, good programs , try for xda II at 530 mhz
I would have prefered you post all the warnings of using such utlity ... for some unexperienced users this could permanently damage their devices.
For all folks here ... pay all attention to the heat while working on high speeds ... and don't ever try ROM flashing on any speed but the default one (206 for XDA and 400 for XDA II)
Ive been running Gameboy Advance and SNES roms, using XPU scalar @ 530Mhz for hours and hours. The device gets VERY hot after 5 hours, but it still fights on without a restart...
Although, ive tried other clocking apps @ 600mhz and then it got so hot it restarted itself...
I use Pocket Hack Master and have had my device up to 1689Mhz without any ill effects, though this is apparently unusually quick for an XdaII - the SDRAM usually can't handle 147MHz.
With PHM, mine scales between 399MHz and 589MHz depending purely on load, I've been using it for about three months with no apparent problems.
I tried it on i-mate ... the device is frozen if I use 530 MHz
Mine runs fine at 530 and 473... I even did a benchmark in BetaPlayer; huge improvement at 530; however, I decided to back it off to 400 to save on batteries.
Biso007 said:
I tried it on i-mate ... the device is frozen if I use 530 MHz
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Probably the SDRAM can't handle the 133MHz - it's the first thing that usually falls over. You could put the multiplier down to 1/2x from 1x and it would probably work but that would mean your RAM was only running at 66MHz.
ok i must be real tired...
how the heck do you install this program from those files??
Questions :
- At 472 MHz as well as at 530 MHz, the memory is underclocked (50 - 66 MHz). I ask if it would be possible to maintain the memory around 100 MHz (+/- 10 MHz) during the overclock.
- Does the XScale CPU have the frequency fixed at 400 MHz ? Intel didn't think to dinamical frequence switch ? (like in Centrino or P4M) ? Because if not, then this software would allow battery economy. But it's weird, Intel wasn't able to do the same thing ???
With PHM you can choose whether to 1/2x or 1x clock the SDRAM and the LCD. I use 1x, so when I'm running the CPU at 590, the memory is running at 147MHz, most Xda II's won't handle this but it appears I was really lucky and got very good RAM in mine.
Mi_ said:
Questions :
- At 472 MHz as well as at 530 MHz, the memory is underclocked (50 - 66 MHz). I ask if it would be possible to maintain the memory around 100 MHz (+/- 10 MHz) during the overclock.
- Does the XScale CPU have the frequency fixed at 400 MHz ? Intel didn't think to dinamical frequence switch ? (like in Centrino or P4M) ? Because if not, then this software would allow battery economy. But it's weird, Intel wasn't able to do the same thing ???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you sure in underclocked? I am sure the memory clock is set to standard freq. with all the benefits,like stability and faster processor clock (472-530)
You can verify it downloading other Overclocking applications,like made from Mamaich.
I verify with CPUID, it shows all PDA frequencies. I can post screenshots, at 530 MHz, the memory runs in 66 MHz.
That's why I posted my question.
err..so whats the best setting when using the XCPUScaler?
And how come cannot access settings for over 500Mhz? Mine goes up to 475only
In Option select 'show frequencies over 500mhz'
Mi_ said:
I verify with CPUID, it shows all PDA frequencies. I can post screenshots, at 530 MHz, the memory runs in 66 MHz.
That's why I posted my question.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Use Mamaich Overclock program with:
L 27
M 4
N 1,5
You will obtain SDRAM and MEM LCD 100mhz,CPU 597mhz PXBUS 199mhz
I've Benchmarked it with GX BenchMark with no good results.
So,best performance for gaming you will obtain on 530Mhz
unapproachable2kx said:
Use Mamaich Overclock program with:
L 27
M 4
N 1,5
You will obtain SDRAM and MEM LCD 100mhz,CPU 597mhz PXBUS 199mhz
I've Benchmarked it with GX BenchMark with no good results.
So,best performance for gaming you will obtain on 530Mhz
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Done that.
But at 530 MHz, my memory cames down to 66 MHz thus not 133 MHz, I think it doesn't support anything above 100-105 MHz.
Now I want to benchmark myself , I'll try to find GX Benchmark.
I only regret the downclocking function of CPUScalar, that saves battery (can somebody confirm ?)
Re: download xpu scalar (speed up ur ppc to 530 mhz) for fre
Prada said:
try this to speed up your pocket pc, good programs , try for xda II at 530 mhz
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could you tell me how to install even I copied all the files to my XDA2 .[/quote]
After many hard-resets,installation of system files and progrs..
I can finally assure that CALLER-ID program seriously give conflicts on overclocked Cpu frequencies,more than 472Mhz..(like 530,ecc..)
And drains more battery power.
Just let you know..
Now is your choice..
To tell u the truth, i use xCPUScalar for a month in advanced mode:
0-15% - 300
16-40% -400
41-70% -472
71 -100 -530 and have no problems at all.
BTW - CallerID is a very uncertain subj by itself.
i also use xCPUScalar for a month in advanced mode:
0-15% - 200
16-40% -400
41-70% -400
71 -100 -472 and have no problems at all.
But I don't see where I can get over the 472 limit??
I have a XDA (QTEK 2020) with a 400MHZ chip.
I see you guys talking about 500 and more sometime???
and this is possible, where XCPUScalar indicate 472 MAX ?
Thank you
PS: OK I get it, I just forget to enable the "show frequency over 500MHZ"
Now I see 530MHZ.
Juste hope it's fine like this.
Aparently the CPU may only be clocked to 800Mhz........
If you got this from the Au website, Whirlpool, than I think they are talking about the iPhone 4, not the Galaxy S
well it's from the galaxy s thread and one of the guy who's doing the testing and stuff for samsung says this......definitely not iphone.
Guess just wait and see when it's released I suppose
huh? wat are you guys talking about? its 1ghz cpu
forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1409745&p=58#r1152 is the link to the post where the user suggests it is 800mhz underclocked.
Yh, sorry, was reading a thread where they were talking about the iPhone being underclocked, just reading more, it seems it may be the case.
Will mean battery last longer, not such a bad thing, as long as it doesn't effect any of the performance of the phone
If they say 1Ghz then it is 1Ghz or else they're going to have a lawsuit on their hands. Nothing in between(except of course scaling).
I have the galaxy s and im pretty sure its 1ghz.. at least system panel tells me its 1ghz but singapore set are all 16gb model.
information from system panel:
ARMv7 Processor rev 2 (v7I)
bogomips 797.90 (may vary)
min clock 100mhz
max clock 1000mhz
on Nexus one using pershoot kernel but cpuset at 245mhz - 998mhz, it shows:
ARMv7 processor rev 2 (v7I)
bogomips 662.40 (may vary)
min clock 245 mhz
max clock 998mhz
so maybe the 8gb are down clocked?
Doubt the 8Gb version would be clocked lower. Thanks for posting your findings!
It's just the power of forums and the internet, allowing mis-information to spread at the speed of light
lol yep, looks like he was confused at the sliding clock speed....
when i ran quandrant standard it read armv7 processor rev 2 , max 1000 min 100
set frequency 800
is that normal
regards
It's 1 GHz, I checked the clock frequency with a monitoring application and it's dynamic but when required it clocks up to 1 GHz.
Intratech said:
It's 1 GHz, I checked the clock frequency with a monitoring application and it's dynamic but when required it clocks up to 1 GHz.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks for clearing this up
regards
Wait, what?
The iPhone 4 may be clocked at 800mhz?
Can someone give source on this?
Pika007 said:
Wait, what?
The iPhone 4 may be clocked at 800mhz?
Can someone give source on this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't have a link to that claim, but I think it was Gizmodo in their testing of the iPhone 4 and iPad noted the iPad did feel faster and the web browser rendered pages faster, despite both using the A4 processor. They hypothesised that it is the same architecture CPU in both, but different clock speeds.
After all, to get 10 hours out of the iPad the teardowns and x-ray scans show about 80% of the volume inside is all battery. If the iPhone 4 and iPad had the same processor, you'd think the iPhone's battery would be pretty bad considering the far smaller volume (although smaller screen not sucking as much power).
Wouldn't be surprising. After all, the Motorola Milestone / Droid has a mild underclock, as does the Acer Liquid to preserve battery life.
Probably cheaper for Apple to only have to manufacture 1 chip (the A4), but clock at different speeds appropriate to each device's battery life.
Apple doesn't focus as much on specs though, more that the user interface feels fast and smooth. If it achieves that purpose no need to worry about numbers, whereas since we have so much choice of handsets on Android specs do make a difference for us to know depending on our needs (eg: price vs performance vs battery).
My Samsung Galaxy S is running at 800mhz it sucks... i flashed it last night with the final build of 2.2 I9000XXjP6 for the Galaxy does anybody no how i can overclock it to 1ghz thanks People
The Galaxy S has a 1 GHz CPU. However, the clock speed is lowered while not needed to save battery life, just like on any modern PC. By default it is using the conservative governor.
The iPhone4 never was supposed to get a 1 GHz CPU. Apple never disclosed the number. But those who made benchmarks estimated the clock speed at about 800 MHz since is is about 20% slower than the iPad.
There is a Galaxy Lite version in some other countries that only maxes out at 800 Mhz
i think the guy reviewing the phone got it mixed up with that
AllGamer said:
There is a Galaxy Lite version in some other countries that only maxes out at 800 Mhz
i think the guy reviewing the phone got it mixed up with that
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He might have got mixed up, but the final 2.2 build for the Samsung Galaxy S is maxed out at 800 MHz for some stupid reason…. I’m going to flash it tonight again with a earlier build of 2.2 as I did some bench test and its only scoring a measly 900 points with the latest firmware installed.. Were as before it was scoring well over 2k…
HTC ONE GLBenchmark only scores 34 FPS at 1080P offscreen, this is much lower than the Samsung SHV-E300s which scores 41.3 FPS, both using Snapdragon 600, in the same test. IRC HTC One is using LPDDR2 RAM, so are we seeing a lack of bandwidth compared to the Samsung which may use LPDDR3, which is supported by the S600.
http://www.glbenchmark.com/phonedetails.jsp?benchmark=glpro25&D=HTC+One
how do you know HTC One uses LPDDR2 memory
kultus said:
how do you know HTC One uses LPDDR2 memory
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.htc.com/uk/smartphones/htc-one/#specs
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6754/hands-on-with-the-htc-one-formerly-m7/2
Turbotab said:
HTC ONE GLBenchmark only scores 34 FPS at 1080P offscreen, this is much lower than the Samsung SHV-E300s which scores 41.3 FPS, both using Snapdragon 600, in the same test. IRC HTC One is using LPDDR2 RAM, so are we seeing a lack of bandwidth compared to the Samsung which may use LPDDR3, which is supported by the S600.
http://www.glbenchmark.com/phonedetails.jsp?benchmark=glpro25&D=HTC+One
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My first question would be is how they even got a benchmark of the SHV-E300?
Xistance said:
My first question would be is how they even got a benchmark of the SHV-E300?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do any results appear on GLbenchmark?
I believe with GLBenchmark, that if you don't register / login before running the test, it automatically uploads to their server for public viewing, so maybe it was done intentionally, or somebody forgot to login?
fp581 said:
he is spamming all around the htc one just look at his posts plz ban him from posting in any htc forum ever again.
he probably works in sony nokia or samsung
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who are you talking about?
sorry wrong person i'll delete that lest one.
but i would love pics of that benchmark for proof
fp581 said:
sorry wrong person i'll delete that lest one.
but i would love pics of that benchmark for proof
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude I was going to go atomic, I admit it I have a terrible temper
I believe the benchmark was run by a German Android site, called Android Next, there is a video on Youtube, the GLBenchmark starts at 2.22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl1dmNhhcXs&list=UUan0vBtcwISsThTNo2uZxSQ&index=1
thanks turbo for advanced my knoledge...what a shame they didnt choose LPDDR3 but i think its nt issue these days
Just to temper this news, we must remeber that the HTC One is running at 1.7ghz, while the Samsung device is running at 1.9.
Although 200mhz does not seem like much, it could possibly account for the 7 fps difference when u factor in the difference in UI.
If in fact the Samsung device really has DDR3 ram, and the difference (after accounting for clock speed) is 2-3 fps, I can understand why HTC opted not to include it. Was not worth the extra cost most likely.
Maedhros said:
Just to temper this news, we must remeber that the HTC One is running at 1.7ghz, while the Samsung device is running at 1.9.
Although 200mhz does not seem like much, it could possibly account for the 7 fps difference when u factor in the difference in UI.
If in fact the Samsung device really has DDR3 ram, and the difference (after accounting for clock speed) is 2-3 fps, I can understand why HTC opted not to include it. Was not worth the extra cost most likely.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GLBenchmark is a test of GPU performance, and isn't really changed by CPU clockkspeed, but it is affected by bandwidth.
As a test, I downclocked my Nexus 7 from an overclocked 1.6 GHz to just 1.15 GHz, I ran GLBench and got 10 FPS. I then ran at the test again but with CPU at 1.6 GHz, the result, 10 FPS again.
I've benched the N7 with both CPU & GPU overclocked to the same level as Transformer Infinity, which gets 13 FPS, but I always get 10 FPS, the reason my N7 has lower memory bandwidth than the Transformer Infinity, because it use slower RAM and thus has less bandwidth. That is a difference of 30% in FPS, just because of lower bandwidth.
I read that LPDDR3 starts at 800 MHz or 12.8 GB/s in dual-channel configuration, whereas LPDDR2 maxs at 533 MHz or 8.5 GB/s max bandwidth in dual-channel configuration.
Turbotab said:
GLBenchmark is a test of GPU performance, and isn't really changed by CPU clockkspeed, but it is affected by bandwidth.
As a test, I downclocked my Nexus 7 from an overclocked 1.6 GHz to just 1.15 GHz, I ran GLBench and got 10 FPS. I then ran at the test again but with CPU at 1.6 GHz, the result, 10 FPS again.
I've benched the N7 with both CPU & GPU overclocked to the same level as Transformer Infinity, which gets 13 FPS, but I always get 10 FPS, the reason my N7 has lower memory bandwidth than the Transformer Infinity, because it use slower RAM and thus has less bandwidth. That is a difference of 30% in FPS, just because of lower bandwidth.
I read that LPDDR3 starts at 800 MHz or 12.8 GB/s in dual-channel configuration, whereas LPDDR2 maxs at 533 MHz or 8.5 GB/s max bandwidth in dual-channel configuration.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In that case the results are quite disappointing.
All these fantastic new phones, and so much disappointment.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Tomatoes8 said:
They could have used faster memory for the same price if they didn't cut off Samsung as a supplier. Makes you wonder where their priorities lie. Making the best products possible or just going with the motions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No one is going to take anything you say here seriously, as you've managed to have 2 threads closed in the last 30 mins. One of those inane posts you made involved you saying that HTC is going to be paying, according to your genius calculation, 20% of their profits to Apple (I forget what insanely unintelligent reason you gave). Yeah, because being able to completely migrate data from 1 completely different phone to another is such a bad idea for a company that wants to push their product.
So, what is the per unit cost of what HTC is paying for RAM now vs. what they could have gotten from Samsung? Exactly, you have no idea. I also didn't hear anything about HTC "cutting off" Samsung as a supplier, but maybe I missed it, so I google'd "htc cut off samsung supplier" and found 2 links...
http://tech2.in.com/news/smartphones/following-apple-htc-cuts-component-orders-from-samsung/505402
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20121009PD213.html
I'm not sure if you have the capability of reading or not, but I'll spoon feed you this information, ok hunny? I've taken the info from the 1st link, since there is more there.
After Apple Inc slashed its orders for memory chips for its new iPhone from major supplier and competitor, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, HTC too has reportedly cut down on its smartphone component orders from the South Korean company.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, Apple cut down on memory orders. You know, they are the one's who make the iPhone? Have a logo of an Apple on their products? Steve Jobs was the CEO before he died. Anyway, I'll continue...
According to a report by DigiTimes, HTC has reduced its orders from Samsung, and instead opted to order CMOS image sensors from OmniVision and Sony. The company has also chosen to move part of its AMOLED panel orders to AU Optronics, DigiTimes reported citing ‘sources’.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Notice it said that HTC reduced its orders from Samsung, specifically on the image sensors (that's for the camera, if you didn't know) and the screen. You know, the thing on the front of your phone that you touch to make it do things? You know what I mean, right? I encourage you to read this link (or possibly have someone read it to you)...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reduce
The point is that reduce isn't the same as cut off. Cutting off would require HTC not ordering ANYTHING from Samsung. Guess what? The One doesn't use an OmniVision CMOS sensor (don't forget, that's what the camera uses) or an AMOLED screen (the bright part of your phone that shows you info).
Also, this is a far better designed phone, especially in regards to hardware, than anything Samsung has ever produced. I went back to my EVO 4G LTE, mainly because I couldn't stand the terrible build quality of the Note 2. It just feels like a cheap toy. And, IMO, Sense is far better than TW. Samsung may have the market right now because of the Galaxy line of products, but that doesn't mean that HTC is out of the game by any means.
Seriously, attempt to use just a bit of intelligence before opening your mouth and spewing diarrhea throughout the One forums. As the saying goes: "it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're an idiot, then to open your mouth and prove it". Unfortunately for you, it's too late.
I really think Turbo was too hasty to open a new thread for this as we've been discussing this in the mega thread
http://www.glbenchmark.com/phonedetails.jsp?benchmark=glpro25&D=HTC+One
It scores 34fps in Egypt HD 1080p offscreen, while the leaked Samsung s600 device socres 41fps which is perfectly inline with Qualcomm's promised speed (3x Adreno 225)
here is a video of what I suspect the source of the benchmark, because we had no benchmark before it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl1dmNhhcXs
notice how the battery is almost at end (HTC bar at this stage means its in the last 25%) also notice the activity in the notification area
more important the post ran more than a few full benchmarks, like quadrant before running GL benchmark, this alone is enough to lower the score, especially since Adreno 320 was known to throttle in the Nexus 4
I think benchmarks scores should not be relied on in such events, especially with hundreds of hands messing with the device, we have learned from the One X launch where videos poped up showing horrible performance from the One X, eventually turned out to be were very far from the final device in ur hands
finally both the One X and Nexus 7 at the same gpu clock, but the first is DDR2 and the second is DDR3, score the same in GL Benchmark
in other words its worrying but it's best to wait for proper testers like Anand
Thread cleaned
...from some serious trolling. There should be no trace from him for some time .
but remember:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
But...
I just wonder that a Samsung phone uses high end parts from Qualcomm instead of Samsungs processors. But I am not in Samsung devices so far, so I would not judge this
Gz
Eddi
Here's a second video also showing Egypt off screen bench at 34FPS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wijp79uCwFg
Skip to 3:30
Maedhros said:
Just to temper this news, we must remeber that the HTC One is running at 1.7ghz, while the Samsung device is running at 1.9.
Although 200mhz does not seem like much, it could possibly account for the 7 fps difference when u factor in the difference in UI.
If in fact the Samsung device really has DDR3 ram, and the difference (after accounting for clock speed) is 2-3 fps, I can understand why HTC opted not to include it. Was not worth the extra cost most likely.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you're saying that 200mhz o the CPU can account for 7 fps on a GPU test?
Following what you said, the Nexus 4 should have scored 27 fps? Since it has 200mhz less...
But no, it scored 33.7...only 0.3 fps less than the One!
And you know why? First both use the same GPU (and it's what counts for a graphic test) and second the HTC phones are always slower due to Sense!
So stop *****ing and realize that the One is no god phone
Samsung device is running 4.2.1
Hello!
Should we wait for Omni Rom on Samsung Galaxy Fame (S6810)?
Please, we (all fame's users) need this ROM.
Thanks.
aps23 said:
Hello!
Should we wait for Omni Rom on Samsung Galaxy Fame (S6810)?
Please, we (all fame's users) need this ROM.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The usual answer applies as it does for any device:
It will be supported if someone picks up the device and chooses to support it.
That said, given its specifications (especially the display resolution) - very unlikely.
Thanks
Entropy512 said:
The usual answer applies as it does for any device:
It will be supported if someone picks up the device and chooses to support it.
That said, given its specifications (especially the display resolution) - very unlikely.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello! Thank you for your answer.
Here is all Galaxy Fame's features:
Also available as Samsung Galaxy Fame S6810P with NFC.
GENERAL 2G Network GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 - GT-S6810
GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 - GT-S6812 (SIM 1 & SIM 2)
3G Network HSDPA 900 / 2100
SIM Optional Dual SIM (Mini-SIM)
Announced 2013, February
Status Available. Released 2013, March
BODY Dimensions 113.2 x 61.6 x 11.6 mm (4.46 x 2.43 x 0.46 in)
Weight 120.6 g (4.23 oz)
DISPLAY Type TFT capacitive touchscreen, 256K colors
Size 320 x 480 pixels, 3.5 inches (~165 ppi pixel density)
Multitouch Yes
SOUND Alert types Vibration; MP3, WAV ringtones
Loudspeaker Yes
3.5mm jack Yes
MEMORY Card slot microSD, up to 64 GB
Internal 4 GB, 512 MB RAM
DATA GPRS Yes
EDGE Yes
Speed HSDPA, 7.2 Mbps; HSUPA, 5.76 Mbps
WLAN Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n, Wi-Fi hotspot, Wi-Fi Direct
Bluetooth Yes, v4.0 with A2DP
NFC Yes (S6810P model only)
USB Yes, microUSB v2.0
CAMERA Primary 5 MP, 2592х1944 pixels, autofocus, LED flash, check quality
Features Geo-tagging, touch focus, face detection
Video Yes, [email protected]
Secondary Yes, VGA
FEATURES OS Android OS, v4.1.2 (Jelly Bean)
CPU 1 GHz
Sensors Accelerometer, proximity, compass
Messaging SMS(threaded view), MMS, Email, Push Mail, IM, RSS
Browser HTML
Radio Stereo FM radio with RDS, FM recording
GPS Yes, with A-GPS support and GLONASS
Java Yes, via Java MIDP emulator
Colors White, Blue
- SNS integration
- MP4/WMV/H.264/H.263 player
- MP3/WAV/eAAC+/FLAC player
- Organizer
- Image/video editor
- Document viewer
- Google Search, Maps, Gmail,
YouTube, Calendar, Google Talk, Picasa
- Voice memo/dial
- Predictive text input
BATTERY Li-Ion 1300 mAh battery
Stand-by Up to 420 h (2G) / Up to 380 h (3G)
Talk time Up to 8 h 40 min (2G) / Up to 6 h 10 min (3G)
MISC SAR US 1.46 W/kg (head) 0.94 W/kg (body)
SAR EU 0.83 W/kg (head) 0.35 W/kg (body)
Price group About 120 EUR
TESTS Display Contrast ratio: 906:1 (nominal) / 1.245:1 (sunlight)
Loudspeaker Voice 66dB / Noise 64dB / Ring 75dB
Audio quality Noise -87.8dB / Crosstalk -88.5dB
Camera Photo
Battery life Endurance rating 33h
English is not my native language, so....there could be some problems with understanding. Excuse me...
As i could add....all users of this phone need custom ROM, because there is NO castom for this device....no cyanogenmod and so on,...we just use 4.1.2 (stock) without any chance to update(((((((((
The biggest problem is the display resolution. No AOSP derivative I know of has ever supported a device with resolution that low since Jellybean.
Second might be what CPU it has - Install Android System Info from the Play Store, go to System->CPU and tell me what it says for:
CPU implementer
CPU architecture
CPU variant
CPU part
CPU revision
Hardware
(these will all be together in the information)
This is all.
Cpu implementer 0x41
Cpu architecture 7
Cpu variant 0x2
Cpu part 0xc09
Cpu rev 9
Hardware rhea_ss_nevis
I see 4.3 on galacy ace. As i know
..it has the same screen...
It will greate if omni will help us to feel all new goods of android 4.4. As i know it should be better for devices with low memory and so on. So..please help us.
Excuse me for my bad english...
Sent from my GT-S6810 using xda app-developers app
EntrPlease said:
The biggest problem is the display resolution. No AOSP derivative I know of has ever supported a device with resolution that low since Jellybean.
Second might be what CPU it has - Install Android System Info from the Play Store, go to System->CPU and tell me what it says for:
CPU implementer
CPU architecture
CPU variant
CPU part
CPU revision
Hardware
(these will all be together in the information)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, please, make ROM.*
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
CWM for Samsung Galaxy Fame
Perhaps is useful!
CWM 6 For Samsung Galaxy Fame by nemorus63
misha_android said:
Perhaps is useful!
CWM 6 For Samsung Galaxy Fame by nemorus63
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not useful.
CWM is <1% of the work needed to bring up a device even when that device has a currently supported chipset. CWM is also reasonably chipset-independent - as long as the manufacturer didn't implement a really screwy framebuffer driver it is fairly easy to port. 90% of the time it can be "ported" using Recovery Builder.
The BCM21654G in the Fame is not supported by any opensource firmware project in existence and Broadcom is notoriously unfriendly towards open source. Supporting this chip would likely be even more difficult than supporting MTK devices has been.
So....you mean that we will not see omni castom rom on our devices((((((?
Sent from my GT-S6810 using xda app-developers app
So, what should we do?
Sent from my GT-S6810 using xda app-developers app
Entropy512 said:
Not useful.
CWM is <1% of the work needed to bring up a device even when that device has a currently supported chipset. CWM is also reasonably chipset-independent - as long as the manufacturer didn't implement a really screwy framebuffer driver it is fairly easy to port. 90% of the time it can be "ported" using Recovery Builder.
The BCM21654G in the Fame is not supported by any opensource firmware project in existence and Broadcom is notoriously unfriendly towards open source. Supporting this chip would likely be even more difficult than supporting MTK devices has been.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please do not say "no." I know it's very hard. But we'll be around helps. Please!
So, give please an answer to us. Should we wait for omni rom on our devices or it is impossible for u to support us?
Thanks.
Sent from my GT-S6810 using xda app-developers app
aps23 said:
So, give please an answer to us. Should we wait for omni rom on our devices or it is impossible for u to support us?
Thanks.
Sent from my GT-S6810 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
None of us own a device. Blind development is impossible.
If support for the device is to come from anyone, it will be from someone who already owns the device.
That's the power of open source - the power is in YOUR hands.
Entropy512 said:
None of us own a device. Blind development is impossible.
If support for the device is to come from anyone, it will be from someone who already owns the device.
That's the power of open source - the power is in YOUR hands.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have to be fearless testers That will quickly test all!
misha_android said:
You have to be fearless testers That will quickly test all!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fearless testers or not, blind development doesn't work except for very rare cases (such as a device that is already entirely brought up and is 99% identical to a supported device).
For a raw bringup, the build/upload/wait for testers cycle pretty much kills any possibility of success - anyone who thinks they have any chances of success doing an initial bringup blind are deluded. It's time consuming enough to do build/flash/test...
Entropy512 said:
Fearless testers or not, blind development doesn't work except for very rare cases (such as a device that is already entirely brought up and is 99% identical to a supported device).
For a raw bringup, the build/upload/wait for testers cycle pretty much kills any possibility of success - anyone who thinks they have any chances of success doing an initial bringup blind are deluded. It's time consuming enough to do build/flash/test...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And if you will have a device that you take for it? We for example, try to help Donate.
misha_android said:
And if you will have a device that you take for it? We for example, try to help Donate.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not me. Two reasons:
1) I'm already finding myself with not enough time to handle Omni leadership and the devices I already own - ESPECIALLY not for a device that is a completely unsupported platform in any AOSP-derivative project. I am not aware of ANYONE that is supporting a Broadcom-based device so far.
2) Unless I see evidence of serious attitude changes from Samsung, I'm done with them, the only Samsungs I'm supporting are my old exynos4 clunkers and (as many exynos4 users will tell you), those devices are dead last on my list.
Entropy512 said:
Not me. Two reasons:
1) I'm already finding myself with not enough time to handle Omni leadership and the devices I already own - ESPECIALLY not for a device that is a completely unsupported platform in any AOSP-derivative project. I am not aware of ANYONE that is supporting a Broadcom-based device so far.
2) Unless I see evidence of serious attitude changes from Samsung, I'm done with them, the only Samsungs I'm supporting are my old exynos4 clunkers and (as many exynos4 users will tell you), those devices are dead last on my list.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My life has lost its meaning :crying:
misha_android said:
My life has lost its meaning :crying:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you phone works. It's software might not be up to date, but so is it's hardware. When buying a phone you already have to factor in the compatibility to custom ROMs.
I can understand that this is not what you wanted to hear, but unfortunately that is how it is.
How many of you know that the MSM8960Pro found in the Moto X uses most of the silicon found in the Snapdragon 600? There's a lot of confusion concerning this.
The only thing we're missing is LPDDR3 support, which probably would've cost too much to change (no room in the dual-core die); 200MHz increase in clock speed was also passed up. So, it's not a binned S600. It's a custom SoC for Motorola.
So, Qualcomm updated the CPU cores from Krait 200 to 300 (IPC increases), and also threw in the latest Adreno 320 for good measure (higher performance, fill rate, GFLOPS). It's a win for us.
The Nexus 4 and 2013 Nexus 7 use the older Adreno 320 and Krait 200 cores (the Nexus 7 uses a similar higher performing Adreno 320 though). It shows, sometimes.
I didn't think it was a secret that the dual core on the Moto X is based on the Snapdragon 600 and not the S4...
Source?
DroidOnRoids said:
Source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapdragon_(system_on_chip)
Excluding the "new/old" Adreno 320.
Yep, known this all along. X8 is more like a dual-core S600 (as compared to the quad-core S600 found in the GS4 and HTC One) than a dual-core S4 Pro (as compared to the quad-core S4 Pro found in the Nexus 4). Motorola really did a disservice to themselves by calling it an S4 Pro, but since their chip was customized and somewhere in between the standard S4 Pro and standard S600, I suspect the Qualcomm marketing department forced them to round down instead of up in regards to naming.
I mentioned this once and was told I was wrong. Nice to see confirmation.
Sent from my XT1056 using Tapatalk
It's unfortunate that qualcom's naming scheme is so confusing/misleading. I honestly think the "s4" branding of the cpu has cost Motorola a lot of sales. Even though as you pointed out, it really is undeserved.
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
T-Keith said:
It's unfortunate that qualcom's naming scheme is so confusing/misleading. I honestly think the "s4" branding of the cpu has cost Motorola a lot of sales. Even though as you pointed out, it really is undeserved.
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really think it is a progress. I believe Google is trying to change the understanding of the Android world. For example in my country (Turkey) nowadays, people are using the word of "trash" a lot in the biggest mobile tech forums. The main reason to that is the mark the hardware and then mark the device like an OS-less PC. The biggest and the most up-to-date example is Nexus 5. Everyone says it has no change in front of G2 because of its lower camera and 2300mAh battery. Only rare of them are taking software, design, direct updates etc. into account. An nearly all Samsung users make the same calculation. They believe the greater and newer the hardware (I mean SoC) the longer the phone will live.. We all know that is wrong with Samsung's closed-sourced mentality but many does not. So they count the cores
I believe Google will change that in the future with more low end devices and ligher software and more compatetive prices..
I'm a bit of a Samsung fan. I guess we have a bit of favoritism toward the first smartphone we really get in to, and also I really like the Galaxy series. I have owned/own HTC's, LG's, and Moto's too. But the Moto X has made me appreciate the overall performance of the device and to not focus so much on the specs of the hardware. If the device performs as it should, I don't care if it has a single core and 1 gig of ram. Just my 2 cents.
jspradling7 said:
I'm a bit of a Samsung fan. I guess we have a bit of favoritism toward the first smartphone we really get in to, and also I really like the Galaxy series. I have owned/own HTC's, LG's, and Moto's too. But the Moto X has made me appreciate the overall performance of the device and to not focus so much on the specs of the hardware. If the device performs as it should, I don't care if it has a single core and 1 gig of ram. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This ^
I've played with most the "top" phones and the Moto x stands up to all of them....or better in some cases. Throw in the battery life I'm getting....and it pulls even further ahead of most the flagships.
That's to my eye anyway. And no, I didn't play games on them, cause I don't personally play "big" games on my phone.
That's made me extremely happy with the phone I picked.
Sent from my Moto X cellular telephone...
Jason.DROID said:
The Nexus 4 and 2013 Nexus 7 use the older Adreno 320 and Krait 200 cores (the Nexus 7 uses a similar higher performing Adreno 320 though). It shows, sometimes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Incorrect. The 2013 Nexus 7 uses Krait 300 cores.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapdragon_(system_on_chip)
The chip for the Nexus 7 is: APQ8064–1AA (Advertised as S4 Pro)
ShensMobile said:
Incorrect. The 2013 Nexus 7 uses Krait 300 cores.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapdragon_(system_on_chip)
The chip for the Nexus 7 is: APQ8064–1AA (Advertised as S4 Pro)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's good to know, since I have a 2013 Nexus 7 LTE. It wouldn't make sense to use an older Adreno 320 at 1920x1200. Still, it's not quite as smooth as the Moto X, which is interesting. Software clearly has a role to play.
Anandtech showed how the Moto X gets its performance. The dual cores are tasked higher than the quads, which gives a nice boost.
Jason.DROID said:
That's good to know, since I have a 2013 Nexus 7 LTE. It wouldn't make sense to use an older Adreno 320 at 1920x1200. Still, it's not quite as smooth as the Moto X, which is interesting. Software clearly has a role to play.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait what? No, the GPU is still the same. An Adreno 320 is an Adreno 320 (as far as I know). It's the CPU that uses the Krait 300 cores. That's why the Nexus 7 is less smooth than the Moto X, due to the resolution difference. However, in raw computational speed, the Nexus 7 should beat the Moto X due to the increased number of Krait 300 cores (4 vs 2).
ShensMobile said:
Wait what? No, the GPU is still the same. An Adreno 320 is an Adreno 320 (as far as I know). It's the CPU that uses the Krait 300 cores. That's why the Nexus 7 is less smooth than the Moto X, due to the resolution difference. However, in raw computational speed, the Nexus 7 should beat the Moto X due to the increased number of Krait 300 cores (4 vs 2).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, there are different Adreno 320s. The one from the S600 isn't the same as the S4 Pro in the Nexus 4.
Jason.DROID said:
No, there are different Adreno 320s. The one from the S600 isn't the same as the S4 Pro in the Nexus 4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you have a source for how the Adreno 320's are different? The Wikipedia page for Adreno only specifies one 320 chip, which is used in the S4 Pro, S4 Prime, and Snapdraon 600 series.
ShensMobile said:
Do you have a source for how the Adreno 320's are different? The Wikipedia page for Adreno only specifies one 320 chip, which is used in the S4 Pro, S4 Prime, and Snapdraon 600 series.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This should prove it is not the same:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Offscreen is 1080p. The results are inline with the Snapdragon 600 Adreno 320s, NOT the original APQ8064 in the Nexus 4.
You can compare this to the HTC One w/ an S600 (not OC'd AFAIK): http://www.anandtech.com/show/6747/htc-one-review/13
Also, look at the GFLOPS increases in the Adreno Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adreno
51.2 (1gen-S4 pro)/86,4(2gen-S600)/97.2 (S600 AB)
GFLOPS increased on the order of about 1.6x
Jason.DROID said:
This should prove it is not the same:
Offscreen is 1080p. The results are inline with the Snapdragon 600 Adreno 320s, NOT the original APQ8064 in the Nexus 4.
You can compare this to the HTC One w/ an S600 (not OC'd AFAIK): http://www.anandtech.com/show/6747/htc-one-review/13
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's very interesting. I did some more digging and can't find any conclusive evidence on the differences in the Adreno 320's seen on different dies. One source did quote Qualcomm saying that the 320 on the S600 should be able to clock in at higher speeds than the 320 in the S4 Pro in the Nexus 4 though.
Cool, thanks for the heads up!
The S600 AB is used in the Galaxy S4, so the Adreno 320 in that isn't equal to ours as the clock increases to 450MHz over the 400MHz found in the Moto X and HTC One. Plus, Samsung pushes it to 480MHz in certain scenarios.
So, we have a given GFLOPS rating of 86.4, while the GS4 has 97.2. Most high-end discrete graphics chips in PCs are over 1.0 TFLOPS (or 1000 GFLOPS). So, I'm not sure why manufacturers keep pushing resolutions higher.
And we're still on LPDDR2, but the great thing is that we have lower CAS and other latencies than LPDDR3; DDR3 gets around that with pure speed. We're just down on ultimate bandwidth, so bandwidth limited scenrios will show a hit.
ShensMobile said:
That's very interesting. I did some more digging and can't find any conclusive evidence on the differences in the Adreno 320's seen on different dies. One source did quote Qualcomm saying that the 320 on the S600 should be able to clock in at higher speeds than the 320 in the S4 Pro in the Nexus 4 though.
Cool, thanks for the heads up!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The difference is due to GPU clock speed. The S4Pro GPU is clocked slower than the S600 GPU.
Everything else about the GPU hardware is the same.
Sent from my LG-E971 using Tapatalk
Jason.DROID said:
The S600 AB is used in the Galaxy S4, so the Adreno 320 in that isn't equal to ours as the clock increases to 450MHz over the 400MHz found in the Moto X and HTC One. Plus, Samsung pushes it to 480MHz in certain scenarios.
So, we have a given GFLOPS rating of 86.4, while the GS4 has 97.2. Most high-end discrete graphics chips in PCs are over 1.0 TFLOPS (or 1000 GFLOPS). So, I'm not sure why manufacturers keep pushing resolutions higher.
And we're still on LPDDR2, but the great thing is that we have lower CAS and other latencies than LPDDR3; DDR3 gets around that with pure speed. We're just down on ultimate bandwidth, so bandwidth limited scenrios will show a hit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
phoenix_rizzen said:
The difference is due to GPU clock speed. The S4Pro GPU is clocked slower than the S600 GPU.
Everything else about the GPU hardware is the same.
Sent from my LG-E971 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, you two are correct. My bad, I guess I've just been looking at too many numbers this morning.