HTC Wizzard seems to be 1/2 times faster than the Magician even thought the processor is rated slower in MHz rating.
Judging from the PC arena where a Pentium M processor @ 2.0 GHz performs as fast as a Pentium 4 processor @ 3.8GHz i beleive we are going to be happy about the Wizzards performance once we see more detailed benchmarks.
The benchmark table found below was found in a review about another device but it includes Wizzard and Magician Benchmark numbers as well.
That is excellent info and great news
Finally some facts and figures - encouraging ones at that!
yes they are indeed encouraging, i hope to see more detailed figures soon in order to decide whether to go for the device or not. lets all hope that there gonna be plenty of reviews once the device hits the streets.
Its the ol AMD Itel thing where it sounds worse but in fact its not that bad actually... the question here is "sound the bench march still be in Mhz or MIPS ?" to help compaire...
Terran
Although the wizard fares better than the magician... Java for me is not convincing enough. You can check out www.jbenchmark.com for a complete database of java benchmark on mobile phone/smartphone/pda-phone.
Check out HP iPAQ Hx4700... It only manage a mere 31 point on the same benchmark.
Image manipulation 54
Text 87
Sprites, game scene 28
3D transformation 22
User interface 9
It totally depends on what version the Java runtime it was running on.
:shock: :shock: :shock:
so are there any benchmark software like PCmark for PDA ??
As you may know, there's some controversy over in the Kaiser forum about how those devices perform in terms of video and graphics, and how they should be expected to perform - eg, should they have drivers or not.
Some Kaiser users are starting to benchmark their devices to see how they compare to others, but it would be useful if we could have some figures for HTC's last generation of 400mhz "Tytn's". Would anyone care to benchmark their Hermes with this software - http://www.virtualspaghetti.com/files/VsBenchmark2007Setup.exe - and let us know your results?
For info, the Kaisers are scoring around 1300-1600 overall.
Vario 2 (Hermes) - Tmobile WM6 (UK Official ROM)
ROM 3.60.110.4
ROM 9/5/07
Radio 1.50.00.00
Protocol 32.83.7020.20H
---------------------------
Results as-is on device with varios programs installed etc..
Graphics Test 1337
Others Test 0778
JPEG Test 1997
Games Test 1158
Sound Test 2441
Final Score 1550
I've run benchmark from SKTools, and it stated X1's RAM performance as far below Diamond, and I've noticed that my X1 ix indeed can be considered slow when running a lot of programs while it still have more than 50% more RAM; I've seen the CPU usage and it wasn't really stressed out.
So my conclusion is that X1 RAM is somewhat slow (mean : RAM speed, and timings -if you're familiar to the world of overclocking and such)
anybody else noticed?
nap007 said:
I've run benchmark from SKTools, and it stated X1's RAM performance as far below Diamond, and I've noticed that my X1 ix indeed can be considered slow when running a lot of programs while it still have more than 50% more RAM; I've seen the CPU usage and it wasn't really stressed out.
So my conclusion is that X1 RAM is somewhat slow (mean : RAM speed, and timings -if you're familiar to the world of overclocking and such)
anybody else noticed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would be quite skeptical of these results, HTC Diamond, Touch Pro and HD have nearly the same hardware components as X1. They have exactly the same CPU and I wouldn't mind to bet that they have the same (or similar) memory chip.
Maybe more benchmarks should be done by other users of both devices just in case.
nap007 said:
I've run benchmark from SKTools, and it stated X1's RAM performance as far below Diamond, and I've noticed that my X1 ix indeed can be considered slow when running a lot of programs while it still have more than 50% more RAM; I've seen the CPU usage and it wasn't really stressed out.
So my conclusion is that X1 RAM is somewhat slow (mean : RAM speed, and timings -if you're familiar to the world of overclocking and such)
anybody else noticed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hm, my score is 1010.00 if thats some sort of help
nap007 said:
I've run benchmark from SKTools, and it stated X1's RAM performance as far below Diamond, and I've noticed that my X1 ix indeed can be considered slow when running a lot of programs while it still have more than 50% more RAM; I've seen the CPU usage and it wasn't really stressed out.
So my conclusion is that X1 RAM is somewhat slow (mean : RAM speed, and timings -if you're familiar to the world of overclocking and such)
anybody else noticed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it depends on what your phone is up to when you run it.
These are my Xperia results.
2nd fastest integer cpu results (323.57)
HTC Touch Diamond (331.11) with the Qualcomm MSM7201A CPU
RAM speed was actaully a lot faster than the Touch Diamond
Xperia X1 (1493)
Samsung Omnia (868)
HTC Touch Diamond (472)
In most of the other tests the Xperia scores very well.
Try a soft reset and benchmark it again maybe ?
Did you also notice SKTools shows CPU Clock speed of 400000000 or 400MHz !
Not sure if thats because the CPU is not running at full speed when its at low CPU utilitization or its been clock speed reduced to help with battery life like the iPhones.
iXX
ixxeon said:
I think it depends on what your phone is up to when you run it.
These are my Xperia results.
2nd fastest integer cpu results (323.57)
HTC Touch Diamond (331.11) with the Qualcomm MSM7201A CPU
RAM speed was actaully a lot faster than the Touch Diamond
Xperia X1 (1493)
Samsung Omnia (868)
HTC Touch Diamond (472)
In most of the other tests the Xperia scores very well.
Try a soft reset and benchmark it again maybe ?
Did you also notice SKTools shows CPU Clock speed of 400000000 or 400MHz !
Not sure if thats because the CPU is not running at full speed when its at low CPU utilitization or its been clock speed reduced to help with battery life like the iPhones.
iXX
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hmmm you're right, I re test it again and now it's just a bit slower than yours, there has been some inconsistency it seemed.
interesting.... HomeScreen PlusPlus ALSO reports 400 MHz..... i think Device Information under Start --> Settings is only showing the SPECIFICATION that it's 528 MHz but I'm pretty sure it's underclocked to 400 MHz.
Same for me: 400 mhz. We need to find a program to overclock the device.
tsourisg said:
Same for me: 400 mhz. We need to find a program to overclock the device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe I am wrong but I think these devices have dinamic CPU speed. So probably 400 Mhz is the "normal" speed but it goes up to 528 only when "is needed". In the same way It goest down to 200 Mhz in standby
Dani
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)
Hello!
I really dont know whats normal for a X8 in Quadrant but my X8 are sometimes lying around 682 but I've also been on 720-750 a couple of times. How can those numbers be so different?
Phone info:
Used since: 2010-12-24
ROM: Rachts CM7 Rc4 2.3.3 (Latest update)
CPU: Overclocked to 710 MHz
I can't post my question in the Development thread about overclocking because I don't have 10 posts but I've now overclocked it just to 710 (Normal with that "program") but how can i try to go up to 730 Mhz now?
Thanks
RoseN
Added some more info to first post...
The number show you the speed of your phone the time you test is. This means that if the next time you make the test your phone search for network or you play with your screen or you download something or you have many programmes running then the result of your speed will be lower.
What quadrant does is called benchmarking. Basically, it measures your phones performance in several aspects and at the end you could compare it to some of the big guns in android.
It analyses the CPU, 2D and 3D performance, and memory among others. The higher you score, the better our phone's performance has been rated.
Some of the things that affect your rating are: the number of apps that are running, overclock or clocking of CPU, and available memory.
You phone could misbehave from time to time so the results may vary...