Related
Hm? What you mean... Cpu Clock Speed 553Mhz...
Hahaha, that's funny.
It might be because pocket dos doesn't recognize something and it displays a default value. Maybe it doesn't know about the new hardware we have in the HD2. Don't know for sure, its just a guess.
There has been talk in at least one other thread that the CPU only runs as fast as it needs to for the workload it has. This reduces heat generation and power use.
If this is indeed the case then this could explain your outcome.
and other from Sktools
From what I've read in other threads, this is because there isn't any software (currently) that's capable of calculating the speed of the Snapdragon processor.
Don't know how true it is, but I can tell you for a fact that this phone is running faster than that. I know that after having a HD, running a Leo ROM on it. It was VERY slow, compared to the lovely, fluid HD2.
cyberra2n said:
Hm? What you mean... Cpu Clock Speed 553Mhz...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
another junk thread and waste of time! Feel the phone, it is obviously telling you it is bloody fast, no need digging data to proof the actual speed it has!
I just read this article about Gingerbread and the 1Ghz 512mb requirements. This article says that because the nexus one is clocked at 998mhz and since the rumored HTC vision the first dual core phone with 2 cores at 800mhz, (with a max stated by Qualcomm of 1.2ghz per core) won't qualify for Gingerbread.
How stupid can they possibly be? I really hate it when stupid people write tech articles.
http://www.mobilemag.com/2010/06/30...uire-1ghz-processors-coming-mid-october-2010/
Yeah, N1 will surely get 3.0. 998MHz is less than 3% off from 1024MHz so I wouldn't worry about it.
Also, I'm failing to see how 2 cores is a good idea on a smartphone, unless it has some amazing battery, or I'm wrong about CPU power consumption. Dual cores have been popular on desktops for years now, and few apps actually use more than one core at a time. Android is designed to use as little CPU for background tasks as possible so I can only imagine multi-cores would only help with Flash and maybe video recording. 2 cores at 800Mhz seems like it would be slower than 1 core at 1Ghz for most tasks, and less efficient. I'll probably be proven wrong, but we'll see.
First, the RUMOR is just that. A rumor. It's probably fake.
Second, 1ghz, if anything, is probably a suggestion to mfgrs that Google doesn't recommend you run it on anything less than something that's 1ghz.
It's a rumor that's probably false and someone wrote an article assuming that stars had to mathematically align for things to happen.
That's what I call a TROLL ARTICLE. Just trying to drudge up some hits. Most iphone articles are the same thing. People eat them up, but they contain no real news or useful information.
Gr8gorilla said:
How stupid can they possibly be? I really hate it when stupid people write tech articles.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah me too! but it makes my day easier by giving oe something to hate
Its a good thing a GOOGLE EMPLOYEE just yesterday said the Gingerbread requirement rumors were complete b.s. and made up for the sake of writing an article.
gizmodo.com/5578055/android-gingerbread-rumors-dismissed-by-google-on-twitter
Well the specs on the leaked vision have it using the new dual core qualcomm processors. Qualcomm specs on the processor have it using less power with the 45n process in manufacturing. I am just guessing here but the processor has the ability to be clocked to 1.2ghz but I guess it is clocked down to 800 per core for the battery life.
But anyway it is all speculation until some pics or some test devices get out.
I mean if they were planning on releasing a dual core phone running Gingerbread in less than 4 months, why would the carriers or manufacturer's want you to know? Then you would wait to buy a phone. The way it works now is, you get the best thing going, say an evo or the new samsung phone. Then 3 months from now, a phone drops that blows everything else out of the water, you have got to have the latest and greatest so you drop another 500-600 on that just a few months later. They make a lot more money that way.
Don't you guys follow Romain Guy on twitter? http://twitter.com/romainguy
I love it when people just make stuff up and report it as news. http://goo.gl/cwbf
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He already said yesterday that the rumors are fake. Why do you still think this is true?
There's no minimum specs for Gingerbread and i'm 100% sure that N1 will get it.
Even if it doesn't, wouldn't you be tempted to get a dual code device in late fall?
I'll most probably get a device like that with 3.0 on it.
DDM123 said:
Yeah, N1 will surely get 3.0. 998MHz is less than 3% off from 1024MHz so I wouldn't worry about it.
Also, I'm failing to see how 2 cores is a good idea on a smartphone, unless it has some amazing battery, or I'm wrong about CPU power consumption. Dual cores have been popular on desktops for years now, and few apps actually use more than one core at a time. Android is designed to use as little CPU for background tasks as possible so I can only imagine multi-cores would only help with Flash and maybe video recording. 2 cores at 800Mhz seems like it would be slower than 1 core at 1Ghz for most tasks, and less efficient. I'll probably be proven wrong, but we'll see.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I agree that dual core on a phone is probably overkill, there are quite a few reasons..
Dual core can be more power efficient, sharing hardware while having overall higher capacity.
Faster processors = Hotter, more power requirements, etc
Multiple cores isn't just for single-app speed, it's for multiple apps running simultaneously without affecting each other. Of course if you need an app to do heavy processing it should multithread and use multiple cores, but I doubt you'll be rendering in Blender on your phone.... But with dual core, you can have two apps using 100% of a CPU without noticing any slowdown. Or... 1 app using 100% CPU and the other CPU free to do other stuff, letting the system stay responsive.
AOSP doesn't have hardware requirements.
Market has hardware requirements.
Even if fake or not, this thread is stupid cause the thread starter thinks the nexus is not a 1 ghz phone cause its only 998. Umm have you never seen Google's official spec page, they quote it at 1 ghz. Geez.
RogerPodacter said:
Even if fake or not, this thread is stupid cause the thread starter thinks the nexus is not a 1 ghz phone cause its only 998. Umm have you never seen Google's official spec page, they quote it at 1 ghz. Geez.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Troll, where in his post does he say that?
These rumors were already denounced.
http://phandroid.com/2010/07/02/dan-morrill-calls-foul-on-whoever-started-that-gingerbread-rumor/
How people could believe them from the beginning is just bonkers to me.
DDM123 said:
Yeah, N1 will surely get 3.0. 998MHz is less than 3% off from 1024MHz so I wouldn't worry about it.
Also, I'm failing to see how 2 cores is a good idea on a smartphone, unless it has some amazing battery, or I'm wrong about CPU power consumption. Dual cores have been popular on desktops for years now, and few apps actually use more than one core at a time. Android is designed to use as little CPU for background tasks as possible so I can only imagine multi-cores would only help with Flash and maybe video recording. 2 cores at 800Mhz seems like it would be slower than 1 core at 1Ghz for most tasks, and less efficient. I'll probably be proven wrong, but we'll see.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1 GHZ is 1000 Mhz not 1024, this is not Byte or flash memory... so 998Mhz is basically 1GHZ like you said, just even closer
And the whole thing is a scam as the previous poster said...
McFroger3 said:
Troll, where in his post does he say that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
oops i read it as HE was saying that, but he meant the article said that (which i didnt read as you can tell). my bad people
and BTW, stop calling everyone a troll at the drop of a hat. so i mis-read something. doesnt mean troll. troll this, troll that. my post history speaks pretty clearly that i've not once posted such things.
lorin.bute said:
Don't you guys follow Romain Guy on twitter? http://twitter.com/romainguy
He already said yesterday that the rumors are fake. Why do you still think this is true?
There's no minimum specs for Gingerbread and i'm 100% sure that N1 will get it.
Even if it doesn't, wouldn't you be tempted to get a dual code device in late fall?
I'll most probably get a device like that with 3.0 on it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes will get dual core. Point of my post is not the validity of the requirements but the statements about what phones would get the updates if the requirements were true. Anyway, with romain guys post its moot!
I was totally buying into the dual core processing for all these new phones until I stopped looking at the "cool factor" and started actually thinking...
In all reality, why in the world do we need a dual core processor on a cell phone?
Don't even say 3d gaming, because that's just ridiculous. The percentage of people that want to play call of duty on their cell phones is probably less than the amount of people who know what rooting is.
What's wrong with optimizing our current 1 and 1.2 ghz processors to give us optimized performance and throwing in decent GPU's?
Anything more than that is COMPLETELY unnecessary for a cell phone.
Where do you guys think the cellular industry is heading?
Its moving waaay too fast imo.
Why don't we focus on things that people are having issues with like Battery Life, build quality of the phones, quality of cameras, crappy software, etc?
I don't know.... Sometimes I feel like the only person with sense nowadays.
Feel Me?
I always thought that dual cores were supposed to be more efficient and therefore have greater battery life and better multitasking experiences.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
I would say you don't know the purpose of dual core processors. At this point in time their purpose would be to support all of the multitasking rather than making one program run better (since most programs at this point are not programmed to take advantage of multiple cores). With simultaneous programs running on separate cores you would avoid the slow down that you would experience if you were running them all on the same core. I would agree with focusing more on battery life to some extent though.
Miamicane99 said:
I would say you don't know the purpose of dual core processors. At this point in time their purpose would be to support all of the multitasking rather than making one program run better (since most programs at this point are not programmed to take advantage of multiple cores). With simultaneous programs running on separate cores you would avoid the slow down that you would experience if you were running them all on the same core. I would agree with focusing more on battery life to some extent though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol, really?
My year old snapdragon runs numerous programs together perfectly smooth with absolutely no hiccups or lag.
I'm willing to bet a stock phone with (as I stated in the OP) optimized 1 or 1.2 ghz processor and GPU, add in a decent amount of ram and you have absolutely everything you need.
The hardware isn't the problem with android, it's the software. For some reason people don't seem to notice that. There remedy is to add unnecessary power to our phones that will more than likely never be used...
If dual core is somehow supposed to increase battery life, then I can understand somewhat the reasoning behind them. But I don't understand how two processors will noticeably help battery life in real time.
Miamicane99 said:
I would say you don't know the purpose of dual core processors. At this point in time their purpose would be to support all of the multitasking rather than making one program run better (since most programs at this point are not programmed to take advantage of multiple cores). With simultaneous programs running on separate cores you would avoid the slow down that you would experience if you were running them all on the same core. I would agree with focusing more on battery life to some extent though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice try, but the purpose is to make apps also run better. Apps can easily be patched to take advantage of multiple cores and enhance its performance and such.
Also, multiple cores allow for higher performance with a lower hit on battery life. That alone is enough of a purpose of multiple cores. Not to mention ability to stream full 1080p videos, etc, which will eventually be the norm. This is specially important when outputting to TVs and the like.
starplaya93 said:
I was totally buying into the dual core processing for all these new phones until I stopped looking at the "cool factor" and started actually thinking...
In all reality, why in the world do we need a dual core processor on a cell phone?
Don't even say 3d gaming, because that's just ridiculous. The percentage of people that want to play call of duty on their cell phones is probably less than the amount of people who know what rooting is.
What's wrong with optimizing our current 1 and 1.2 ghz processors to give us optimized performance and throwing in decent GPU's?
Anything more than that is COMPLETELY unnecessary for a cell phone.
Where do you guys think the cellular industry is heading?
Its moving waaay too fast imo.
Why don't we focus on things that people are having issues with like Battery Life, build quality of the phones, quality of cameras, crappy software, etc?
I don't know.... Sometimes I feel like the only person with sense nowadays.
Feel Me?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are absolutely right. While we are at it, shouldn't 64K of memory be enough for anybody?
akarol said:
Also, multiple cores allow for higher performance with a lower hit on battery life.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you get this from?
starplaya93 said:
Lol, really?
My year old snapdragon runs numerous programs together perfectly smooth with absolutely no hiccups or lag.
I'm willing to bet a stock phone with (as I stated in the OP) optimized 1 or 1.2 ghz processor and GPU, add in a decent amount of ram and you have absolutely everything you need.
The hardware isn't the problem with android, it's the software. For some reason people don't seem to notice that. There remedy is to add unnecessary power to our phones that will more than likely never be used...
If dual core is somehow supposed to increase battery life, then I can understand somewhat the reasoning behind them. But I don't understand how two processors will noticeably help battery life in real time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
absolutely right, android sucks when it comes to graphics. No hardware acceleration. Perfect example of why a first gen iPhone can run circles around a evo with half the hardware power when it comes to rendering effects and graphics. These hardware specs are just SPECS anyways. That dual core Tegra LG android phone thats coming out still lags despite how powerful it is.
I agree with OP. if our phones had a faster single core, say 1.6~2.0gjz and a decent gpu I believe it would perform better and have better battery life vs a dual core 800~1000mhz with the same gpu, dual core is a gimmick, nothing more
Perhaps this is a case of build it and they (new uses) will come? Good points on both side.
No, 3D is a gimmick. Dualcore CPU's, until fully optimized - and even then - is not a gimmick.
NewZJ said:
I agree with OP. if our phones had a faster single core, say 1.6~2.0gjz and a decent gpu I believe it would perform better and have better battery life vs a dual core 800~1000mhz with the same gpu, dual core is a gimmick, nothing more
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
eh, i wouldnt necessarily call it a gimmick, imagine a dual core android phone that did have hardware acceleration. The possibilities would be crazy!!
But yes I totally agree with you also, until the fix the inherent flaw in every android device, more powerful harware is just going to drain the battery faster, instead of just optimizing the OS. Which sounds easy in practice but when there are hundreds of android devices, its probably not an easy task. ( i could very well be wrong though)
NewZJ said:
I agree with OP. if our phones had a faster single core, say 1.6~2.0gjz and a decent gpu I believe it would perform better and have better battery life vs a dual core 800~1000mhz with the same gpu, dual core is a gimmick, nothing more
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tell that to my quad core PC!
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
If you build it, they will come.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
starplaya93 said:
I was totally buying into the dual core processing for all these new phones until I stopped looking at the "cool factor" and started actually thinking...
In all reality, why in the world do we need a dual core processor on a cell phone?
Don't even say 3d gaming, because that's just ridiculous. The percentage of people that want to play call of duty on their cell phones is probably less than the amount of people who know what rooting is.
What's wrong with optimizing our current 1 and 1.2 ghz processors to give us optimized performance and throwing in decent GPU's?
Anything more than that is COMPLETELY unnecessary for a cell phone.
Where do you guys think the cellular industry is heading?
Its moving waaay too fast imo.
Why don't we focus on things that people are having issues with like Battery Life, build quality of the phones, quality of cameras, crappy software, etc?
I don't know.... Sometimes I feel like the only person with sense nowadays.
Feel Me?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it makes perfect sense , a lot is being asked out of a phone ,console like 3d graphics for gaming and yeah i do like some games on my evo like angry birds once in awhile but overall my main priority of my evo is just communicating and and apps for productivity like wifi tether etc. and the rest is for customizing which im pretty happy that my over clocked processor handles that great with occasional lags buts thats just the software though , if wanted gaming i would go with home consoles or portable gaming , i agree that people are just giving dual core too much hype , Right?
novanosis85 said:
If you build it, they will come.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Good one. lol
I don't think I said exactly what I meant in the OP...
My main point is that android does not need dual core processors at this point. We are still a new OS and there are tons of bugs and things that should be ironed out in the software, etc.
I have no problem with dual core processors if some people feel they will offer better performance and battery life than a 3rd or 4th generation fully optimized 1.2 ghz processor with a beast gpu.
My concern is that android is moving too fast for its own good. The OS has a lot of potential, but if we're just trying to blaze past the competition we're missing out ON A LOT of things.
3d is hands down a gimmick. There is absolutely no justification for that. lol
novanosis85 said:
Tell that to my quad core PC!
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
aight, take your quad for example, lets say its 3ghz, now make a 12ghz single core and only run 2~3 apps at a time, I think it will run them better and use less power to do so
NewZJ said:
I agree with OP. if our phones had a faster single core, say 1.6~2.0gjz and a decent gpu I believe it would perform better and have better battery life vs a dual core 800~1000mhz with the same gpu, dual core is a gimmick, nothing more
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A single core 2GHz CPU would probably be slower and suck up more juice than a dual core 1 GHz CPU.
I personally agree with the mentality of energy efficiency over power. I'm just not certain whether dual cores are better or worse in that regard. Two cores doing a few simple tasks would be more energy efficient than a similarly designed single core doing the same tasks, but firing both cores up at max performance would obviously not be. Right now, aside from gaming, I don't see any apps that would strain a dual core; so if provided with great software support from the kernel/OS, maybe multiple cores are the better option. I don't know, maybe someone more technical could shed some light.
Regardless though, software will evolve and become more complex and resource hungry. Maybe HD video editing (not complex just simple social network / personal stuff) and some other stuff I can't think of but will likely pop up. I definitely see much more value in having a powerful GPU, a big reason why I think the EVO ultimately falls short, but like I said, maybe big phones + big batteries (1900+ mAh) + small CPUs and components + multiple cores + and optimized software is the answer to the battery problems.
NewZJ said:
aight, take your quad for example, lets say its 3ghz, now make a 12ghz single core and only run 2~3 apps at a time, I think it will run them better and use less power to do so
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. No, it wont.
I still can't understand why everyone wants to upgrade processors so quickly. I am not talking about any device or processor in particular but in general. Like our pc's. How many pc's come with a decent amount of memory out of the box. That is usually one of the first things we must do to really enjoy it unless u spent the money on a high end gaming pc. Why don't they beef up the memory on these while they work on dual core stuff.
In no way am I saying I don't think I need a dual core. More is always better with that kind of stuff. I would definitely take a dual over a single core. Just wandering why memory always seems like it could use more. Phones and pc's
Sent from my rooted HTC EVO using the xda app!
Hi all guys! I have a couple of questions and would like to hear some experiences and thoughts in general about overclocking in Android.
First a couple of more specific questions which I would like to have answered, if possible. If it's not possible, please give me your general thoughts anyway about overclock instead of moving to the next thread, please.
- Are there any kernels which allow overclocking beyond 1536 MHz?
- If so, did anybody try those frequencies? What was the result?
- Are there any people who for some reasons did NOT manage to have stable 1536 MHz?
- Are there any reliable reports of people frying their phones due to overclocking?
- Are there any easy ways to undervolt the CPU (at standard frequencies, not overclocked) in order to save some battery charge?
My very little OC experience is based on this: I have been running for some days a ROM based on a kernel which allowed OC up to 1536 MHz. I installed CPU Master Free, did some tests and found out, to my surprise, that the phone will run @1536 MHz without any noticeable issues. I never kept it at that frequency for more than 5 minutes I think, because I was afraid of excessive heat, but the phone never got really hot, just a bit warm. I ran some system benchmarks (Quadrant and another one which I can't recall right now) which stressed a bit the CPU and did not encounter any crashes. I also did this with performance governor which keeps the CPU constantly to the max frequency I think, and still no probs. Since everything works so fine and was that easy, I was wondering why don't everybody always run with the HD2 @1536 MHz. Is it only for battery issues? Please share your ideas about this and OC on the HD2 under Android in general.
Thanks.
The problem with overclocking isn't just overheating or too much power. With overclocking you are also increasing the say, amount of data being passed through the cpu. If the cpu's bus size isn't fast or big enough to handle it, it will ultimately slow down or malfunction.
So you should get the picture of overclocking now. Note however there are some safe speeds for overclocking.
Onto your next question as to why everyone doesn't overclock to the max speed. The reasons are: paranoia and safety of device
You have to know that not every chip is made exactly the same, they are modeled after the same design but are never made the same. So that mean whilst some people's phones may be able to handle extreme overclocking, like yours, others may not be able to, and malfunction/overheat. Malfunctioning like, cannot make phone calls, wifi/GPS doesn't work, etc.
So I hope this was informative.
Not everything you have said was new to me, but you were informative.
...although I would really be surprised to have issues with phone calls for instance caused by excessive overclocking...
Do you personally keep the HD2 overclocked?
Anybody else?
When I had my HD2, I rarely did so. Reason being is that I found no need to. The only times I did do so was to see if the phone actually was faster. In my results however I found no big difference so I didn't bother.
Well, the phone is indeed fast without OC, but you can feel the difference if you are performing some CPU intensive tasks. For example, unzipping a 200 MB ROM archive, or importing 1300 SMS from a backup. A temporary OC can save you maybe 1 minute or 30 secs, which aren't absolutely worth the time you spend learning to overclock the device, but never mind, even if you only saved 5 secs it's worth it for the satisfaction.
Ah I see your point. I was only looking in the perspective of simply tasks such as browsing internet/market, games, gallery.
Figure it this way. When you overclock a pc, (and if you're doing it safely/correctly) you have usually spent extra money on liquid cooling systems. Or at the very least, bigger fans, bigger heatsyncs, etc. Even with all that, you could very easily blow out a cpu or other component when you overclock.
Now, on a cell phone, you're running a MUCH higher risk. First off, there is NO extra cooling, and considering the size of our phones, and how thing they are, there's really no room for airflow. So while yes, it may work for you, in general I always say getting those couple extra frames per second out of your game are not worth the potential damage to the device.
Overclocking on actual computers has gotten much safer in the last few years, because the chip designers are putting more effort into keeping the chip cooler under load. Cell phones are not designed to overclock (even one as sweet as the hd2.)
Lastly, when overclocking a system (desktop), you usually change more than just the cpu clock speed. You'll usually have to adjust the voltage to compensate, and in some cases adjust memory timing as well as bus speed. None of this happens when you overclock on the hd2, all you do is change the clock speed.
It's not set in stone, but there's a very real possibility that you can do permanent damage to your device when overclocking. And, you may not notice the damage right away. Also keep in mind, these are mass produced cpu's, and there are slight variations in each chip. (Hence why some people can overclock higher and keep stability, while some phones with the same chip get picky if you even overclock 10mhz )
I've never seen the point in overclocking the hd2, you really don't get any real world speed out of it, it's a placebo at best. (And please don't start showing me or quoting benchmarks, they're useless, and extremely easy to make little changes in the roms to artificially boost benchmark scores.)
Edit: For more info, because I'm tired of typing, check these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overclocking
http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Computer_Science/2005/overclocking.asp
Great info mstrk242,
Thank you!
All benchmark info is skewed. Tried 1500mhz and the only app I noticed a difference on was gun bros. A new more efficient version of rom made it run fine at 998mhz. Not worth the extra wear and tear on your device. Simply changing things like your launcher can have larger effects.
Sent from my HyperDroid powered HD2!
I wonder if we really "need" to overclock this beastly CPU of ours? Hell, even if i underclock to 1Ghz, most task if not all are done fast, really fast. Talking about games? Modern FPS games are driven by both CPU and GPU and thus doesnt require much of horsepower of the CPU. Im confuse why numbers of people here are crying "why they are not stable @ 1.8Ghz"? ... Even if you set it @ 1.8Ghz max, our phone will barely reach this clockspeed because other cores will kick-in in less than maximum speed of the primary core (if im right?) ... Is it just for Benchmark figures? Good figures doesnt equates to good performance and we all know that... Can you really sacrifice "Stability" for the sake of some "Ego-driven faaassssstttt BM"?
I swear, some people are just so dense. Why don't we all drive Honda civics? Do we really need a car with over 200hp and can top out at 150mph when most speed limits are 65mph? Why do we bother eating at expensive restaurants when we could save a ton and eat at mcdonalds? People have preferences...it's what makes the world go 'round. If people want to overclock, let them have it.
lude219 said:
I swear, some people are just so dense. Why don't we all drive Honda civics? Do we really need a car with over 200hp and can top out at 150mph when most speed limits are 65mph? Why do we bother eating at expensive restaurants when we could save a ton and eat at mcdonalds? People have preferences...it's what makes the world go 'round. If people want to overclock, let them have it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha good one.
I drive a v8 6.0L lumina SS, my pc is o/c'd from 2.6Ghz to 3.8Ghz Quad core, ram is overclocked to 1700mhz, have crossfired 2 5870s and tested them at 900mhz, my SIII is overclocked to 1800mhz, my LG O3D is oc @ 1350mhz (1ghz original) I guess i like fast things Maybe the OP is just a laid back happy go lucky fella and if everyone is like him we would be all driving steam powered cars and flying in propeller planes
Ok, you got me Guys .. But what pissed me is that this people all points their finger to the Kernel or Dev when they have reboots and heat-ups which is obviously the effect of their Overclocking... i can remmber a post; "damn, why i cant reach 1.8Ghz without random reboot, please fix"...
I actually agree with the op personally and I have been developing on android for four years since the g1, I don't see the need to over clock this phone as it runs really well all of the time,I too had the optimus 3d and that definitely needed overclocking as that was so painstakingly sluggish without it. the only reason I would overclock is for benchmark results other than that its just another drain on the battery for no real world performance gain
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
jaytana said:
Ok, you got me Guys .. But what pissed me is that this people all points their finger to the Kernel or Dev when they have reboots and heat-ups which is obviously the effect of their Overclocking... i can remmber a post; "damn, why i cant reach 1.8Ghz without random reboot, please fix"...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you just can't fix ignorance. if someone doesn't understand the concept and risks of overclocking, let them figure it out. sometimes it irks me to encounter posts like that as well.
androidfanboi said:
I actually agree with the op personally and I have been developing on android for four years since the g1, I don't see the need to over clock this phone as it runs really well all of the time,I too had the optimus 3d and that definitely needed overclocking as that was so painstakingly sluggish without it. the only reason I would overclock is for benchmark results other than that its just another drain on the battery for no real world performance gain
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Off topic: Optimus3D ROM is one of the most poorly optimize in modern Android flagships... I too had one, running it with AOSP is buttery smooth but also have some compromises...
I am sure you are missing the main idea of overclocking. First of all people normally do it to achieve better results in benchmark. But more and more are starting to do it for better performance and so. Overclocking a phone is useful for the first mainly, I doubt that anyone would overclock their phone in order to play games with better fps for instance. The whole idea is bad, there is a large difference between a phone with minimal cooling and a big ass desktop with 50 fans. If we want our devices to last longer we needn't touch them to make them "faster".
When I can overclock to 1.6gh AND under volt to 50mv below the stock voltage for 1.4GHZ it's pretty much a no-brainer
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium