can someone answer this please?
When the drivers of the HD are sorted, the HTC will be better,
iPhone 3GS, even after the drivers get sorted out on the HD2 (like Pagnell says..)
Well since the HD2 drivers are not yet "sorted" then its not yet possible to rule out the HD2. but if you take into account a larger screen, much higher resolution and faster processor on the HD2 this should give the HD2 the advantage.
Realistically the iPhones wins this one. The CPU is slower, but the GPU is slightly faster, and since the iPhone is a single closed system, apps are able to make full use of it. This just rarely happens on winmo and HTC have messed up the drivers yet again.
However if more games like Electopia appear that could all change.
The HD2 has a much better screen and it has 2.5x as many pixels, but the games and apps are just not there, yet.
If you dont count games then i think Sense is better than the iPhone interface visually and movies look better on the HD2.
he's talking about graphics and not speed. the GPU chipset on the iPhone 3GS is more powerfull than the one in the snapdragon chipset
If you show a fact (a link or something), that will certainly help since we have different opinions here.
if its real that the 3gs has SGX535 gpu then its moore powerful than Z430 that are in snapdragon
While I hate Apple, the GPU in the 3GS is stronger and it is driving a much lower resolution screen.
A little like running a Radeon 5750 driving a 1920x1200 screen (HD2) vs a Radeon 5870 driving an 800x600 screen (3GS). Even at the same res the iPhail would be slightly quicker, at a much lower res the poor HD2 will get slaughtered, and even were that not the case, a Winmo developer will want his game to also run on those horrible MSM7200 528MHz chipsets in like, every HTC in recent memory, so the games won't ever be designed to exploit the Snapdragon.
I want Tegra
An often-quoted list of theoretical specifications:
Nintendo DS: 120,000 triangles/s, 30 M pixels/s
PowerVR MBX-Lite (iPhone 3G): 1 M triangles/s, 100 M pixels/s
Samsung S3C6410 (Omnia II): 4 M triangles/s, 125.6 M pixels/s
ATI Imageon (Qualcomm MSM72xx): 4 M triangles/s, 133 M pixels/s
PowerVR SGX 530 (Palm Pre): 14 M triangles/s, ___ M pixels/s
ATI Imageon Z430 (Toshiba TG01): 22 M triangles/s, 133 M pixels/s
PowerVR SGX 535 (iPhone 3GS): 28 M triangles/s, 400 M pixels/s
Sony PSP: 33 M triangles/s, 664 M pixels/s
PowerVR SGX 540 (TI OMAP4): 35 M triangles/s, 1000 M pixels/s
Nvidia Tegra APX2500 (Zune HD): 40 M triangles/s, 600 M pixels/s
ATI Imageon _ (Qualcomm QSD8672): 80 M triangles/s, >500 M pixels/s
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can see that the Snapdragon GPU (in the Toshiba TG01) has a similar triangle rate to the iPhone 3GS GPU, but the iPhone is capable of pushing three times as many pixels per second.
The iPhone has a smaller, lower-resolution screen, which means the graphics are arguably less sharp, but run correspondingly much faster than the difference in GPU power might suggest.
Related
i found this comparison that shows that samsung omnia II is bad in graphics compared to our hd although its processor runs at 800 mhz
Current Mobile GPUs: Triangles/sec, Fill Rate
Nintendo DS: 120,000 triangles/s, 30 M pixels/s
PowerVR MBX-Lite (iPhone 3G): 1 M triangles/s, 100 M pixels/s
Samsung S3C6410 (Omnia II): 4 M triangles/s, 125.6 M pixels/s
ATI Imageon (Qualcomm MSM72xx): 4 M triangles/s, 133 M pixels/s
PowerVR SGX 520 (Palm Pre): 14 M triangles/s, ___ M pixels/s
ATI Imageon Z430 (Toshiba TG01): 22 M triangles/s, 133 M pixels/s
PowerVR SGX 535 (iPhone 3GS): 28 M triangles/s, 400 M pixels/s
Sony PSP: 33 M triangles/s, 664 M pixels/s
Future Mobile GPUs:
PowerVR SGX 540 (TI OMAP4): 35 M triangles/s, 1000 M pixels/s
Nvidia Tegra APX2500 (Zune HD): 40 M triangles/s, 600 M pixels/s
ATI Imageon _ (Qualcomm QSD8672): 80 M triangles/s, >500 M pixels/s
Can any one confirm this information
The real problem is Video Drivers: HTC didn't write good Qualcomm Chip Video Drivers so HD (and MSM72xx chip based) has poor graphics quality.
D'rath
Whoa the Zune HD has an epic chipset.
In theory, our HD is able to beat most of other models, but it has poor graphic/video/3d performance since the drivers by htc are sucks. I hope this will become better soon.
I have a question regarding the Processor in the HD2, we all know that its a 1GHz Snapdragon but in real terms how does this compare to something like the 600Mhz OMAP processor in the N900?
I read that the N900 also has a GPU to go with the 600MHz processor, how is this different to what the HD2 does?
hmmm
im not sure but the diffrents is in the graphic chip,battary consomption,speed and thats it,iwill wait for the genius friends in the forum
chrism_scotland said:
I have a question regarding the Processor in the HD2, we all know that its a 1GHz Snapdragon but in real terms how does this compare to something like the 600Mhz OMAP processor in the N900?
I read that the N900 also has a GPU to go with the 600MHz processor, how is this different to what the HD2 does?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looking at the specs of the GPU which is a PowerVR SGX.
It is an opengl 2.0 compatible GPU and supports many other standards, it basically means it would run a larger array of programs with graphical attributes compared to other devices with just a CPU.
Now the HD2's snapdragon processor also supports OpenGl 2.0 so in theory the additional GPU in the N900 would be redundant if it were put into the HD2's circuitry.
On the other hand due to the fact that the 600MHz OMAP in the N900 doesn’t have support for things like opengl and other it makes a large improvement in performance just like a GPU does in a PC compared with integrated graphics. Personally without any tests I would say the snapdragon would still be faster as long as you were running something like FPU enabler to make sure all the instructions are there and supported by the OS which the N900 wouldn’t be able to support them instructions and would use much slower less efficient instructions.
Also the n900 is running a diffrent OS so it makes it very hard to compare.
for more info on snapdragon opengl support go here
Hope that helps
chrism_scotland said:
I have a question regarding the Processor in the HD2, we all know that its a 1GHz Snapdragon but in real terms how does this compare to something like the 600Mhz OMAP processor in the N900?
I read that the N900 also has a GPU to go with the 600MHz processor, how is this different to what the HD2 does?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Snapdragon is not just a CPU, it's an entire chipset, including a GPU, wifi, GPS, etc.
The CPU component of Snapdragon is roughly the same speed as the OMAP CPU clock-for-clock, but obviously clocked a lot higher. The GPU is significantly less powerful than the PowerVR chip that is usually paired with OMAP processors (though I haven't actually checked if it's the one included in the N900).
Shasarak said:
The GPU is significantly less powerful than the PowerVR chip that is usually paired with OMAP processors (though I haven't actually checked if it's the one included in the N900).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The N900 has a SGX 530 GPU which is slower than the 535 in the iPhone 3gs and also slower than the snapdragon's Z430 (It probably has drivers with functional vsync though)
christonabike said:
The N900 has a SGX 530 GPU which is slower than the 535 in the iPhone 3gs and also slower than the snapdragon's Z430 (It probably has drivers with functional vsync though)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My apologies, should have looked it up.
don't know which z430 you've been using, but I am finding it utter crap.
Nintendo DS: 120,000 triangles/s, 30 M pixels/s
PowerVR MBX-Lite (iPhone 3G): 1 M triangles/s, 100 M pixels/s
Samsung S3C6410 (Omnia II): 4 M triangles/s, 125.6 M pixels/s
ATI Imageon (Qualcomm MSM72xx): 4 M triangles/s, 133 M pixels/s
PowerVR SGX 530 (Palm Pre): 14 M triangles/s, ___ M pixels/s
ATI Imageon Z430 (Toshiba TG01): 22 M triangles/s, 133 M pixels/s
PowerVR SGX 535 (iPhone 3GS): 28 M triangles/s, 400 M pixels/s
Sony PSP: 33 M triangles/s, 664 M pixels/s
PowerVR SGX 540 (TI OMAP4): 35 M triangles/s, 1000 M pixels/s
Nvidia Tegra APX2500 (Zune HD): 40 M triangles/s, 600 M pixels/s
ATI Imageon _ (Qualcomm QSD8672): 80 M triangles/s, >500 M pixels/s
I think it's safe to say that the Snapdragon performs admirably, but the SGX blows it out of the water.
aethelbert said:
Nintendo DS: 120,000 triangles/s, 30 M pixels/s
PowerVR MBX-Lite (iPhone 3G): 1 M triangles/s, 100 M pixels/s
Samsung S3C6410 (Omnia II): 4 M triangles/s, 125.6 M pixels/s
ATI Imageon (Qualcomm MSM72xx): 4 M triangles/s, 133 M pixels/s
PowerVR SGX 530 (Palm Pre): 14 M triangles/s, ___ M pixels/s
ATI Imageon Z430 (Toshiba TG01): 22 M triangles/s, 133 M pixels/s
PowerVR SGX 535 (iPhone 3GS): 28 M triangles/s, 400 M pixels/s
Sony PSP: 33 M triangles/s, 664 M pixels/s
PowerVR SGX 540 (TI OMAP4): 35 M triangles/s, 1000 M pixels/s
Nvidia Tegra APX2500 (Zune HD): 40 M triangles/s, 600 M pixels/s
ATI Imageon _ (Qualcomm QSD8672): 80 M triangles/s, >500 M pixels/s
I think it's safe to say that the Snapdragon performs admirably, but the SGX blows it out of the water.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
most of informations listed here are not true iphone 3gs tests shows only (7million triangles ) samsung omnia 2 (has 9 million triangles not 4 )
hoss_n2 said:
most of informations listed here are not true iphone 3gs tests shows only (7million triangles ) samsung omnia 2 (has 9 million triangles not 4 )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The 7 million triangles/sec number was based on AnandTech's incorrect guess that the 3GS used a lower-end SGX instead of the SGX 535. Samsung initially specced the Omnia 2's GPU (an in-house project by Samsung) at 9 million triangles/sec but then revised it down to 4 million at launch.
Much more info here (see tables at the bottom in particular):
http://www.techautos.com/2010/03/14/smartphone-processor-guide/
I've been watching the preview video @ AndroidCentral I think they have covered the phone quite well.
There Neocore test show a score of 75 FPS - that 20 FPS more than the Samsung SGS/Vibrant.
Since the Samsung SGS/Vibrant comes with a PowerVR SGX 540 chipset (Device Magazine) which is the best out there along with 1GHz ARM Cortex A8 processor - whereas the Droid Pro comes with a PowerVR SGX 530 chipset (Motorola Developer site) how comes this baby is giving out a much better FPS rate?
Would like to hear your experienced views on this!
If you compare it the D2/D2G, DX, and Milestone 2 you will notice that the DP performance is better that those devices despite the same cpu/gpu combo(but less internal memory). So, from what I am reading most of it has to do with the lower HVGA screen vs the VGA screen of all aforementioned devices. Lower screen res means less work for the gpu.
Mackattack said:
If you compare it the D2/D2G, DX, and Milestone 2 you will notice that the DP performance is better that those devices despite the same cpu/gpu combo(but less internal memory). So, from what I am reading most of it has to do with the lower HVGA screen vs the VGA screen of all aforementioned devices. Lower screen res means less work for the gpu.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This makes so much sense for improving battery life and plus what's the point on using such high res screens whereas the human eye can perceive only 200dpi.
Just a thought!
Personally I agree. It really makes me mad that I saw all these rave reviews on the Samsung Galaxy S phone's screens, but me personally I can't tell a difference between my Fascinate and my DPro, other than the fact the screen is smaller.
Maybe its time for me to see the eye doctor.
Sent from my DROID PRO using XDA App
Hello people,
My tablet has a Dual Mali 400, Cortex A9, 512 MB DDR3 and a 800 * 480 display resolution.
At first, the game menu appears rightly, like this: (please replace [DOT][US] with .us )
imageshack[DOT][US]/a/img18/5295/screenshot2012122316173.png
But, when the game actually begins running, this is what i get:
imageshack[DOT][US]/a/img18/5295/screenshot2012122316173.png
The problem is persistant with all HD games, while some of them work better, but the visual quality is disappointing. Do you know why the HD games won't display properly? Is it because of the poor resolution? Or the number of bits are the concern?
I'll appreciate any help
Waste
sabergeek said:
Hello people,
My tablet has a Dual Mali 400, Cortex A9, 512 MB DDR3 and a 800 * 480 display resolution.
At first, the game menu appears rightly, like this: (please replace [DOT][US] with .us )
imageshack[DOT][US]/a/img18/5295/screenshot2012122316173.png
But, when the game actually begins running, this is what i get:
imageshack[DOT][US]/a/img18/5295/screenshot2012122316173.png
The problem is persistant with all HD games, while some of them work better, but the visual quality is disappointing. Do you know why the HD games won't display properly? Is it because of the poor resolution? Or the number of bits are the concern?
I'll appreciate any help
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even u had dual mali 400 it waste of gpu because to show HD quality atleast u need tablet with Dual core procesor , HD resolution (1280x720) and 1 GB ram to run smooth with HD android games
SGX531 is a old gpu (create in Oct 2006) but recently a new version of SGX531 come : SGX531 Ultra. Same numbers of units but a big overclock. His frequency is estimated between 400 and 522 Mhz. Compared at the SGX540(Nexus S, Galaxy S base frequency, 200 mhz for memory) it's a huge difference. I know overclocked version of SGX 540 exist.(Galaxy Nexus, Optimus 3D, etc). But the architecture of SGX 531 is exactly the half of architecture of SGX 540. So in theory, if we set the frequency at the exact double of SGX 540, we should get the same results but... the reality is quite different. In fact after many tests, I've comparables results of SGX531 and SGX540. Unfortunately I do not know the exact frequency used by the SGX531. Many news phones(a lot of chineses phones apparently) use this "new" gpu on low cost smartphones. The tests were performed on models with similar configurations. (mono core processor 1 Ghz, 512 mb ram, same resolution 800*480)
Results :
GL Benchmark 2.7 : (Theorical Benchmark)
Triangle throughput Textured C24Z16 Offscreen : SGX531 Ultra 7,866,918 Triangles/sec | SGX540 4,490,935 Triangles/sec 17% Better
Triangle throughput Textured C24Z16 Onscreen : SGX531 Ultra 14,021,563 Triangles/sec | SGX540 11,053,386 Triangles/sec 27% Better
Fillrate C24Z16 Offscreen : SGX531 Ultra 267,150,928 Texels/sec | SGX540 219,676,416 Texels/sec 22% Better
Fillrate C24Z16 Onscreen : SGX531 Ultra 197,397,584 Texels/sec | SGX540 128,086,480 Texels/sec 54% Better
Taiji 3D Benchmark : (Geometry Benchmark)
SGX531 Ultra : 9,21 fps / SGX540 : 11,15 fps 21 % Lesser
Nenamark 2 :
SGX531 Ultra : 23,5 fps / SGX540 26,3 fps 12 % Lesser
We notice the overwhelming superiority of SGX531 Ultra on theoric tests but SGX540 is better in real conditions
With this results i can estimated the frequency of SGX531 Ultra, 522 Mhz is possible. (the fillrate is very dependent of processor, the processor used for the tests of SGX540 is slightly recessed relative to that of SGX531 but is not limited mostly)