Database Users

Q: what is biggest difference from SD to NAND?

i'm quite happily running Android from my SD card. Thinking about going down the NAND road
but the question is...is it worth it? Will i notice a big change or should i just stay as it is?
Thanks

No, you will most likely not.
I still recommend doing it if you don't use WinMo, because there sure are advantages but don't expect miracles.

Personally, I've found battery life better with all the NAND builds I've tried - probably about 50% better. I assume this is because it takes more power to read/write to/from the SD card all the time.
This is obviously just my personal experience though.

Well, you will get some better battery life, as well it will be smoother.
If you don't use WinMo, I'd recommend it.
Just my personal experience.

Battery life simply cannot be compared to SD versions. It's much better in nand. Also file transfer works as it should.
Sent from my HD2 using XDA App

You can also connect to the phone in debugging mode, with NAND, which I never could using SD builds.
Not much of a deal to most people, but for anyone interested in developing for Android it's a BIG deal!

johncmolyneux said:
Personally, I've found battery life better with all the NAND builds I've tried - probably about 50% better. I assume this is because it takes more power to read/write to/from the SD card all the time.
This is obviously just my personal experience though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some people have had drastic improvements because they used 'bad' SD cards (as in badly compatible with Android, not 'bad' in se). If you compare the battery life of an SD build with a proper card, NAND really doesn't give much more juice, simply because the major part of battery consumption is due to hardware stuff such as screen, CPU, ...

The biggest difference for me is battery life aswell, as others have already stated.
I get 2-4mA in standby on most builds

StephanV said:
Some people have had drastic improvements because they used 'bad' SD cards (as in badly compatible with Android, not 'bad' in se). If you compare the battery life of an SD build with a proper card, NAND really doesn't give much more juice, simply because the major part of battery consumption is due to hardware stuff such as screen, CPU, ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Like I said to OP, it was just my personal experience. I was using a SanDisk 8GB Class 6 card that I've had 0 issues with, so I could only put the battery life difference down to r/w times. It's apparent in other things as well, like when you bring up the application list in settings. It used to take a good 5-10 seconds to get the icons for all the apps, but now it's less than a second.
It's only little things like that that I really notice. Overall performance doesn't seem much better.

Hey nothing personal man, I was just informing you why you experienced this drastic improvement. Like I said, with a bad card I didn't mean bad as in not good, but just not well compatible with Android on SD - no one really had an explanation as to why certain cards performed better than others, and there wasn't a predictable pattern either. The most expensive cards could very well be the worst compatible.

StephanV said:
Some people have had drastic improvements because they used 'bad' SD cards (as in badly compatible with Android, not 'bad' in se). If you compare the battery life of an SD build with a proper card, NAND really doesn't give much more juice, simply because the major part of battery consumption is due to hardware stuff such as screen, CPU, ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is true... I just went back to using SD builds because I'm dual-booting with wp7, and battery life on my sd builds are pretty much the same for me. I get as low as 3ma on standby with my jdms and hd2one sd builds. I'm using a class 2 sandisk, which seems to have the best random access speed out of all the sd cards I tested, and has a very low power consumption. For anyone buying a new card to run wp7 or to run android off of, I would definitely suggest a class 2 sandisk over any other class or brand of card. Quality class 2 cards generally have better battery life and better random access speeds (which is what matters the most for running an OS off the card) than higher class cards, which are made to have higher sequential write speeds.

StephanV said:
Hey nothing personal man
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
???
I know mate! If I sounded defensive, then I shouldn't have. I was just responding to what you said
Sorry if I came across wrong.

[Q] Performance tweaks?

Hi everyone,
could someone please explain me what all those "performance tweaks" are that the chefs are cooking into their roms?
i cant find anything about what they did... (search is offline for 20-30 min and other external searchengines also not find anything intressting)
i can see in some videos on youtube that the phone is faster - but why?
im using a class 6 16gb sdcard, so thats not be a problem i think...
can someone please enlighten me?
Thx!

whopper_g said:
Hi everyone,
could someone please explain me what all those "performance tweaks" are that the chefs are cooking into their roms?
i cant find anything about what they did... (search is offline for 20-30 min and other external searchengines also not find anything intressting)
i can see in some videos on youtube that the phone is faster - but why?
im using a class 6 16gb sdcard, so thats not be a problem i think...
can someone please enlighten me?
Thx!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ah somebody else noticed this, i believe they messed with some caches and that about somes it up, to be perfectly honest i dont see any where a noticable speed improvment could be made with regards to the UI so its all a bit of FUD if you ask me.
with regards to your speed, just because its a 16GB class 6 doesnt automatically make it work, infact, if its stable at all your on to a winner, ive got a class 2 thats quicker than a 4, its just luck of the draw, most slowdowns are SD related, try other cards, dont splash out because it might not even work but play around and see what you can get.

Most chiefs use these tweaks
Not really "performance", more "optimizations"

dazza9075 said:
with regards to your speed, just because its a 16GB class 6 doesnt automatically make it work, infact, if its stable at all your on to a winner, ive got a class 2 thats quicker than a 4, its just luck of the draw, most slowdowns are SD related, try other cards, dont splash out because it might not even work but play around and see what you can get.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, it's not the rated class that matters with wp7... the class just rates the sequential write speed. It's random access speed that matters with wp7 (or when running any os off a sd card)... it's the time it takes to access small random bits of data when to os needs it. Higher class cards actually tend to have lower random access speed because of the tweaks the manufacturer does to raise the sequential write speed.
To raise the sequential read and write speed, the higher class card will initialize the part of the chip thats being used before actually using it so it can then write or read to that part more quickly... but that takes time to initialize, and ends up taking longer if you are just grabbing one little bit of data from one part and a bit from another part, etc than it will take a class 2 card which doesn't do the initializing process and just starts grabbing the data when it's asked to.
Microsoft found this when testing sd cards for wp7... class 2 cards tended to work better than class 6 or 10 cards. It doesn't necessarily mean a class 6 or 10 card won't work, or that a class 2 card will definitely work, but more class 2 cards worked than class 6.
Also, since card makers don't really rate the random access speed, they don't keep the speed very consistent batch to batch... even with a card that's the same brand and class. You might get a Class 4 sandisk that works great, but someone else gets the exact same class 4 sandisk, but it was made a week later at the same factory and it may not work. The chips they use can be different from batch to batch, and they only watch and keep the sequential read and write speeds consistent.
Hopefully now that wp7 needs cards with good random access speed, card makers will rate that speed and sell cards good for wp7. And also when running android off SD, I've found that random access speed is what makes the biggest difference in performance. I remember reading about people having more lag in sd android builds with higher class cards... well that's why.

dazza9075 said:
ah somebody else noticed this, i believe they messed with some caches and that about somes it up, to be perfectly honest i dont see any where a noticable speed improvment could be made with regards to the UI so its all a bit of FUD if you ask me.
with regards to your speed, just because its a 16GB class 6 doesnt automatically make it work, infact, if its stable at all your on to a winner, ive got a class 2 thats quicker than a 4, its just luck of the draw, most slowdowns are SD related, try other cards, dont splash out because it might not even work but play around and see what you can get.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your are right. i have to correct me - i got an 16 GB Class 2 SanDisk Card.
But why is there no info on how they speed up the MarktPlace that much? Its obvious that it is indeed faster - at least on Mobile network...
Sakem said:
Most chiefs use these tweaks
Not really "performance", more "optimizations"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah i see that - but, as you allready said, those are no perfomance tweaks ... but thanks for the hint...
zarathustrax said:
Yeah, it's not the rated class that matters with wp7... the class just rates the sequential write speed. It's random access speed that matters with wp7 (or when running any os off a sd card)... it's the time it takes to access small random bits of data when to os needs it. Higher class cards actually tend to have lower random access speed because of the tweaks the manufacturer does to raise the sequential write speed.
To raise the sequential read and write speed, the higher class card will initialize the part of the chip thats being used before actually using it so it can then write or read to that part more quickly... but that takes time to initialize, and ends up taking longer if you are just grabbing one little bit of data from one part and a bit from another part, etc than it will take a class 2 card which doesn't do the initializing process and just starts grabbing the data when it's asked to.
Microsoft found this when testing sd cards for wp7... class 2 cards tended to work better than class 6 or 10 cards. It doesn't necessarily mean a class 6 or 10 card won't work, or that a class 2 card will definitely work, but more class 2 cards worked than class 6.
Also, since card makers don't really rate the random access speed, they don't keep the speed very consistent batch to batch... even with a card that's the same brand and class. You might get a Class 4 sandisk that works great, but someone else gets the exact same class 4 sandisk, but it was made a week later at the same factory and it may not work. The chips they use can be different from batch to batch, and they only watch and keep the sequential read and write speeds consistent.
Hopefully now that wp7 needs cards with good random access speed, card makers will rate that speed and sell cards good for wp7. And also when running android off SD, I've found that random access speed is what makes the biggest difference in performance. I remember reading about people having more lag in sd android builds with higher class cards... well that's why.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the good explanation from the hardware point of view. but again all tweaks they made are software side.
Could it be that this is just a subjective speed improvement?

Verizon S7 edge is lacking in speed and software.

After using this Verizon S7 edge for over a week I concluded the following.
1. Cpu speed is limited to 1.6GHz - Maybe to keep heat issues down.
2. Apps. can not be moved to SD. Yes, it says it did but it's only moves cache.
3. Verizon has left off some of the software others have.
4. Ram is limited to 3.5G to start and after OS and Samsung and Verizon stuff, user has
maybe 1.6G to 1.8G to use.
5. Phone does stop and stutters at times.
6. Screen slow to respond on the edges at times.
Given all that, I do like this phone but I believe that work is need by Samsung and Verizon.

Some apps but not all can be moved to SD card. I have moved apps.
Download Samsung pay from app store. It works.
No stutters on my end so that is always phone specific: very fluid and fast for me. My iPhone 6s plus also stopped and lagged so that myth of fluidity was just that.
Edge works well for me but again maybe phone specific.
Yes, VZW did remove some things which is typical and this is not surprising or new.
Not bashing or defending Samsung, but I am impressed with this phone even owning a Nexus 6p. There, I said it. Let the bashing begin.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

mmariani said:
After using this Verizon S7 edge for over a week I concluded the following.
1. Cpu speed is limited to 1.6GHz - Maybe to keep heat issues down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I do agree that Verizon went overboard with its meddling on this device. My biggest complaints so far are
* the assinine removal of the Samsung internet browser app which offered, among other things, an optimized experience on the device's specific chipset, website authentication using fingerprint, and the optional ability to use an ad-blocking add-on
* a completely unnecessary Verizon tramp stamp on the back of this beautiful device
I am not seeing your claimed clock throttle on the CPU, however. If I keep a floating CPU usage monitor (I used the paid version of System Monitor from the Play store) on while running, for example, the Geekbench benchmark, I have seen both high speed cores ramp up to 2.2ghz, which is very close to the rated max of 2.3ghz, and that was after me using my phone almost continuously for the last several hours before running Geekbench, so a thermal throttle of 100mhz seems not all that unlikely.
Some of your other points are true for all carrier variants of the device, and possibly all devices running Android or Android Marshmallow (for example, moving apps to SD storage has never been all or nothing on Android - it is dependent on how each app is designed by its programmers as to what actually gets stored on the SD - the app may be hard coded to use primary storage for things like cache and even documents, and the reported memory on all my previous Android devices has always been less than what the manufacturer specifies as the hardware spec - I've read different explanations for this and I don't really understand why it's true, but the S7 is far from alone in this).
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

TJCacher said:
Well I do agree that Verizon went overboard with its meddling on this device. My biggest complaints so far are
* the assinine removal of the Samsung internet browser app which offered, among other things, an optimized experience on the device's specific chipset, website authentication using fingerprint, and the optional ability to use an ad-blocking add-on
* a completely unnecessary Verizon tramp stamp on the back of this beautiful device
I am not seeing your claimed clock throttle on the CPU, however. If I keep a floating CPU usage monitor (I used the paid version of System Monitor from the Play store) on while running, for example, the Geekbench benchmark, I have seen both high speed cores ramp up to 2.2ghz, which is very close to the rated max of 2.3ghz, and that was after me using my phone almost continuously for the last several hours before running Geekbench, so a thermal throttle of 100mhz seems not all that unlikely.
Some of your other points are true for all carrier variants of the device, and possibly all devices running Android or Android Marshmallow (for example, moving apps to SD storage has never been all or nothing on Android - it is dependent on how each app is designed by its programmers as to what actually gets stored on the SD - the app may be hard coded to use primary storage for things like cache and even documents, and the reported memory on all my previous Android devices has always been less than what the manufacturer specifies as the hardware spec - I've read different explanations for this and I don't really understand why it's true, but the S7 is far from alone in this).
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I was using System Monitor so I tried Geekbench 3 and they both report 1.6 GHz.
Geekbench also reports 2222 Single Core and 5227 Multi Core. Also I stand by my statement that Apps do not move to SD. I have moved more than 20 apps. and the SD shows them listed under Android/Data on the SD card but after moving over a gig of apps, the dir shows less than 20 megs of data. They are mostly empty program name folders. And yes I know how to move them. So either my phone is diff from yours or...... Thank you for your input.

markwebb said:
Some apps but not all can be moved to SD card. I have moved apps.
Download Samsung pay from app store. It works.
No stutters on my end so that is always phone specific: very fluid and fast for me. My iPhone 6s plus also stopped and lagged so that myth of fluidity was just that.
Edge works well for me but again maybe phone specific.
Yes, VZW did remove some things which is typical and this is not surprising or new.
Not bashing or defending Samsung, but I am impressed with this phone even owning a Nexus 6p. There, I said it. Let the bashing begin.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I want to know if anyone else is seeing these problems. As for the apps. they don't really move. Just a name dir. is created on the SD.

Ans to apps not moving to SD
Well folks I found the ans. on a diff. thread:
Samsung disabled the adaptive storage option. Here is the response I got from Samsung on the app data issue. I looks like they know the data isn't moving.
"I have checked our resources and found that whenever an app is moved to the SD card, only the app and the dependencies of the application for the Operating System to identify the app on the SD card are only moved. Data associated with the app is not moved to the SD card.
Let’s hope that our future updates should allow the user to move the apps data to the SD card along with the app.
I would have surely helped you if there was any other option to move the apps data to the SD card.
I appreciate your time in writing to us. "
So Samsung maybe aware and I hope they do fix this.

TJCacher said:
the assinine removal of the Samsung internet browser app which offered, among other things, an optimized experience on the device's specific chipset, website authentication using fingerprint, and the optional ability to use an ad-blocking add-on
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I love that browser so much I'm willing to pay someone to mod the app so that we Verizon users can sideload it onto our phones.

mmariani said:
Well I was using System Monitor so I tried Geekbench 3 and they both report 1.6 GHz.
Geekbench also reports 2222 Single Core and 5227 Multi Core. Also I stand by my statement that Apps do not move to SD. I have moved more than 20 apps. and the SD shows them listed under Android/Data on the SD card but after moving over a gig of apps, the dir shows less than 20 megs of data. They are mostly empty program name folders. And yes I know how to move them. So either my phone is diff from yours or...... Thank you for your input.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Geekbench reports, in its initial pre-test display, the max clock rate of cores 1 & 2, which are the cpu's 2 low power cores, and that is the correct clock rate as designed and specified by the manufacturer.
However when the benchmark is actually run, the system correctly detects the need for high power processing and the high power cores kick in, and can ramp all the way up to their maximum clock rating, assuming they do not thermally limit.
The scores you are reporting would not be obtained were all the cores being limited to 1.6ghz. You would probably be seeing well below 2000 in the single core benchmark if the high power cores were being limited to a maximum clock speed of 1.6ghz.
The score you are reporting definitely doesn't support an assertion that Verizon has set a more conservative limit to the max CPU clocks on this device, and, as I've said, if you use System Monitor's floating CPU window feature to watch the cpu clock speeds in real time as the test actually runs, you will see clock rates at or near the max speed of 2.3ghz on the two high power cores (nos. 3 & 4).
Your reply post seemed to indicate I thought you didn't know how to move apps correctly, and that I did. Not true. I haven't tried moving any apps on this phone actually, and expect I would see similar results to yours if I did so.
But as far as moving apps to SD goes, I also stand by my previous statements. Your app-moving issues have nothing to do specifically with the S7 models in any variant by any carrier including Verizon, nor for that matter, Samsung itself, but instead are due to a multitude of complicating factors, some because of Android itself, and some by the makers of the specific apps.
If you do a bit of searching on Google for discussions about having problems moving an app to SD storage, you will quickly see that it is a long-standing problem reported for many apps by many people on many different versions of Android running on many different brands and types of devices, and there are about as many reasons for it not working as there are instances of it not working right.
It's just that it seems to me like blaming app-moving problems on Verizon for mucking it up on the S7 is like blaming your vehicle's poor gas mileage on the owner of the dealership you bought your new car from. Verizon did plenty to be irritated about on this device, as well as others, but this particular issue isn't their fault. Android's app-moving feature has had problems since long before the S7 model was ever designed or built.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

TJCacher said:
Geekbench reports, in its initial pre-test display, the max clock rate of cores 1 & 2, which are the cpu's 2 low power cores, and that is the correct clock rate as designed and specified by the manufacturer.
However when the benchmark is actually run, the system correctly detects the need for high power processing and the high power cores kick in, and can ramp all the way up to their maximum clock rating, assuming they do not thermally limit.
The scores you are reporting would not be obtained were all the cores being limited to 1.6ghz. You would probably be seeing well below 2000 in the single core benchmark if the high power cores were being limited to a maximum clock speed of 1.6ghz.
The score you are reporting definitely doesn't support an assertion that Verizon has set a more conservative limit to the max CPU clocks on this device, and, as I've said, if you use System Monitor's floating CPU window feature to watch the cpu clock speeds in real time as the test actually runs, you will see clock rates at or near the max speed of 2.3ghz on the two high power cores (nos. 3 & 4).
Your reply post seemed to indicate I thought you didn't know how to move apps correctly, and that I did. Not true. I haven't tried moving any apps on this phone actually, and expect I would see similar results to yours if I did so.
But as far as moving apps to SD goes, I also stand by my previous statements. Your app-moving issues have nothing to do specifically with the S7 models in any variant by any carrier including Verizon, nor for that matter, Samsung itself, but instead are due to a multitude of complicating factors, some because of Android itself, and some by the makers of the specific apps.
If you do a bit of searching on Google for discussions about having problems moving an app to SD storage, you will quickly see that it is a long-standing problem reported for many apps by many people on many different versions of Android running on many different brands and types of devices, and there are about as many reasons for it not working as there are instances of it not working right.
It's just that it seems to me like blaming app-moving problems on Verizon for mucking it up on the S7 is like blaming your vehicle's poor gas mileage on the owner of the dealership you bought your new car from. Verizon did plenty to be irritated about on this device, as well as others, but this particular issue isn't their fault. Android's app-moving feature has had problems since long before the S7 model was ever designed or built.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry friend, I was not trying to blame anyone, just pointing out problems I found to see if it was my phone or if others noted the same. Apps don't move to me is a problem with a phone limited to 32Gigs. On my Note 3 I could move apps. to the SD but that may have been because I rooted it and mod it.
Now as for speed I agree I was wrong because the apps I used to check was not reading the correct speed.
Today I got an update to the AIDA64 app and it now notes the correct upper cpu speeds.
As I said before I do like this phone but then nothing is perfect and I want to make the best use of it.
Again just trying to get a handle on a new phone and seeing what others may have tried or worked out.

mmariani said:
Sorry friend, I was not trying to blame anyone...
...Apps don't move to me is a problem with a phone limited to 32Gigs.
...
As I said before I do like this phone but then nothing is perfect and I want to make the best use of it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry if I came off as confrontational - wasn't intended.
And we are certainly in agreement that there are some issues with this otherwise very fine phone. Like you, I hope to see at least some of these issues fixed or get decent work arounds for them.
App moving is a can of worms and without root privileges there is only so much Google can do with Android to fix it (adoptable storage probably being the most thorough approach, although I would argue that it's just substituting one can of worms for another [emoji1]).
There are a *lot* of apps that refuse to be moved without elevated permissions to do it. Other apps may allow you to move the executable image and related runtime files, but stubbornly don't allow you to pick where they store data and/or other types of resources, so the paltry savings on moving the runtime stuff doesn't help all that much.
And on a related note, I would certainly add to your observation about 32gigs that it was a mistake for Samsung not to offer carrier-branded phones in a larger memory size. I'm sure most if not all of the s7 owners who participate on XDA would have really appreciated at least a 64gig option.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Have you tried this for adoptable storage?
http://www.modaco.com/news/android/...e-adoptable-storage-on-your-s7-s7-edge-r1632/
There's a thread all about this mod right here in the Verizon S7E forum.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

mwshows said:
Have you tried this for adoptable storage?
http://www.modaco.com/news/android/...e-adoptable-storage-on-your-s7-s7-edge-r1632/
There's a thread all about this mod right here in the Verizon S7E forum.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm thinking about doing it. But I'm still checking out the phone and what others are noting. Thanks for the tip.

I'm using the Samsung browser on mine. Just downloaded it from the Play Store. I linked to it through a Chrome search and it worked.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

What are the risk of leaving the android performance to max in switch?

What are the risk of leaving the android performance to max in switch?

Reduced battery life. Haven't seen much else. I'd be glad to hear other issues, if any!

Wait where can we adjust the performance of our switch in android?
I just uninstalled android yesterday due to the incredible lags and slowness, also no real point for it since borderlands games don't work, it's pretty much just DS

TheParaly said:
Wait where can we adjust the performance of our switch in android?
I just uninstalled android yesterday due to the incredible lags and slowness, also no real point for it since borderlands games don't work, it's pretty much just DS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
weird since mine is snappy even i lowest performance, tried emulators such as drastic and played some MOBAs too and they are great, even snappier at max performance, you can adjust it at settings in battery section, max performance = 1.7ghz if im not mistaken

HarvinMalig said:
weird since mine is snappy even i lowest performance, tried emulators such as drastic and played some MOBAs too and they are great, even snappier at max performance, you can adjust it at settings in battery section, max performance = 1.7ghz if im not mistaken
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hm I'll reinstall android and take a look at the different performance levels, thanks
Hopefully someone finds a fix for the borderlands games, I was so hyped about them when android got announced for switch

HarvinMalig said:
weird since mine is snappy even i lowest performance, tried emulators such as drastic and played some MOBAs too and they are great, even snappier at max performance, you can adjust it at settings in battery section, max performance = 1.7ghz if im not mistaken
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks man!! Needed to know this.

HarvinMalig said:
weird since mine is snappy even i lowest performance, tried emulators such as drastic and played some MOBAs too and they are great, even snappier at max performance, you can adjust it at settings in battery section, max performance = 1.7ghz if im not mistaken
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it's mostly a matter of SD card, weirdly on both my 32 and 64GB samsung cards bought from trusted stores Android keeps going idle for several minutes no matter the performance profile, while on my 256GB integral card bought on Amazon it works just fine. I had the exact same situation with Ubuntu for the switch, so it must have something to do with the way different sd cards communicate with the linux kernel.

LeMageFro said:
I think it's mostly a matter of SD card, weirdly on both my 32 and 64GB samsung cards bought from trusted stores Android keeps going idle for several minutes no matter the performance profile, while on my 256GB integral card bought on Amazon it works just fine. I had the exact same situation with Ubuntu for the switch, so it must have something to do with the way different sd cards communicate with the linux kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
maybe since the card have diff read and write speeds, btw my card is a sandisk 128gb U1 class10 Sdxc

Disable Ram Expansion for a boost in performance

Since android 13 upgrade (wasn't amazing before but certainly was much worse since 13) i've been getting really inconsistent gaming performance.
But not in a way that dipped the FPS -- as system status in games was showing good fps but the game felt jittery / laggy and overall very inconsistent.
Been driving me nuts to the point where i'd almost stopped gaming on it because it was so disappointing. Was going to send my phone into Oppo for warranty claim it was that bad.
Decided to try and be a little more analytical about it and look at the individual element scores on antutu and i saw my RAM performance was pretty bad.
Played with a few settings but nothing seemed to do much until i remember about Ram expansion (using storage as back-fill ram) and tried turning that off (reboot after).
Well, my antutu score has gone from 720k to 806k in normal mode and ~830k in performance mode (since antutu isn't recognised as a game to automatically do that)
Games are now totally smooth again, no lag. It's almost like a new phone.
My thoughts are that the android implementation of this either doesn't properly keep active high-demand stuff from swapping into this expanded ram or that android just doesn't handle the scheduling of this properly.
Either way -- for me its way more valuable turned off for overall performance and stability.

Did the same already some time ago, can not understand why in the first place. that a phone with this huge amount of ram already factory installed, would need another 3 GB of ram.

Mr.Anderson01 said:
Did the same already some time ago, can not understand why in the first place. that a phone with this huge amount of ram already factory installed, would need another 3 GB of ram.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Technically it doesn't i guess... maybe for a ram constrained phone ... but then if it's costing performance cos of a bad implementation then it's a lose-lose position.
My phone is noticeably more consistent on performance with this feature disabled.