Database Users

Quadrant benchmark for Android on HD2 compared to SGS (What's in a score)

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)

Why is my gf's evo scoring so much higher on quadrant than my epic?

both running 2.2 (epic on dk28)
epic gets 991-1000 and the evo just scored 1241... wtf?!
the evo isn't EXT4 is it?
the epic is currently RFS... I'm having problems going to EXT4

The Quadrant was made specifically for the Snapdragon process; which the Evo uses if i'm not mistaken.
Besides; they don't prove real world performance. I've gotten my hands on numerous evo's and all seemed to be 'laggy' they arn't nearly as responsive as my Epic.

Quadrant scores do not accurately represent Snapdragon vs the Galaxy S Hummingbird (or any other Cortex-A8 like those in Verizon's Droid lineup). Certain functions such as the Virtual Floating Point extension in Snapdragon allow for artificially inflated Linpack scores which do not represent real-world performance. Additionally, the RFS file system that Samsung uses on the Galaxy S phones is not well-understood by Quadrant, resulting in drastically lower scores.
For example, when we switch to EXT4 from RFS, our FroYo Quadrant scores can jump from 1100 to the 1600 range (which kicks the pants off that EVO). The actual performance increase however is hardly perceptible.
In short, Quadrant sucks, and Linpack is susceptible as well. For ****s and giggles, a little while back I made a minor modification to my Epic and produced a Quadrant score of 2597, which is currently listed as the 10th highest score on SmartphoneBenchmarks.com, and is the highest stock clock Quadrant score recorded. I accomplished this score utilizing a simple hack devised by a few developers here on XDA that fools the Quadrant application by utilizing a ramdrive for the I/O test. I posted about it on their forums and was advised by an administrator that they are aware of the problems with Quadrant and are releasing their own benchmark tool.
Android runs on top of a virtual machine so really what you're testing is virtual machine performance, and currently that virtual machine is tweaked for Snapdragon. With the Nexus S now a Google flagship phone, we'll likely see the VM better optimized for Hummingbird in the near future, and in fact, Gingerbread had a few more JIT enhancements as well.
Hummingbird is a slightly better performing chip MHz for MHz than the first-generation Snapdragons, if by a small amount. However it is significantly more power-efficient. Second-gen Snapdragons do draw even in terms of efficiency and performance, but both are going to be blown away by the Cortex-A9 Tegra phones we'll be seeing this spring.
EDIT - So I just noticed that SmartphoneBenchmarks.com has released their own benchmark tool recently, Smartbench 2010. I just ran it on my phone and scored 1178 on the Productivity Index (CPU) and 2610 on the Games Index (GPU). The highest-scoring competitor, the HTC G2, scores 1045 and 1396 respectfully. DRockstar on IRC ran the benchmark on his Epic that has RFS, and scored 1133 and 2521. So, this benchmark tool actually performs fine on RFS. Amazing! Grab it off the Android Market!

Electrofreak said:
Quadrant scores do not accurately represent Snapdragon vs the Galaxy S Hummingbird (or any other Cortex-A8 like those in Verizon's Droid lineup). Certain functions such as the Virtual Floating Point extension in Snapdragon allow for artificially inflated Linpack scores which do not represent real-world performance. Additionally, the RFS file system that Samsung uses on the Galaxy S phones is not well-understood by Quadrant, resulting in drastically lower scores.
For example, when we switch to EXT4 from RFS, our FroYo Quadrant scores can jump from 1100 to the 1600 range (which kicks the pants off that EVO). The actual performance increase however is hardly perceptible.
In short, Quadrant sucks, and Linpack is susceptible as well. For ****s and giggles, a little while back I made a minor modification to my Epic and produced a Quadrant score of 2597, which is currently listed as the 10th highest score on SmartphoneBenchmarks.com, and is the highest stock clock Quadrant score recorded. I accomplished this score utilizing a simple hack devised by a few developers here on XDA that fools the Quadrant application by utilizing a ramdrive for the I/O test. I posted about it on their forums and was advised by an administrator that they are aware of the problems with Quadrant and are releasing their own benchmark tool.
Android runs on top of a virtual machine so really what you're testing is virtual machine performance, and currently that virtual machine is tweaked for Snapdragon. With the Nexus S now a Google flagship phone, we'll likely see the VM better optimized for Hummingbird in the near future, and in fact, Gingerbread had a few more JIT enhancements as well.
Hummingbird is a slightly better performing chip MHz for MHz than the first-generation Snapdragons, if by a small amount. However it is significantly more power-efficient. Second-gen Snapdragons do draw even in terms of efficiency and performance, but both are going to be blown away by the Cortex-A9 Tegra phones we'll be seeing this spring.
EDIT - So I just noticed that SmartphoneBenchmarks.com has released their own benchmark tool recently, Smartbench 2010. I just ran it on my phone and scored 1178 on the Productivity Index (CPU) and 2610 on the Games Index (GPU). The highest-scoring competitor, the HTC G2, scores 1045 and 1396 respectfully. DRockstar on IRC ran the benchmark on his Epic that has RFS, and scored 1133 and 2521. So, this benchmark tool actually performs fine on RFS. Amazing! Grab it off the Android Market!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Electrofreak,
I just wanted to thank you (I pushed the button, too!) for this post. I'm trying to decide between three phones for my Sprint upgrade next month. My three candidates are the Epic, Evo, & new Evo Shift.
I was not aware of everything you stated, so it helped me look at the Epic in a different light.
Again, thanks.

tps70 said:
Electrofreak,
I just wanted to thank you (I pushed the button, too!) for this post. I'm trying to decide between three phones for my Sprint upgrade next month. My three candidates are the Epic, Evo, & new Evo Shift.
I was not aware of everything you stated, so it helped me look at the Epic in a different light.
Again, thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No probs, and if you're interested in still more info, you're welcome to read an article I wrote comparing the hardware in multiple smartphones back in April (though the focus was on the EVO 4G and the Samsung Galaxy S I9000). The article is starting to get a little outdated, (neither the EVO nor the Galaxy S line had been released at that point yet) and it also doesn't cover some other details I've unearthed since then (my blog in my signature is where you'll find that) but most of it is still relevant.
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=17125
Edit - I think I have an addiction to parenthesis (which I'm ashamed to admit)

Electrofreak said:
Quadrant scores do not accurately represent Snapdragon vs the Galaxy S Hummingbird (or any other Cortex-A8 like those in Verizon's Droid lineup). Certain functions such as the Virtual Floating Point extension in Snapdragon allow for artificially inflated Linpack scores which do not represent real-world performance. Additionally, the RFS file system that Samsung uses on the Galaxy S phones is not well-understood by Quadrant, resulting in drastically lower scores.
For example, when we switch to EXT4 from RFS, our FroYo Quadrant scores can jump from 1100 to the 1600 range (which kicks the pants off that EVO). The actual performance increase however is hardly perceptible.
In short, Quadrant sucks, and Linpack is susceptible as well. For ****s and giggles, a little while back I made a minor modification to my Epic and produced a Quadrant score of 2597, which is currently listed as the 10th highest score on SmartphoneBenchmarks.com, and is the highest stock clock Quadrant score recorded. I accomplished this score utilizing a simple hack devised by a few developers here on XDA that fools the Quadrant application by utilizing a ramdrive for the I/O test. I posted about it on their forums and was advised by an administrator that they are aware of the problems with Quadrant and are releasing their own benchmark tool.
Android runs on top of a virtual machine so really what you're testing is virtual machine performance, and currently that virtual machine is tweaked for Snapdragon. With the Nexus S now a Google flagship phone, we'll likely see the VM better optimized for Hummingbird in the near future, and in fact, Gingerbread had a few more JIT enhancements as well.
Hummingbird is a slightly better performing chip MHz for MHz than the first-generation Snapdragons, if by a small amount. However it is significantly more power-efficient. Second-gen Snapdragons do draw even in terms of efficiency and performance, but both are going to be blown away by the Cortex-A9 Tegra phones we'll be seeing this spring.
EDIT - So I just noticed that SmartphoneBenchmarks.com has released their own benchmark tool recently, Smartbench 2010. I just ran it on my phone and scored 1178 on the Productivity Index (CPU) and 2610 on the Games Index (GPU). The highest-scoring competitor, the HTC G2, scores 1045 and 1396 respectfully. DRockstar on IRC ran the benchmark on his Epic that has RFS, and scored 1133 and 2521. So, this benchmark tool actually performs fine on RFS. Amazing! Grab it off the Android Market!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That was great!
I scored 1147/2704 but i'm rooted/rommed.
the evo scored 700/910

razorseal said:
That was great!
I scored 1147/2704 but i'm rooted/rommed.
the evo scored 700/910
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That EVO on 2.2? I would have expected it to score around 1000 at least. I wonder how it would score on EXT4 running CM6...

Smartphone benchmarks is a great benchmark.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

Electrofreak said:
That EVO on 2.2? I would have expected it to score around 1000 at least. I wonder how it would score on EXT4 running CM6...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yup, it's a stock evo running whatever sprint updated for it

Scored 1257/2751 CM6 EXT4
Sent from my CM6 EXT4 Epic

1255p 2945g,Im running my ROM,how could I be faster then CM6? maybe not the best benchmark.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

My Epic w/ Cmod's latest gave me 1115 and 2600
My wife has an Evo with CMods latest as well but only got 1089 and 1050, why so low on the second one?

My Epic scored 606\1901 in smartbench 2010. Weird... much lower productivity score than other people, but really high gaming score.
My Epic is stock.
EDIT: I ran it a few more times and watched it carefully.
603/1808
618/1954
633/1941
Seems I/O is pretty slow...

I'm just wondering why it matters? It's not like Android has a robust collection of high performance games.

razorseal said:
both running 2.2 (epic on dk28)
epic gets 991-1000 and the evo just scored 1241... wtf?!
the evo isn't EXT4 is it?
the epic is currently RFS... I'm having problems going to EXT4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Probably because she keeps her Evo in her bra and you keep your Epic in your pocket. It's a fact (check quadrant scores) that smartphones prefer boobs to guys hips 9 out of 10 days of the week. So obviously her Evo is happier and therefor performs better than yours. Do your Epic a favor and give him some booby time and watch those Quadrant scores rise!

+1,agreed and its been proven time and time again...
jirafabo said:
Probably because she keeps her Evo in her bra and you keep your Epic in your pocket. It's a fact (check quadrant scores) that smartphones prefer boobs to guys hips 9 out of 10 days of the week. So obviously her Evo is happier and therefor performs better than yours. Do your Epic a favor and give him some booby time and watch those Quadrant scores rise!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

List Of Current Android Benchmarks

The purpose of this post is to inform people of all the major benchmarks, pros/cons or each and what each of them do.
Quadrant Standard/Advanced - This benchmark is made for phones using the Snapdragon proccessor such as the g2/droids/evo etc. Please do not rely on this benchmark for the Epic as the Epic has a Hummingbird.
SmartBench - This benchmark was made to show fair scores for the actual speed of the phone. The developer of this app works very hard to work out "cheats" and bugs. This benchmark seperates the speed in games from the speed in doing other, non-game, tasks.
Linpack - This benchmark, like Quadrant, is mainly for Snapdragon. It shows floating point speed that does not really determine real life performance. Phones like the Evo and G2 get scores way higher than the Epic even though the proccessor on the Epic is faster.
0xBench - This benchmark is a combonation of different benchmarks. The purpose of this benchmark is to find out how fast your phone is for many different things.
Total Benchmark - This benchmark is a FULL benchmark. It not only measures speed but it measures many other things such as accelerometer, display, multitouch, etc.
An3dBench - This benchmark does a wide variety of tests to determine 3d speed
SQLight - This benchmark measures the time it takes to complete a series of non-gaming/non-media tasks.
SetCpu - If you didn't know, SetCpu has 3 different benchmarks included in it. These benchmarks show proccessor speed improvements from your overclock/kernal or rom change.
Nenamark - A GPU benchmark
Neocore - Another GPU benchmark. Made by Qualcomm to showcase their GPU. Since our GPU isnt Qualcomm, you cant fully trust it, but it seems pretty legit.
Did I miss any? Please send me a PM telling me. I know there are alot more but I think I got all of the major ones.
It would be great if this could be stickied.

Reserved for later use

A few others I've got on my phone:
Benchmark Pi: I don't recommend, since all it really does is test one function of the CPU, hardly a comprehensive benchmark.
GLBenchmark: Pretty decent benchmark, all things considered. Lots of options.
NenaMark1: Primarily a GPU benchmark, provides FPS (frames per second) score.
Neocore: Same as the above, mostly tests GPU performance. Created by Qualcomm to showcase their Adreno GPU, so take the FPS scores with a grain of salt.
Another I've heard of, BaseMark. AFAIK its currently only available to software developers. Looking to get my hands on it... looks to be pretty full-featured.
I still recommend SmartBench2010 over anything else right now, mostly because it seems to be accurate and the developer has shown himself to be very dedicated.

Also note AnTuTu. It's comprehensive, and gives a very good breakdown of what goes into its scores.

Added Nenamark and Neocore
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA Premium App

GLbenchmarks
Its one of the best. I personally only really care about benchmarks that Anandtech uses since they give the most detailed and comprehensive reviews and testing of new phones and devices. I would check out there site to make sure you got what they use. I know for a fact that GLbenchmarks is one of them. Its a graphical benchmark that tests the GPU. There are also a benchmark to test browser performance, java and i think one other one that they use.

You can get all these on the market?

No, some of these you have to get outside of the market. GLbenchmarks for example is downloaded from their website.

Lower Quadrant Score With New ROM

So I flashed Skyraider today, and my quadrant score dropped 100 points from stock sense. What the hell is going on here....

The Black Droid said:
So I flashed Skyraider today, and my quadrant score dropped 100 points from stock sense. What the hell is going on here....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sitting at 1032. With the stock ROM, I was getting around 1120.
Why are these scores so low???

Q scores || ROMs
Quadrant scores vary by ROM and kernel, and by different kernels in the same ROM.
Those scores are expected to vary.

Quadrant scores, don't take those to heart... It's all about feel. I've run roms where they might score low, but feel and move quick.
Sent from my ADR6300 using XDA App

I just don't understand how some of these guys have anywhere from 2700-3300 as their quad score. I would imagine their phones are running insanely fast

Maybe, they are most likely overclocking. Some phones don't like going too high. Like on mine, I can't go over 1.113, or my phone slows to a crawl and locks up/reboots.
Sent from my ADR6300 using XDA App

The Black Droid said:
I just don't understand how some of these guys have anywhere from 2700-3300 as their quad score. I would imagine their phones are running insanely fast
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where have you seen people post these scores for their Inc?
I'm willing to bet good money that if you are seeing people post scores that high, they are either:
A. Not running Quadrant from an Inc but a much more powerful device (like an Android tablet)
B. Faking the results in Photoshop (or just lying about the number if no screenshot is provided)
C. Running a setup that doesn't actually run through the Quadrant test properly. For example, Quadrant didn't run properly on Gingerbread roms at first, and the scores that it would produce were extremely erratic. Sometimes they would be extremely low, sometimes they would be extremely high, but they weren't accurate or repeatable.
D. Running some sort of insane setup that is only stable enough to finish a Quadrant run, and will never actually be used for anything
Frankly, even D is far-fetched.
I would be inclined to call a 100 point fluctuation in Quadrant scores insignificant.
If you really want to chase the highest benchmark scores, you'll need to overclock your CPU and run the system as lean as possible. That means uninstalling or disabling a lot of the things that make your life easier day-to-day.
Also, in case you haven't already seen it in your own testing, Quadrant scores are always lowest on the first run. If you press the back button and immediately start a new Quadrant run, you'll get a much higher score.
Like any unit of measurement, Quadrant scores do serve a useful purpose. But as is often the case when the score itself is seen by some as the end-goal, it is often misapplied.
The same can be seen in digital cameras and the megapixel arms race. Everyone wants to brag about how many megapixels their camera is capable of. Everyone wants the highest number of megapixels, assuming that more MP = better image. Few people realize what it actually means, or why it matters very little these days.

A lot of those people are overclocking to get really high scores and for all the reasons listed above (nice post!).
You really should not be looking to get that high on the incredible, you'll end up draining your battery like crazy. Around the 1,000 mark is great for playing higher-end games on the market as long as you aren't running a bunch of things in the background. Just about anything else you can think up of doing on your phone should run well, you won't have a sluggish device and you won't be killing your battery either.
If you do end up trying to overclock your phone or using a ROM or kernel combination that will give you a much higher score I don't think you'll notice any difference when doing anything on your phone, but your battery will drop much quicker.
Like other people have said, Quad scores don't matter much- take them lightly as you see them.

There is a lot that goes into that score. The highest score I could get today is 1656 but it was consistently in the Upper 1500s, I ran 5 tests.
My setup:
CM7 RC2
Incredikernel 03/06 OC to 1113Mhz/Performance Govenor
16Gb Class 2 microSD card.
If someone is using a class 4 or a class 6 card their i/o scores could be much higher than mine which would result in a much higher overall score than mine. Also keep in mind with Linux Kernels can very alot and that there are different types of task schedulers in them such as BFS or CFS which can have dramatic affect on the quadrent scores. Quadrent tends to score BFS kernels higher. So yeah I can believe people are hitting most of the score they post up. However byrong is right about it not being a setup you'd want to use on a daily basis. For me it causes random reboots, my phone gets hot and the UI becomes laggy after a little while also the battery drops like a brick.
My normal setup that I run on a daily basis is the same kernel uc to 803Mhz/smartass governor. It is extremely stable and is smooth as butter but my quadrent scores are only only in the 1100s with my high being 1244.
Its really not all about the score, if your happy with the performance who cares about the score.

how about your quadrant score when you use 2.3.x?

I installed CM7 with DSC Phoenix test2,overclock to 1344MHz.
when I bench with Quadrant Advanced ver2.1, my score is >1300 to 1400.
It's lower than my old milestone 1 (with CPU 600 MHz Cortex-A8 and GPU PowerVR SGX530, overclock to 1,1Ghz). quadrant score of milestone1 is > 1700. I dont know why?
And this morning I tested with HTC Incredible S of my friend (CPU 1 GHz Scorpion
and GPU Adreno 205, ICS rom without overclock). Score is > 1900.
Is my streak weak? I cant believe streak5 is slower than milestone1 and HTC Incredible S.
how about you?

I think many on here will agree with me when I say forget about the benchmark scores. They largely mean nothing as it relates to real world performance and you can drive yourself crazy trying to tweak your phone to death to increase the numbers. With that being said, the performance hit is likely in the file i/o section.

As normal user and not a programmer, I dont understand about the file i/o section. But thanks you, Lordmorphous. So I'll forget foolish scores, what a stupid app =))

File I/O = File input and output, which in simpler language is the act of reading and writing to the MicroSD cards.
Quadrant and other such benchmark tools are fun to run, but they don't mean much. To properly test a device requires a benchmark program like Futuremark's PCMark, which includes real-world applications and simulates real-world usage. There is no such benchmark app for Android however.

though, if you guys notice the benchmark for the quadrant advance 2.x, the i/o score for our DS5 does a bit low compared to others but... well you know, it just numbers... nothing more.. nothing less...
however, cpu power does have the impact when overclocked, for let say using default cpu speed of 1ghz, software decoding is a bit slow compared to overclocked 1.2ghz...
just my 2 cents