Database Users

Quadrant Benchmark on Vibrant 2600???

One of my coworkers has a tmobile vibrant with some lag fix according to him.. he did a quadrant benchmark right in front of me and it was showing 2500 plus everytime.. Im very curious as to what is making his phone so fast. And can it be dont to ours. Hes not running a custom rom or overclocking. Im only getting 1030 with mine clocked at 1.2ghz. Any Ideas? I couldnt get into too much details with him yesterday and I dont know whens the next time ill see him..

If you were to look at a test break down you would see generally all the scores are identical or the epic a little ahead except in the read/write area. The scores from their read/write are just inflating their overall score. It's a issue with quadrant and how it handles its overall score. Basically it just makes the system easy to abuse/cheat. So I wouldn't worry much about the difference in your score and his.
Sent from my Samsung Epic

The reason other Galaxy S phones score high in quadrant is because of the lag fix they use. The lag fix mounts a different file system on the phone with DRAMATICALLY increases read-write times. That portion of the quadrant benchmark gets inflated beyond reason. Using this game technique, Cyanogen was able to score more than 3000 on a snapdragon phone.
All of the Galaxy S phones have the same processor. Also, quadrant is a terrible benchmark. It's the most over-quoted and abused benchmark for android phones

Ahh ok.. thats good to know.. so what would be a better benchmark to use? Linpack?

jok3sta said:
Ahh ok.. thats good to know.. so what would be a better benchmark to use? Linpack?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Linpack is good for measuring raw CPU processing power... but only on devices running the same version of android. Phones with 2.2 will score insanely high due to the JIT compiler. For example, a snapdragon phone with Froyo can score ~40 Mflops. A snapdragon phone with eclair scores around 7 Mflops. Does Froyo make the phone run 5-6X faster? Hell no. In some cases, the difference is almost unnoticeable to the human eye.
Here is a rundown of what I believe to be the pros and cons of various benchmarks:
Linpack
Pros:
- Good for measuring CPU processing power on the same version of Android
- Great tool for measuring the performance gain from overclocking
Cons
- Scores are boosted unreasonably by Froyo's JIT compiler on snapdragon phones
Quadrant
Pros:
- Great tool for measuring the performance gain from overclocking
- Decent tool for measuring 3D graphics performance (just pay attention to FPS, not the end result)
- Decent tool for measuring 2D graphics performance (again, look at FPS)
- The paid version ("Quadrant Pro" I believe) shows which parts of the benchmark contributed to the score. Easier to spot the inflated CPU or I/O inflation
Cons:
- I/O portion isn't valued as much as others, but can boost scores beyond reason via exploits, hacks, fixes, etc.
- CPU portion is inflated on phones running 2.2. A Nexus One is not faster than any Galaxy S, Droid X, Droid 2, etc.
Neocore
Pros:
- Good tool for measuring graphics processing power
Cons:
- Graphics are not intense enough to push the power of very fast GPU's. Some phones will hit their FPS limit
- Only measures graphics processing power.
Nenamark1
Pros:
- Great tool for measuring graphics processing power
- Effects are advanced enough to show the performance of faster GPUs in relation to phones with lesser GPUs.
Cons:
- Only measures graphics processing power.

Sweet thanks for all the info man..

Agreed, this is great info thanks. I think the quadrant score is the most quoted becuase it provides a very easy to read graph built in with it for instant comparing/gratification. I guess I am gonna start going by linpack and nenamark1.

hydralisk said:
Linpack is good for measuring raw CPU processing power... but only on devices running the same version of android. Phones with 2.2 will score insanely high due to the JIT compiler. For example, a snapdragon phone with Froyo can score ~40 Mflops. A snapdragon phone with eclair scores around 7 Mflops. Does Froyo make the phone run 5-6X faster? Hell no. In some cases, the difference is almost unnoticeable to the human eye.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Linpack is ok for when your using same CPU comparison, different CPU's can cause issues...The reason why snapdragon gets scores of 5-6x is for some reason the snapdragon utilizes the VFP rather then using raw processing power..aka snapdragon cheats on the Linpack.
In reality our I/O scores should be a lot higher then it is as even in the Epic some of samsung's crappy file system still exists. But not as high as the lagfixed Vibrant of course.
Quadrant Pro is probably best indicator out of them all(The non-pro version is pretty much useless unless your comparing the same phone)...the con of having 2.2 show is higher is expected as it is a measure of efficiency of JIT in comparison to the current. The OS always played a role in Benchmarks so it is expected.

it can be faked by using a different partition to test on. IIRC the data partition making the speeds much faster than they should be so be careful when accepting those high scores

rjmjr69 said:
it can be faked by using a different partition to test on. IIRC the data partition making the speeds much faster than they should be so be careful when accepting those high scores
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is not exactly faking it..as you are increasing performance..thing is you cannot see at what it performs well at unless you see the individual scores from the Pro version....

G2 vs Vibrant: The Real Stats

I originally posted this over in the Vibrant forums but I thought I'd post it here too in case anyone was interested:
For those that may be wondering about the G2 and especially its 800MHz CPU, these stats are for you.
The only benchmark app I could find that would put the processors on an even playing field (due to the JIT compiler that 2.2 has on the G2) was SetCPU. SetCPU has a "Native Bench" that is (as the app says) "not affected by JIT or other VM optimizations". Lower numbers are faster.
Vibrant @ 1GHz:
C: 848.37
NEON: 333.35
Vibrant @ 1.2GHz:
C: 686.71
NEON: 278.26
G2 @ 800MHz:
C: 701.26
NEON: 351.68
G2 @ 1GHz:
C: 554.26
NEON: 273.83
G2 @ 1.2GHz:
C: 497.41
NEON: 232.69
So what does this mean? Even at the stock 800MHz it blows away the Vibrant in CPU operational speed.
BUT - and this is a big one for me - the GPU on the Vibrant is just so much better! Using Quadrant Advanced and pulling just the 2D and 3D scores, I got this (higher numbers are better):
Vibrant @ 1GHz:
2D: 320
3D: 906
Vibrant @ 1.2GHZ:
2D: 363
3D: 988
G2 @ 800MHz:
2D: 241
3D: 506
G2 @ 1GHz:
2D: 285
3D: 525
G2 @ 1.2GHz:
2D: 312
3D: 603
And just in case people wanted to know the I/O scores (once again, higher numbers are better):
Vibrant (RFS) @ 1GHz:
782
Vibrant (RFS) @ 1,2GHz:
846
Vibrant (Voodoo) @ 1GHz:
4030
Vibrant (Voodoo) @ 1.2GHZ:
4938
G2 @ 800MHz:
2389
G2 @ 1GHz:
3197
G2 @ 1.2GHz:
3963
You guys can interpret this however you want. But for me, the Vibrant with Voodoo feels so much smoother than the G2, even though the G2's CPU is superior, and it even has JIT on top of that. Just something about the Vibrant's GPU that makes the overall experience seem much more fluid. Now I know why iPhone owners think their phones are so fast. Their GPU makes things seem fast, just by looking smooth.
It's hard to walk away from the Vibrant and it's beautiful screen, but I just can't resist the keyboard on the G2...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

The Vibrant's display, like all of Samsung's S-Amoled displays, is over-rated. I compared the Vibrant next to my iPod Touch 4G, and next to my G2, and the Vibrant finished in 3rd place. A 4-inch screen like the Vibrant needs higher resolution, not just color richness. I could see pixelation from a mile away! But it does have a fast gpu, not that I've noticed anything but warp speed from my G2.

Some very interesting numbers.
The only thing I want to point out is that, AFAIK, the GPU doesn't affect your everyday experience with the OS at all. The GPU is only used in certain apps that need to use it; mostly that is games and doesn't affect the speed of things such as the browser, launcher, or anything else.
I remember reading a statement from Google awhile back where they said that using the GPU to accelerate the browser/launcher rendering was being considered, but it wasn't something they were actively developing.

xencor said:
Some very interesting numbers.
The only thing I want to point out is that, AFAIK, the GPU doesn't affect your everyday experience with the OS at all. The GPU is only used in certain apps that need to use it; mostly that is games and doesn't affect the speed of things such as the browser, launcher, or anything else.
I remember reading a statement from Google awhile back where they said that using the GPU to accelerate the browser/launcher rendering was being considered, but it wasn't something they were actively developing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know if what you say about the GPU is true or not. I would speculate that it isn't true, since I can see no reason for disabling the GPU outside of specific applications. Even if it is true, I'm currently using LauncherPro so it may be calling on the GPU anyway.

gravis86 said:
I don't know if what you say about the GPU is true or not. I would speculate that it isn't true, since I can see no reason for disabling the GPU outside of specific applications. Even if it is true, I'm currently using LauncherPro so it may be calling on the GPU anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I remember from the Google statement, they said the GPU isn't used because older phones (ie G1, myTouch 3G) have such crappy GPUs that they wouldn't be able to handle rendering the entire OS.
I'm trying to find the article. I'll post back if I do.
edit: this isn't exactly what I was referencing, but it says almost the same thing: http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=6914

I find the G2 faster and more reliable then my vibrant.
I dont have to root it. I dont have to 'lag fix it'. The GPS is SPOT on. It works out of the box with NO hacks.
Samsung cant say a thing before the above matches the G2.
Thats my opinion.

rhcp0112345 said:
I find the G2 faster and more reliable then my vibrant.
I dont have to root it. I dont have to 'lag fix it'. The GPS is SPOT on. It works out of the box with NO hacks.
Samsung cant say a thing before the above matches the G2.
Thats my opinion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Too true!
I just fired up the GPS for the first time and not only did it get my location spot on, but it did so in about 7 seconds.
Although barring 2.2, GPS, and the Keyboard, I did kinda like the Vibrant better. I was smaller, lighter, and after Voodoo and OC it ran like a dream.

The Vibrant definitely has a GPU advantage. I've noticed in games like Wreckless Racing or Nova the Vibrant is way smoother, on the G2 its sometimes choppy. In Quadrant, if you watch the fps numbers while the 2D and 3D tests are running, it is always almost twice the frame rate of the G2.
The G2 is quick, and I love it, but the two different platforms definitely shine in different areas.

unxconformed said:
The Vibrant definitely has a GPU advantage. I've noticed in games like Wreckless Racing or Nova the Vibrant is way smoother, on the G2 its sometimes choppy. In Quadrant, if you watch the fps numbers while the 2D and 3D tests are running, it is always almost twice the frame rate of the G2.
The G2 is quick, and I love it, but the two different platforms definitely shine in different areas.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i have to agree with this.
even tho. with the lag fix. the galaxy is running super fine for me. which is a plus.
the only reason i went with galaxy s over g2 is the screen.
i am in love with the super amoled black level and colors. some people may not agree with me and love the G2 screen more or iphone 4 screen more. but to each has his own i guess

I went with G2 because it has track pad and LED light. Neither one of them worked like they should so what's the point.
Waiting on MyTouch HD, if I don't like that - will pick up Vibrant.

borodin1 said:
I went with G2 because it has track pad and LED light. Neither one of them worked like they should so what's the point.
Waiting on MyTouch HD, if I don't like that - will pick up Vibrant.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah the trackpad kinda blows. The only thing I use it for is precise cursor placement when I'm editing text (or copy/pasting).

gravis86 said:
Yeah the trackpad kinda blows. The only thing I use it for is precise cursor placement when I'm editing text (or copy/pasting).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What else would you use it for?

SuperFly03 said:
What else would you use it for?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I suppose your could use it to scroll through homescreens, menus, and web pages. Just navigation in general. But I find that I keep hitting the mEnu button on accident all the time. Plus it's not quite as sensitive as I would like.

gravis86 said:
Well I suppose your could use it to scroll through homescreens, menus, and web pages. Just navigation in general. But I find that I keep hitting the mEnu button on accident all the time. Plus it's not quite as sensitive as I would like.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting.
I just use the touchscreen for that.

GPU in Nexus S?

Okay so I ran Nenamark on both my Vibrant and Nexus S. To my surprise, Nexus S scored 39.5 FPS while the Vibrant scored 51.8 FPS.
Anyone know what GPU is in the Nexus S? I was under the impression it would be the same as the SGS line; there doesn't seem to be a definite answer either on the forums.
EDIT: Bleh, stupid me. Nenamark displays the GPU information. According to Nenamark, both Nexus S and Vibrant have a PowerVR SGX 540. So why the huge difference in benchmarks?

DarkAgent said:
Okay so I ran Nenamark on both my Vibrant and Nexus S. To my surprise, Nexus S scored 39.5 FPS while the Vibrant scored 51.8 FPS.
Anyone know what GPU is in the Nexus S? I was under the impression it would be the same as the SGS line; there doesn't seem to be a definite answer either on the forums.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
*sigh* these benchmarks are so unscientific

There is some suspicious stuff in the kernel sources that refers to the PowerVR SGX 535 chip. Hope Samsung isn't trying to pull a fast one on us by using a 535 and making it look like a 540 to apps. Interestingly, when trying to boot the Nexus S kernel on a Galaxy S, supercurio ran into display driver failures. Maybe because it's trying to use 535 drivers with a 540?

Something is definitely up... it makes no sense that with the same hardware Nexus S scores less than Vibrant.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/7h7r8b
And a Google employee confirmed the same GPU

slowz3r said:
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/7h7r8b
And a Google employee confirmed the same GPU
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I already edited the OP to state that Nenamark reads both as a 540. Now the question why are they benchmarking so differently.

DarkAgent said:
I already edited the OP to state that Nenamark reads both as a 540. Now the question why are they benchmarking so differently.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh sorry, didnt read the edit
Hmmm, Maybe Touchwiz does add some good lol
Idk though

Galaxy s/ vibrant only scores over 50 FPS on nenamark if you're OC
but yea score seems kind of low score 47 on my vibrant noticed some stuttering and not as smooth on NS scored 42
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=9792903&postcount=33

demo23019 said:
galaxy s/ vibrant only scores over 50 FPS on nenamark if you're OC
but yea score seems kind of low
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=9792903&postcount=33
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not OC'ed though :-( I am running completely stock, minus a few bloatware apps on the Vibrant.
Now that you mention it, though, I don't recall my Vibrant ever hitting 50 FPS on nenamark before. This is odd...

I wouldn't worry good things will come with the great developers here im sure it will be tweaked
also neocore bench is pretty much the same as my vibrant 55.6

The "old" Vibrant Froyo leaks performed worse on 3d rendering than the original eclair believe it or not. Not MUCH worse, but a bit worse. Don't know about the latest leaks. Not noticeable enough to care.

If there is any remaining doubt. Here's the iFixit teardown of the Nexus S:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nexus-S-Teardown/4365/2
Note the CPU: S5PC110A01
Google that up, it's a 540.

maybe the nexus S has the gpu clocked lower?

demo23019 said:
I wouldn't worry good things will come with the great developers here im sure it will be tweaked
also neocore bench is pretty much the same as my vibrant 55.6
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah but any half decent GPU hits 55ish on Neocore.

DarkAgent said:
Yeah but any half decent GPU hits 55ish on Neocore.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only one ive seen that's currently available is Adreno 205 that can keep up in neocore
DebauchedSloth said:
If there is any remaining doubt. Here's the iFixit teardown of the Nexus S:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nexus-S-Teardown/4365/2
Note the CPU: S5PC110A01
Google that up, it's a 540.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Case closed

DarkAgent said:
Yeah but any half decent GPU hits 55ish on Neocore.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which ones

jasonyump said:
maybe the nexus S has the gpu clocked lower?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
someone should give you a cookie. yes this makes sense but it also could have something to do with more tasks moved to the gpu, a different driver, or the changes in gingerbread 3d api that the benchmarks arnt written for

Hmm that's odd. I think it's a problem with Gingerbread and not so much the actual hardware. Quadrant standard runs terribly on the Nexus S and now Nenamark is giving unusual scores. These developers really need to update these benchmarks, seriously. Quadrant hasn't been updated in so long so undoubtedly that will have problems with the new framework from Gingerbread.

I agree with Arcadia310 I believe its also a software issue not a hardware and like he said the apps needed updating.

You guys are probably right, although it seems weird apps wouldn't work on 2.3 seeing as it isn't as big of a update as 2.1 -> 2.2 was.

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

[OFFTOPIC] Motorola Xoom OC'd to 1.5GHz and benchmarked!

Motorola Xoom overclocked to 1.5GHz, eats Quadrant and Linpack for breakfast
Hold on to your hats, gents, because things just got real -- that's a Motorola Xoom in the picture above, clocked at a blazing 1.504GHz. While we highly doubt that's a new world record of any sort, the dual-core Tegra 2 inside seriously screams at that clockspeed, scorching Quadrant to the tune of 3105 (remember this?) and delivering 47 MFLOPS in Linpack. Oh, and in case you're curious, this achievement wasn't some random hack. It was perpetrated for our collective benefit by the master of SetCPU himself, and you'll find full video proof of his accomplishment below and instructions at our source link. Got root? Then you're on your way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey guess what? At 1.5GHz the Nexus S can break 4k without a sweat. Simms22, care to post some of your Quadrant scores
******Official Scoreboard*******
Premier DC Honeycomb Tablet: 0
Google Nexus S: 1

who cares quadrant sucks not to mention it still does not still work correctly with 2.3 i highly doubt its accurate with honeycomb and dualcore CPU
also you're talking about a 4k plus score with voodoo

demo23019 said:
who cares quadrant sucks does not still work correctly with 2.3 i highly doubt its accurate with honeycomb and dualcore CPU
also youre talking about a 4k plus score with voodoo
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pardon? What do you mean by Voodoo? If you mean the ext4 hack then the 4k I am referring to was actually before the ext4 hack was implemented. And if its broken for both Gingerbread and Honeycomb then wouldn't it kind of negate the being broken? Since their both broken?
Why do people always have to **** all over everything? It was an interesting post and I found it funny that Engadget would use the phrase "eat for breakfast" when in reality 3.1k is not that impressive. Seriously though, why is it necessary to be an ass instead of just having a laugh? Clearly I posted this in good fun. JFC.

And only scores 47 MFLOPS when the nexus one snapdragon can score higher you going to say nexus one is faster than xoom and Nexus S i dont thin so
Being huge into PC benchmarking and im not impressed with what android currently has for software...Anything that can be manipulated into giving false result is bogus
reminds me of 3dmark vantage with nvidia cards giving off very high inaccurate CPU scores with physx is enabled
....Not saying vantage is bogus

demo23019 said:
And only scores 47 MFLOPS when the nexus one snapdragon can score higher you going to say nexus one is faster than xoom and Nexus S i dont thin so
Being huge into PC benchmarking and im not impressed with what android currently has for software...Anything that can be manipulated into giving false result is bogus
reminds me of 3dmark vantage with nvidia cards giving off very high inaccurate CPU scores with physx is enabled
....Not saying vantage is bogus
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which benchmarks if any do you think are valid or quasi valid for the NS? I use Fps2D to test FPS

jlevy73 said:
Which benchmarks if any do you think are valid or quasi valid for the NS? I use Fps2D to test FPS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am using an3DXL for benchmarking as well as nenamark. an3DXL gave results that had the lowest spread, while quadrant was all over the place, having as much as a 500 point different..