For those you who like running benchmarks on your phones over and over trying to raise a few numbers, there is a new version of quadrant available in the market. It adds the HTC EVO 4G 2.2, the Droid X 2.2 and Droid X 2.1 to the graph.
Surprisingly (or maybe not), the Nexus One on 2.2 still reigns supreme. I mean, besides our phones running a lagfix. I would love to see the Vibrant running a LagFix + 2.2.
Thanks for the info
Thanks, I ll check it out
Yeah, neato. Thanks for the heads up.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Doesn't the g2 have a much higher score than the nexus one 2.2.
Mines running 2.2 lag fix with a score of 2458!!
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
You won't see a huge cpu performance boost with Froyo 2.2 on the Hummingbird
kangxi said:
I would love to see the Vibrant running a LagFix + 2.2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since the Hummingbird CPU does not take full advantage of the Dalvik JIT compiler, you will not see the huge gains in CPU performance by switching to 2.2 from 2.1. Meaning the score will not increase by much, just by installing 2.2.
On the other hand, the 1st and 2nd generation Scorpions do take advantage of the new Dalvik JIT compiler in 2.2. That is why you see a huge CPU performance boost between a scorpion phone running 2.1 and one running 2.2...i.e the Nexus One.
The free edition of Quadrant doesn't break down the score for you. To get a real breakdown of your score, such as CPU, I/O, 2D, 3D...you need to get Quadrant Advanced $2.99 or Quadrant Professional 24.99.
Available at Slideme.org.
SamsungVibrant said:
Since the Hummingbird CPU does not take full advantage of the Dalvik JIT compiler, you will not see the huge gains in CPU performance by switching to 2.2 from 2.1. Meaning the score will not increase by much, just by installing 2.2.
On the other hand, the 1st and 2nd generation Scorpions do take advantage of the new Dalvik JIT compiler in 2.2. That is why you see a huge CPU performance boost between a scorpion phone running 2.1 and one running 2.2...i.e the Nexus One.
The free edition of Quadrant doesn't break down the score for you. To get a real breakdown of your score, such as CPU, I/O, 2D, 3D...you need to get Quadrant Advanced $2.99 or Quadrant Professional 24.99.
Available at Slideme.org.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can you tell me why the hummingbird processor does not take full advantage of the jit compiler.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
hitman818 said:
Can you tell me why the hummingbird processor does not take full advantage of the jit compiler.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i second this
G2 has the highest score stock even after the up date
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
Nuff said.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
I just ran a test with my G2, and knocked the doors off the Nexus One with a 1657 score stock.
Mark271 said:
Nuff said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually its been proven that the quadrant scores with lag fix is not 100% accurate. It's very far fetched.
Nuff said.
brian_v3ntura said:
Actually its been proven that the quadrant scores with lag fix is not 100% accurate. It's very far fetched.
Nuff said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's been proven that all benchmarks cannot be accurate for a Vibrant, because JIT works differently for Snapdragon/Scorpian.
Nuff said.
Mark271 said:
It's been proven that all benchmarks cannot be accurate for a Vibrant, because JIT works differently for Snapdragon/Scorpian.
Nuff said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you're wrong. Not ALL benchmarks are inaccurate for the galaxy s line. All u did was post a screenie of ur quadrant scores with the lag fix. Lag fix actually exploits a bug in quadrant which gives a higher score . You're just acting like a know it all esp when u believe the actual quadrant score is 2k+
brian_v3ntura said:
you're wrong. Not ALL benchmarks are inaccurate for the galaxy s line. All u did was post a screenie of ur quadrant scores with the lag fix. Lag fix actually exploits a bug in quadrant which gives a higher score . You're just acting like a know it all esp when u believe the actual quadrant score is 2k+
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
:F
abcedfghuiak
I use Voodoo and get 1961, the EXT4 is a lot faster than the RFS, and does not have the stability problems of using EXT2. The Linpack scores posted by the Overclocked G2s are impressive all the same.
More importantly, I can install and open apps as soon as I click them, Voodoo speeds up the user experience quite a bit. So from a usage standpoint, I am pleased, and shall lust after the following:
http://www.dailyfreshnews.info/3187/samsung-galaxy-s2-2-ghz-and-mega-display/
These Quadrant FREE EDITION scores are useless, YOU NEED QUADRANT ADVANCED OR PRO!
The free edition of Quadrant, that many people are downloading is not that useful. Quadrant Free edition gives you 1 total score, that's it, there is absolutely no breakdown of how your score was compiled.
Meaning what? Meaning that most of you bragging about a score of 2500 after applying lagfix is useless.
Hypothetical example:
Lets say your phone scores a 50 on cpu, 50 on gpu, and 2400 on I/O, for a total score of 2500. How would you know your individual component scores? Free edition doesn't tell you.
Now lets say a G2 scored 2200. However, it's individual component scores were 500 cpu, 500 gpu, 1200 I/O...total score is 2200.
So here you are bragging about how fast your G2 is, when in reality your lagfix gave you a huge boost in I/O but your cpu score is 50, compared to a G2 cpu score of 500.
Even though the G2 got a lower TOTAL score by 300, the cpu and gpu are faster ON the G2 in this hypothetical situation, meaning the higher CPU and GPU scores on the G2 would trump any performance gain by your I/O lagfix.
Anyways this was just a hypothetical situation using made up numbers.
However, do you get my point? My point is, YOU NEED ADVANCED edition of Quadrant or Professional. Otherwise your raw total score is meaningless.
Here is a breakdown.
Free edition gives you 1 total score at the end
Advanced and Professional version breakdown your score into the following:
1)CPU
2)Memory
3)I/O
4)2D
5)3D
Advanced costs 2.99, Professional costs 24.99
They are the same, except Professional license terms are different.
Visit this link for differences:
http://www.aurorasoftworks.com/products/quadrant
Visit this link to purchase the Advanced version:
http://slideme.org/applications?text=quadrant
So unless you post your Advanced scores, your raw total score means nothing. having a phone with a cpu score of 5 and a I/O score of 5Billion would still be a pretty slow phone.
Here is an example of what Quadrant Advanced looks like...notice the score breakdown? Now to compare and contrast, look up a few posts, post number 12 by Brian_V3ntura...his image is the free edition. Notice his just gives you 1 lump score, doesn't really tell you if your cpu & gpu are truely faster than other phones or not, or if your score is just inflated because of I/O.
The update didn't include the G2, they should put that in their list.
SamsungVibrant said:
The free edition of Quadrant, that many people are downloading is not that useful. Quadrant Free edition gives you 1 total score, that's it, there is absolutely no breakdown of how your score was compiled.
Meaning what? Meaning that most of you bragging about a score of 2500 after applying lagfix is useless.
Hypothetical example:
Lets say your phone scores a 50 on cpu, 50 on gpu, and 2400 on I/O, for a total score of 2500. How would you know your individual component scores? Free edition doesn't tell you.
Now lets say a G2 scored 2200. However, it's individual component scores were 500 cpu, 500 gpu, 1200 I/O...total score is 2200.
So here you are bragging about how fast your G2 is, when in reality your lagfix gave you a huge boost in I/O but your cpu score is 50, compared to a G2 cpu score of 500.
Even though the G2 got a lower TOTAL score by 300, the cpu and gpu are faster ON the G2 in this hypothetical situation, meaning the higher CPU and GPU scores on the G2 would trump any performance gain by your I/O lagfix.
Anyways this was just a hypothetical situation using made up numbers.
However, do you get my point? My point is, YOU NEED ADVANCED edition of Quadrant or Professional. Otherwise your raw total score is meaningless.
Here is a breakdown.
Free edition gives you 1 total score at the end
Advanced and Professional version breakdown your score into the following:
1)CPU
2)Memory
3)I/O
4)2D
5)3D
Advanced costs 2.99, Professional costs 24.99
They are the same, except Professional license terms are different.
Visit this link for differences:
http://www.aurorasoftworks.com/products/quadrant
Visit this link to purchase the Advanced version:
http://slideme.org/applications?text=quadrant
So unless you post your Advanced scores, your raw total score means nothing. having a phone with a cpu score of 5 and a I/O score of 5Billion would still be a pretty slow phone.
Here is an example of what Quadrant Advanced looks like...notice the score breakdown? Now to compare and contrast, look up a few posts, post number 12 by Brian_V3ntura...his image is the free edition. Notice his just gives you 1 lump score, doesn't really tell you if your cpu & gpu are truely faster than other phones or not, or if your score is just inflated because of I/O.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol the image was not mine tho. i just quoted some guy name mark post. but thanks ive been looking for the advance ver. ,but i always forgot to actually look for it.
Everyone needs to realize that these numbers dont mean much when it comes to everyday use. My vibrant doesn't score anything close to the n1 or other phones but I bet you my vibrant is just as smooth if not smoother then that n1. And the screen is the best feature on this phone that almost no other phone screen even come close to. I can't stand to look at my friends droid x.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
Related
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....
I know this topic has been debates over time but I noticed that most people attributed the differences in performance is caused by firmware difference (2.1 vs. 2.2).
Today there's an article release about G2 overlock to 1.42 Ghz. Along with the article I noticed "Native Benchmark" using SetCPU which doesn't uses JIT.
Lower is Better.
G2 Result:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Now My Vibrant at 1.2 Ghz:
C: 702.89
Neon: 283.15
The difference between the two phone is so great that I doubt it is due to the 200 MHz difference alone.
As a comparison, my score at regular 1 GHz is:
C: 839.21
Neon: 334.51
There is about 130 ms decrease for 200 Mhz overclock, which is Vibrant is at 1.4 Ghz would put the two CPU really close to each other but with G2 having a slight edge. Remember this test is suppose to be JIT independent running Native Codes. But since the vibrant can only be stable overclocked to 1.3 Ghz (what is available anyways), the newer generation of Snapdragon may just be more efficient than Hummingbird, despite us the galaxy owner believes otherwise.
Another thing to keep in mind though, is that Snapdragon are supposedly to have an edge in Neon instruction Set, so I didn't look into that score too much.
It appears to be true.
It appears Hummingbird is not only slower than the new Generation Scorpions, it also appears the Hummingbird is unable to fully capture the CPU performance gain of the Dalvik JIT compiler in Froyo 2.2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAZYSVr2Bhc
Dunno Something Is Not Right About This 2.2
The Thing That Really Bugs Me Is 2.2 is Suppose To Allow The Full Functionality Of Our 512MB of Ram..But It Doesn't
Erickomen27 said:
Dunno Something Is Not Right About This 2.2
The Thing That Really Bugs Me Is 2.2 is Suppose To Allow The Full Functionality Of Our 512MB of Ram..But It Doesn't
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not 2.2, its Samsung.
SamsungVibrant said:
It's not 2.2, its Samsung.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, they should use ext 4 on their phones.
I don't see why they would stick to their old RFS.
SamsungVibrant said:
It appears Hummingbird is not only slower than the new Generation Scorpions, it also appears the Hummingbird is unable to fully capture the CPU performance gain of the Dalvik JIT compiler in Froyo 2.2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAZYSVr2Bhc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sorry, but could you explain what your youtube link has to do with the topic? I'm curious, as I wasn't any wiser on the question at hand when I watched it.
NEON is architecture extension for the ARM Cortex™-A series processors*
Is Snapdragon an ARM Cortex™-A series processor? NO!
Remember SSE instruction set in Intel, and the war AMD vs Intel?
Welcome back, LOL
*The source for NEON: http://www.arm.com/products/processors/technologies/neon.php
Probably is, but does it really matter?
Sent from my SGS Vibrant.
Scorpion/Snapdragon have faster FPU performance due to a 128 bit SIMD FPU datapath compared to Cortex-A8's 64 bit implementation. Both FPUs process the same SIMD-style instructions, the Scorpion/snapdragon just happens to be able to do twice as much.
http://www.insidedsp.com/Articles/t...ualcomm-Reveals-Details-on-Scorpion-Core.aspx
2.2 isnt going to magically give the galaxy S similar scorpion/snapdragon high scores
just look at droidX and other Cortex-A8 phones that already have official 2.2 ROMS they avr 15-20 linpack scores
This doesn't make the hummingbird a bad CPU at all LOL its stupid benchmarks IMHO not going to show in realword use...maybe when the OS matures and becomes more complex but not now..and even by then we will have dualcore CPU's...its a gimmick for HTC to have the "Fastest CPU"
IMO in real world use they are pretty much on par but then when you look at GPU performance its quit obvious the galaxy S pulls ahead thanks to the 90mts PowerVR SGX540
demo23019 said:
Scorpion/Snapdragon have faster FPU performance due to a 128 bit SIMD FPU datapath compared to Cortex-A8's 64 bit implementation. Both FPUs process the same SIMD-style instructions, the Scorpion/snapdragon just happens to be able to do twice as much.
http://www.insidedsp.com/Articles/t...ualcomm-Reveals-Details-on-Scorpion-Core.aspx
2.2 isnt going to magically give the galaxy S similar scorpion/snapdragon high scores
just look at droidX and other Cortex-A8 phones that already have official 2.2 ROMS they avr 15-20 linpack scores
This doesn't make the hummingbird a bad CPU at all LOL its stupid benchmarks IMHO not going to show in realword use...maybe when the OS matures and becomes more complex but not now..and even by then we will have dualcore CPU's...its a gimmick for HTC to have the "Fastest CPU"
IMO in real world use they are pretty much on par but then when you look at GPU performance its quit obvious the galaxy S pulls ahead thanks to the 90mts PowerVR SGX540
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Once again quoting ARM HQ website:
NEON technology is cleanly architected and works seamlessly with its own independent pipeline and register file.
NEON technology is a 128 bit SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) architecture extension for the ARM Cortex™-A series processors, designed to provide flexible and powerful acceleration for consumer multimedia applications, delivering a significantly enhanced user experience. It has 32 registers, 64-bits wide (dual view as 16 registers, 128-bits wide.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Scorpion is not ARM Cortex™-A series processor
Fuskand said:
I'm sorry, but could you explain what your youtube link has to do with the topic? I'm curious, as I wasn't any wiser on the question at hand when I watched it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I provided the link, because the first part of the link talks about the JIT compiler which increases CPU performance. I put that there in-case someone has never heard of this before. Thus, when I mentioned the Hummingbird can not take full advantage of the JIT compiler, someone would know what I'm talking about.
demo23019 said:
Scorpion/Snapdragon have faster FPU performance due to a 128 bit SIMD FPU datapath compared to Cortex-A8's 64 bit implementation. Both FPUs process the same SIMD-style instructions, the Scorpion/snapdragon just happens to be able to do twice as much.
http://www.insidedsp.com/Articles/t...ualcomm-Reveals-Details-on-Scorpion-Core.aspx
2.2 isnt going to magically give the galaxy S similar scorpion/snapdragon high scores
just look at droidX and other Cortex-A8 phones that already have official 2.2 ROMS they avr 15-20 linpack scores
This doesn't make the hummingbird a bad CPU at all LOL its stupid benchmarks IMHO not going to show in realword use...maybe when the OS matures and becomes more complex but not now..and even by then we will have dualcore CPU's...its a gimmick for HTC to have the "Fastest CPU"
IMO in real world use they are pretty much on par but then when you look at GPU performance its quit obvious the galaxy S pulls ahead thanks to the 90mts PowerVR SGX540
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Search the net, people have made real world Videos of galaxy s running 2.2, compared to G2. The G2 is faster in the real world on things like launching aps.
lqaddict said:
Once again quoting ARM HQ website:
Scorpion is not ARM Cortex™-A series processor
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL i never said the scorpion is ARM Cortex™-A
try reading my post again
SamsungVibrant said:
Search the net, people have made real world Videos of galaxy s running 2.2, compared to G2. The G2 is faster in the real world on things like launching aps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOl if it is faster it might be by the most 1-2 sec if its lucky
sorry its going to take allot more than that to impress me..again its a phone now a highend PC
SamsungVibrant said:
Search the net, people have made real world Videos of galaxy s running 2.2, compared to G2. The G2 is faster in the real world on things like launching aps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Due to different filesystem implementation largely, once there is a workable hack to convert the entire filesystem on the Galaxy S to a real filesystem you can make the comparison of the things like launching apps.
Demo, I didn't mean to come off as a **** I was just pointing out the flaw in the OP benchmark - NEON instruction set execution is flawed. G2 processor is ARMv7 which is the base of Cortex-A8, Cortex-A8 adds the instructions specifically targeted for application, like multimedia, and that's where NEON comes into place.
lqaddict said:
Due to different filesystem implementation largely, once there is a workable hack to convert the entire filesystem on the Galaxy S to a real filesystem you can make the comparison of the things like launching apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed. +10 char
lqaddict said:
Demo, I didn't mean to come off as a **** I was just pointing out the flaw in the OP benchmark - NEON instruction set execution is flawed. G2 processor is ARMv7 which is the base of Cortex-A8, Cortex-A8 adds the instructions specifically targeted for application, like multimedia, and that's where NEON comes into place.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No problem I didn't really take it
Also noticed i overlooks allot of things in OP...blame the ADD
What difference does it make? In real world use the difference is negligible. And in three months our phones will be mid-tier anyway. At least we don't have hinges that will fall apart in two months.
how is the hummingbird not able to fully take advantage of JIT?
Well there is a fix for our phones now. And from what I can tell there no way the g2 can open apps faster than my vibrant with the z4mod. Its smocking fast.by far the fastest I've ever seen this phone. No delays whatsoever. Can't wait till I get froyo with ocuv and this will be unreal. I feel like this phone us a high end pc running android or something. When I say instant it's instant lol.
Kubernetes said:
What difference does it make? In real world use the difference is negligible. And in three months our phones will be mid-tier anyway. At least we don't have hinges that will fall apart in two months.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly.
People seem to forget that the SGS line is like 6 months old now, we should be glad they're still doing as well as they are.
Then theres the fact that there aren't many other phones that come with 16gb internal. To me, having 16GB and being able to upgrade to 48 [minus the 2GB that Samsung steals] total is worth way more than starting with 4GB [1.5GB usable] and upgrading to a max of 36 [minus what HTC steals from internal].
But, if you don't like your phone, SELL IT while it's still worth something!
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
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..
HTC ONE GLBenchmark only scores 34 FPS at 1080P offscreen, this is much lower than the Samsung SHV-E300s which scores 41.3 FPS, both using Snapdragon 600, in the same test. IRC HTC One is using LPDDR2 RAM, so are we seeing a lack of bandwidth compared to the Samsung which may use LPDDR3, which is supported by the S600.
http://www.glbenchmark.com/phonedetails.jsp?benchmark=glpro25&D=HTC+One
how do you know HTC One uses LPDDR2 memory
kultus said:
how do you know HTC One uses LPDDR2 memory
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.htc.com/uk/smartphones/htc-one/#specs
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6754/hands-on-with-the-htc-one-formerly-m7/2
Turbotab said:
HTC ONE GLBenchmark only scores 34 FPS at 1080P offscreen, this is much lower than the Samsung SHV-E300s which scores 41.3 FPS, both using Snapdragon 600, in the same test. IRC HTC One is using LPDDR2 RAM, so are we seeing a lack of bandwidth compared to the Samsung which may use LPDDR3, which is supported by the S600.
http://www.glbenchmark.com/phonedetails.jsp?benchmark=glpro25&D=HTC+One
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My first question would be is how they even got a benchmark of the SHV-E300?
Xistance said:
My first question would be is how they even got a benchmark of the SHV-E300?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do any results appear on GLbenchmark?
I believe with GLBenchmark, that if you don't register / login before running the test, it automatically uploads to their server for public viewing, so maybe it was done intentionally, or somebody forgot to login?
fp581 said:
he is spamming all around the htc one just look at his posts plz ban him from posting in any htc forum ever again.
he probably works in sony nokia or samsung
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who are you talking about?
sorry wrong person i'll delete that lest one.
but i would love pics of that benchmark for proof
fp581 said:
sorry wrong person i'll delete that lest one.
but i would love pics of that benchmark for proof
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude I was going to go atomic, I admit it I have a terrible temper
I believe the benchmark was run by a German Android site, called Android Next, there is a video on Youtube, the GLBenchmark starts at 2.22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl1dmNhhcXs&list=UUan0vBtcwISsThTNo2uZxSQ&index=1
thanks turbo for advanced my knoledge...what a shame they didnt choose LPDDR3 but i think its nt issue these days
Just to temper this news, we must remeber that the HTC One is running at 1.7ghz, while the Samsung device is running at 1.9.
Although 200mhz does not seem like much, it could possibly account for the 7 fps difference when u factor in the difference in UI.
If in fact the Samsung device really has DDR3 ram, and the difference (after accounting for clock speed) is 2-3 fps, I can understand why HTC opted not to include it. Was not worth the extra cost most likely.
Maedhros said:
Just to temper this news, we must remeber that the HTC One is running at 1.7ghz, while the Samsung device is running at 1.9.
Although 200mhz does not seem like much, it could possibly account for the 7 fps difference when u factor in the difference in UI.
If in fact the Samsung device really has DDR3 ram, and the difference (after accounting for clock speed) is 2-3 fps, I can understand why HTC opted not to include it. Was not worth the extra cost most likely.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GLBenchmark is a test of GPU performance, and isn't really changed by CPU clockkspeed, but it is affected by bandwidth.
As a test, I downclocked my Nexus 7 from an overclocked 1.6 GHz to just 1.15 GHz, I ran GLBench and got 10 FPS. I then ran at the test again but with CPU at 1.6 GHz, the result, 10 FPS again.
I've benched the N7 with both CPU & GPU overclocked to the same level as Transformer Infinity, which gets 13 FPS, but I always get 10 FPS, the reason my N7 has lower memory bandwidth than the Transformer Infinity, because it use slower RAM and thus has less bandwidth. That is a difference of 30% in FPS, just because of lower bandwidth.
I read that LPDDR3 starts at 800 MHz or 12.8 GB/s in dual-channel configuration, whereas LPDDR2 maxs at 533 MHz or 8.5 GB/s max bandwidth in dual-channel configuration.
Turbotab said:
GLBenchmark is a test of GPU performance, and isn't really changed by CPU clockkspeed, but it is affected by bandwidth.
As a test, I downclocked my Nexus 7 from an overclocked 1.6 GHz to just 1.15 GHz, I ran GLBench and got 10 FPS. I then ran at the test again but with CPU at 1.6 GHz, the result, 10 FPS again.
I've benched the N7 with both CPU & GPU overclocked to the same level as Transformer Infinity, which gets 13 FPS, but I always get 10 FPS, the reason my N7 has lower memory bandwidth than the Transformer Infinity, because it use slower RAM and thus has less bandwidth. That is a difference of 30% in FPS, just because of lower bandwidth.
I read that LPDDR3 starts at 800 MHz or 12.8 GB/s in dual-channel configuration, whereas LPDDR2 maxs at 533 MHz or 8.5 GB/s max bandwidth in dual-channel configuration.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In that case the results are quite disappointing.
All these fantastic new phones, and so much disappointment.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Tomatoes8 said:
They could have used faster memory for the same price if they didn't cut off Samsung as a supplier. Makes you wonder where their priorities lie. Making the best products possible or just going with the motions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No one is going to take anything you say here seriously, as you've managed to have 2 threads closed in the last 30 mins. One of those inane posts you made involved you saying that HTC is going to be paying, according to your genius calculation, 20% of their profits to Apple (I forget what insanely unintelligent reason you gave). Yeah, because being able to completely migrate data from 1 completely different phone to another is such a bad idea for a company that wants to push their product.
So, what is the per unit cost of what HTC is paying for RAM now vs. what they could have gotten from Samsung? Exactly, you have no idea. I also didn't hear anything about HTC "cutting off" Samsung as a supplier, but maybe I missed it, so I google'd "htc cut off samsung supplier" and found 2 links...
http://tech2.in.com/news/smartphones/following-apple-htc-cuts-component-orders-from-samsung/505402
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20121009PD213.html
I'm not sure if you have the capability of reading or not, but I'll spoon feed you this information, ok hunny? I've taken the info from the 1st link, since there is more there.
After Apple Inc slashed its orders for memory chips for its new iPhone from major supplier and competitor, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, HTC too has reportedly cut down on its smartphone component orders from the South Korean company.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, Apple cut down on memory orders. You know, they are the one's who make the iPhone? Have a logo of an Apple on their products? Steve Jobs was the CEO before he died. Anyway, I'll continue...
According to a report by DigiTimes, HTC has reduced its orders from Samsung, and instead opted to order CMOS image sensors from OmniVision and Sony. The company has also chosen to move part of its AMOLED panel orders to AU Optronics, DigiTimes reported citing ‘sources’.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Notice it said that HTC reduced its orders from Samsung, specifically on the image sensors (that's for the camera, if you didn't know) and the screen. You know, the thing on the front of your phone that you touch to make it do things? You know what I mean, right? I encourage you to read this link (or possibly have someone read it to you)...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reduce
The point is that reduce isn't the same as cut off. Cutting off would require HTC not ordering ANYTHING from Samsung. Guess what? The One doesn't use an OmniVision CMOS sensor (don't forget, that's what the camera uses) or an AMOLED screen (the bright part of your phone that shows you info).
Also, this is a far better designed phone, especially in regards to hardware, than anything Samsung has ever produced. I went back to my EVO 4G LTE, mainly because I couldn't stand the terrible build quality of the Note 2. It just feels like a cheap toy. And, IMO, Sense is far better than TW. Samsung may have the market right now because of the Galaxy line of products, but that doesn't mean that HTC is out of the game by any means.
Seriously, attempt to use just a bit of intelligence before opening your mouth and spewing diarrhea throughout the One forums. As the saying goes: "it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're an idiot, then to open your mouth and prove it". Unfortunately for you, it's too late.
I really think Turbo was too hasty to open a new thread for this as we've been discussing this in the mega thread
http://www.glbenchmark.com/phonedetails.jsp?benchmark=glpro25&D=HTC+One
It scores 34fps in Egypt HD 1080p offscreen, while the leaked Samsung s600 device socres 41fps which is perfectly inline with Qualcomm's promised speed (3x Adreno 225)
here is a video of what I suspect the source of the benchmark, because we had no benchmark before it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl1dmNhhcXs
notice how the battery is almost at end (HTC bar at this stage means its in the last 25%) also notice the activity in the notification area
more important the post ran more than a few full benchmarks, like quadrant before running GL benchmark, this alone is enough to lower the score, especially since Adreno 320 was known to throttle in the Nexus 4
I think benchmarks scores should not be relied on in such events, especially with hundreds of hands messing with the device, we have learned from the One X launch where videos poped up showing horrible performance from the One X, eventually turned out to be were very far from the final device in ur hands
finally both the One X and Nexus 7 at the same gpu clock, but the first is DDR2 and the second is DDR3, score the same in GL Benchmark
in other words its worrying but it's best to wait for proper testers like Anand
Thread cleaned
...from some serious trolling. There should be no trace from him for some time .
but remember:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
But...
I just wonder that a Samsung phone uses high end parts from Qualcomm instead of Samsungs processors. But I am not in Samsung devices so far, so I would not judge this
Gz
Eddi
Here's a second video also showing Egypt off screen bench at 34FPS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wijp79uCwFg
Skip to 3:30
Maedhros said:
Just to temper this news, we must remeber that the HTC One is running at 1.7ghz, while the Samsung device is running at 1.9.
Although 200mhz does not seem like much, it could possibly account for the 7 fps difference when u factor in the difference in UI.
If in fact the Samsung device really has DDR3 ram, and the difference (after accounting for clock speed) is 2-3 fps, I can understand why HTC opted not to include it. Was not worth the extra cost most likely.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you're saying that 200mhz o the CPU can account for 7 fps on a GPU test?
Following what you said, the Nexus 4 should have scored 27 fps? Since it has 200mhz less...
But no, it scored 33.7...only 0.3 fps less than the One!
And you know why? First both use the same GPU (and it's what counts for a graphic test) and second the HTC phones are always slower due to Sense!
So stop *****ing and realize that the One is no god phone
Samsung device is running 4.2.1