Related
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)
I am highly interested in this phone as a gaming device and I know it would be awesome to see this phone truly benchmarked video wise. The droidx beats it because of uncapped FPS even though it has a worse GPU.
don't worry too much about it. 56 is a really good number. once more graphics intensive games come out, our phones will shine at 56 FPS while others will struggle.
I thought it was already determined that the FPS wasn't capped. I know on my phone when running quadrant it does go above 56 but seems to average around 56. Besides I don't see any games out right now that would benefit from high frame rates, except maybe ps1.
speoples20 said:
I thought it was already determined that the FPS wasn't capped. I know on my phone when running quadrant it does go above 56 but seems to average around 56. Besides I don't see any games out right now that would benefit from high frame rates, except maybe ps1.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is not the point of the games but if our fps is uncapped right now, the droidx gets more fps than our phone with a older model GPU. 60 FPS is all you need for games but Im saying, why would I want a SGS for video games with apparently a DroidX gpu is better according to benchmarking.
I think the lower scores vs. the Droid 2 is more an indication of how lousy Quandrant is as a benchmark than any indication of the actual potential of the SGS.
^^
The droid X does NOT have a higher fps. I've tested one, an incredible, rooted/stock droid, nexus,etc....
None of these phones came close to 56.7 fps like the Vibrant.
Not sure where you got that, but it's incorrect.
Mark271 said:
It is not the point of the games but if our fps is uncapped right now, the droidx gets more fps than our phone with a older model GPU. 60 FPS is all you need for games but Im saying, why would I want a SGS for video games with apparently a DroidX gpu is better according to benchmarking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Find anywhere where the Droid x gpu is faster. Necore is like 42 fps vs sgs 55+, nenomark 1 is 44 on sgs and what? 22 on dx?
Your info is wrong, now the dx may jump that high during testing at one point, but average the sgs holds steady framerates much better.
There is a cap though. No matter what I can never go above 56 fps on any app.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
smashpunks said:
Find anywhere where the Droid x gpu is faster. Necore is like 42 fps vs sgs 55+, nenomark 1 is 44 on sgs and what? 22 on dx?
Your info is wrong, now the dx may jump that high during testing at one point, but average the sgs holds steady framerates much better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had seen a video of reviews and was surprised when they said the Droid X got like 59 FPS on quadrant while the SGS got 56
Mark271 said:
I had seen a video of reviews and was surprised when they said the Droid X got like 59 FPS on quadrant while the SGS got 56
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But that's untrue. Sgs wins in every gpu benchmark.
smashpunks said:
But that's untrue. Sgs wins in every gpu benchmark.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm, I wish I could find the video, I am too lazy to look through the 1000 of comparison videos.
But granted, maybe I was mistaken.
^ trust me, I've tested both... whatever you say you saw, again, it is incorrect.
Mark271 said:
Hmm, I wish I could find the video, I am too lazy to look through the 1000 of comparison videos.
But granted, maybe I was mistaken.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've seen probably every dx and sgs gpu benchmark video out. I can 100 % guarantee that the sgs not only beats the dx, but whips it by a good margin. They may have said at point during the test the dx may go over 60 at some points, but its all over the place going from 40 to 60 back down and up and etc. Where as the sgs just chills nicely around 56 although I've seen it jump to 58 its just all around more smooth and steady framerate vs the dx.....
Here's a video where they run the sgs against the dx, n1 and evo. Clearly see in neocore that the sgs eats the others alive and also in real world testing on them. Sgs clearly even beats the dx.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata_player&v=FRK2stnV3Wg
Haha okay. My bad. I would still like an uncapped to get a proper benchmark.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Mark271 said:
Haha okay. My bad. I would still like an uncapped to get a proper benchmark.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why are you so into mines is bigger than yours?
I have an idea but I don't think it is worth posting...
Hi if anyone wanted to know how the desire HD stacks up here are some benchmarks.
Quadrant = ~1800
Linpack = ~40
Neocore = ~58 fps
Uploding a video now :-D
[EDIT]
Video Taking Ages To Upload ...... here are some 0xBenchmark comparisons of the GalaxyS / Desire HD / Desire
http://0xbenchmark.appspot.com/run/[email protected]/GalaxyS
cool!
That Quadrant is a little lower than others have posted. I saw a vid on youtube of it reaching over 2000!
Just did quadrant again and got 1998 so yer 1800 - 2000 sounds right
:-D
having a higher neocore score means this phone does 3D better compared to galaxy s? Any game demo review on the DHD? really wanna see how does it does 3D gaming like asphalt or sandstorm - modern combat (multi touch intense)
------ Added 0xBenchmark to first post ------
override182 said:
having a higher neocore score means this phone does 3D better compared to galaxy s? Any game demo review on the DHD? really wanna see how does it does 3D gaming like asphalt or sandstorm - modern combat (multi touch intense)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Higher score is one thing but the games run better on PowerVR
Beards said:
Higher score is one thing but the games run better on PowerVR
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thats why.. hurm.. too bad then, having a higher neocore than the SGS dosent do any good..
Beards said:
Higher score is one thing but the games run better on PowerVR
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Isn't this just an optimization issue?
real life apps
but how does the phone perform in normal use apps? Because i'm thinking about getting the phone but i would like the phone to perform better in apps like psx4Droid than my desire does now.
So does anybody know anything about this ?
Galaxy s phones are limited to 56 fps, check the results for a more demanding benchmark like nenamark
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
android53 said:
Galaxy s phones are limited to 56 fps, check the results for a more demanding benchmark like nenamark
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
then whats the use of having a theoretical 90mil triangle p/s hardware but it cant reach higher than 56fps.. hurm.. such a waste..
override182 said:
then whats the use of having a theoretical 90mil triangle p/s hardware but it cant reach higher than 56fps.. hurm.. such a waste..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Erm. No. The vsync on the screens is 60fps anyway, so rendering faster than that is mostly useless. Also, if you are rendering a more complex scene, you will still have a higher fps with the 90M triangle hardware, it just won't go over 60.
jords12 said:
Erm. No. The vsync on the screens is 60fps anyway, so rendering faster than that is mostly useless. Also, if you are rendering a more complex scene, you will still have a higher fps with the 90M triangle hardware, it just won't go over 60.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly... Anything over 60 is a waste.
Here is my quadrant results.
Look this
HTC Desire HD unboxing + Neocore + Linpack + Quadrant test
ww.youtube.com/watch?v=eTBE9OkDRnU
DevilzDontCry said:
but how does the phone perform in normal use apps? Because i'm thinking about getting the phone but i would like the phone to perform better in apps like psx4Droid than my desire does now.
So does anybody know anything about this ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
PSX4Droid runs slow. Quite disappointing. Im not playing PSX-games on Desire HD. Too many good games, and Desire HD doesn’t do the justice.
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..
After updating to 3.1 I ran a few quadrant tests and instead of the 2000-2100 scores i normally get i am not getting 1500-1600 ... Usually updates boost performance not lower it
so i guess that begs the question: is your TF's performance lower?
Dark lord me said:
After updating to 3.1 I ran a few quadrant tests and instead of the 2000-2100 scores i normally get i am not getting 1500-1600 ... Usually updates boost performance not lower it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I noticed this too... BUT... the system seems a lot faster and more responsive, so i guess scores arent everything.
For sure score isn't everything, even more with quadrant.
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA App
quadrant came out and has not been updated since the nexus 1 got 2.2. so its kind of flawed and old. current best benchmark is either Vellamo or AnTuTu
Vellamo is a web browser benchmark IIRC, where as Quadrant is a CPU/GPU benchmark. I dont know about the other one you mentioned.
15xx is pretty damn low, I'm getting around 35xx with Quadrant at 1.5 GHz. Check your clockspeed in setcpu to make sure nothing is out of wack.
mrevankyle said:
quadrant came out and has not been updated since the nexus 1 got 2.2. so its kind of flawed and old. current best benchmark is either Vellamo or AnTuTu
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or CF Bench
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA Premium App
Or actually using the tablet. If it seems faster when you use it, its better. Benchmarks are pretty useless, especially since they can be skewed or manipulated
quadrant is a horrible benchmark. there are hacks and tweaks to get you stupid high scores.
Wierd i get2 2600
Tortel1210 said:
Or actually using the tablet. If it seems faster when you use it, its better. Benchmarks are pretty useless, especially since they can be skewed or manipulated
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's dumb. I clearly spent 400 dollars so I can get my electronics to tell me that I am cool. If my number is lower, then I am not cool.
sassafras
My quadrant is 1.7 not rooted or anything. I must say this tab runs extremely fast and I have no problems with it minus apps crashing once in a blue moon. If quadrant ment something my vibrant has 2.2k and it still doesn't run as smooth as my tab
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Dark lord me said:
After updating to 3.1 I ran a few quadrant tests and instead of the 2000-2100 scores i normally get i am not getting 1500-1600 ... Usually updates boost performance not lower it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I too used to be quadrant this or that using it as a gauge...then after I owned a few android devices...I came to the conclusion...its a piece of ****... First its inaccurate...my EVO. 3d is way faster then my color nookut yet I get better scores with the nook...same with the tf...second...it uses testing methods that can be cheated by some settings...hardware stuff..3rd...if you run it 3 times...you will usually get 3 different darn scores that range widely. To me using is the best test...not benchmarks..however if you need to use this as a guage...do it...but be warned...for real life...it don't mean anything
sassafras_ said:
That's dumb. I clearly spent 400 dollars so I can get my electronics to tell me that I am cool. If my number is lower, then I am not cool.
sassafras
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not dumb when the software is deeply, deeply flawed....quadrant that is.
life64x said:
It's not dumb when the software is deeply, deeply flawed....quadrant that is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think your sarcasm meter is broken.
...
Quadrant is broken because it doesn't weight different aspects of the benchmark equally. The Nexus One has a terrible GPU but a fast CPU, so it gets decent scores. The BN Nook Color has a mediocre CPU and a decent GPU so it scores better than the N1 even though the N1 is clearly the superior device.
Changing the file system to something journaled can bump your Quadrant score a few hundred points, which is dumb.
The ideal benchmark would somehow score in a way that represented the overall user experience. Unfortunately, no such benchmark exists for Android. Until then, it's just these pieces of crap that only exist so teenagers can show off their e-peen on the internet.
sassafras
sassafras_ said:
I think your sarcasm meter is broken.
...
Quadrant is broken because it doesn't weight different aspects of the benchmark equally. The Nexus One has a terrible GPU but a fast CPU, so it gets decent scores. The BN Nook Color has a mediocre CPU and a decent GPU so it scores better than the N1 even though the N1 is clearly the superior device.
Changing the file system to something journaled can bump your Quadrant score a few hundred points, which is dumb.
The ideal benchmark would somehow score in a way that represented the overall user experience. Unfortunately, no such benchmark exists for Android. Until then, it's just these pieces of crap that only exist so teenagers can show off their e-peen on the internet.
sassafras
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was saying that!!! I figured from your first reply...if you spent 400 it should be off the chain for the score. Quadrant is deeply, deeply flawed. If I mis-read your reply then it is my fault but I was not using sarcasm or being flippant but just stating what we both said.
life64x said:
I was saying that!!! I figured from your first reply...if you spent 400 it should be off the chain for the score. Quadrant is deeply, deeply flawed. If I mis-read your reply then it is my fault but I was not using sarcasm or being flippant but just stating what we both said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
he wasn't accusing you if being sarcastic, he was being sarcastic.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk
Thanks, my bad. I am a optimist and thought my pessimist came out... With only a couple hours sleep my mind plays tricks on me. Oh well, go back to watching dune...I would have used my gom jabber( watch dune to know what I mean).
Only thing worst than benchmark nerds are benchmark nerds who are stupid enough to still be using quadrant software that's over a year old and is not optimized for dualcore or honeycomb.