Database Users

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

Look at this (from 1:44 on):
It's a quadrant benchmark run on a android port on the HD2. Graphics are really bad, but in the end it has approximately the same score as the benchmarking score of the Galaxy with the original firmware. I mean what is in a score? If I look at the beginning of the movie, the UI is very slow and not as responsive as the Galaxy
(BTW i got 55.7 FPS with the neocore benchmark on JM2)
This is not to say that I don't have deep respect for what the HD2-android development team is doing. Really amazing job. I just can't wait to get my HD2 back from repair.

appelflap said:
Look at this (from 1:44 on):
It's a quadrant benchmark run on a android port on the HD2. Graphics are really bad, but in the end it has approximately the same score as the benchmarking score of the Galaxy with the original firmware. I mean what is in a score? If I look at the beginning of the movie, the UI is very slow and not as responsive as the Galaxy
(BTW i got 55.7 FPS with the neocore benchmark on JM2)
This is not to say that I don't have deep respect for what the HD2-android development team is doing. Really amazing job. I just can't wait to get my HD2 back from repair.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant scores have been criticized for their non-descript breakdowns, at least on their free suite. Also, the fact that they chose the weighting of the scores, so should they chose 2D is equal to 3D weight, I don't know their formula (and for all I know, they give equal weighting to all or they give equal weighting to all test where the CPU has 12 tests and the 3D graphics has 4), but the fact that we, as users don't have access to their formula on their website is a bit unnerving.
Add to that the fact that many reviews and videos rely on it so heavily leaves users a bit misinformed. In reality, and thorough review should definitely run a custom test suite to give individual scores to:
CPU
Memory
I/O
2D graphics
3D graphics
That way users can compare what's important to them. The Galaxy S suffers from terrible I/O and the hacks that have given the fixes typically boost Galaxy scores to nearly double their rates, and it's majorly attributed to improving a bunk I/O score.

Totally agree. In addition, it would be really nice to know which benchmarked factors are responsible for which functions. For example it is really interesting to see how the hd2 performs before the user is running the tests. When the user is scrolling through the setting menu there is a very noticible lag. Given the fact that the total score is nearly the same as the scrore for the SGS, and thar the graphic score of the hd2 is bad in comparisson to the SGS, I would conclude that graphic performance is very important for the way the ui responds.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

appelflap said:
Totally agree. In addition, it would be really nice to know which benchmarked factors are responsible for which functions. For example it is really interesting to see how the hd2 performs before the user is running the tests. When the user is scrolling through the setting menu there is a very noticible lag. Given the fact that the total score is nearly the same as the scrore for the SGS, and thar the graphic score of the hd2 is bad in comparisson to the SGS, I would conclude that graphic performance is very important for the way the ui responds.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I can tell, the HD2 got a decent score 'cos it was running Froyo. When we get bumped up to an official froyo build with JIT fully optimized, We should be top of the pile.

don't forget, android isn't working 100% on the HD2.
I personally think it's pointless comparing to a not complete port.

woops dbl post

alovell83 said:
Quadrant scores have been criticized for their non-descript breakdowns, at least on their free suite. Also, the fact that they chose the weighting of the scores, so should they chose 2D is equal to 3D weight, I don't know their formula (and for all I know, they give equal weighting to all or they give equal weighting to all test where the CPU has 12 tests and the 3D graphics has 4), but the fact that we, as users don't have access to their formula on their website is a bit unnerving.
Add to that the fact that many reviews and videos rely on it so heavily leaves users a bit misinformed. In reality, and thorough review should definitely run a custom test suite to give individual scores to:
CPU
Memory
I/O
2D graphics
3D graphics
That way users can compare what's important to them. The Galaxy S suffers from terrible I/O and the hacks that have given the fixes typically boost Galaxy scores to nearly double their rates, and it's majorly attributed to improving a bunk I/O score.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even then though, it's possible to write a benchmark which wins constantly for any phone.
In regards to "terrible I/O", that might even be due to a bug in the FAT32 drivers. Yes you can benchmark it, but it wont mean much. The best way is to actually TEST the applications you need, rather than select a phone based on benchmarks. However, you are possibly best off looking at the component specs, because they ignore software bugs.

scrizz said:
don't forget, android isn't working 100% on the HD2.
I personally think it's pointless comparing to a not complete port.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But the topic is about "what's in a score". Maybe one can generally say that is pointless to compare devices this way. I think that such benchmark scores are only (a bit) relevant at the two poles of the benchmark score spectrum. Everything in between can be neglected due to the uninformed way sub-scores are evaluated.

You got 55.7 FPS on Neocore as the sgs has vertical sync enabled, the refresh rate on the sgs'es screen is 56 fps and thus you can only go up to 56 fps as the v-sync is on. This proves that the sgs is indeed a much more powerful device that is actually being held back. If you can disable the v-sync then you can get a higher fps score

appelflap said:
But the topic is about "what's in a score". Maybe one can generally say that is pointless to compare devices this way. I think that such benchmark scores are only (a bit) relevant at the two poles of the benchmark score spectrum. Everything in between can be neglected due to the uninformed way sub-scores are evaluated.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just read in a post that the Galaxy S gets a 0 on the 2D score:
"JIT isn't fully enabled in the current froyo versions, and quadrant, frankly, is bull**** (for exmple, 2d acceleration gets the same weight in the final result as 3D. Due to the fact that the SGS doesn't have a dedicated 2D accelerator, quadrant doesn't try to use the cpu- it just gives a round zero in that part)"
I can't confirm this, but that definitely seems like a terrible set-up, seeing as how I'm pretty sure I have games run in 2D, so to say that it can't do it just seems wrong regardless of if the SGS has a dedicated 2D accelerator or not (so if you aren't testing the way it performs in real-world, why are you testing?)
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=737787&page=3

Qazz~ said:
You got 55.7 FPS on Neocore as the sgs has vertical sync enabled, the refresh rate on the sgs'es screen is 56 fps and thus you can only go up to 56 fps as the v-sync is on. This proves that the sgs is indeed a much more powerful device that is actually being held back. If you can disable the v-sync then you can get a higher fps score
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It isn't really being held back - the screen can't display more than 56 fps as you say, and it wouldn't really be visible even if it could. Disabling v-sync isn't really that important, we need a benchmark that can actually use the advanced features in the SGS GPU (Neocore just pushes a fairly small amount of polygons with no real extras.) Using current 3D benchmarks to benchmark the SGS is like using quake 1 to benchmark the brand new ATI/nVidia cards.
The benchmark is what is at fault here, not the device

RyanZA said:
It isn't really being held back - the screen can't display more than 56 fps as you say, and it wouldn't really be visible even if it could. Disabling v-sync isn't really that important, we need a benchmark that can actually use the advanced features in the SGS GPU (Neocore just pushes a fairly small amount of polygons with no real extras.) Using current 3D benchmarks to benchmark the SGS is like using quake 1 to benchmark the brand new ATI/nVidia cards.
The benchmark is what is at fault here, not the device
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't want to speak for the other poster, and I agree with your premise, however, it isn't actually solving the issue at hand. Better FPS wouldn't be noticed, however, it would give a better score and, more importantly, indicate it's potential. So, getting 56FPS isn't doing the phone any justice within the score, which is what reviews are using, giving it an artificially low score, and putting it more in line with units that can't compete on higher end games. So, when a site like anand pushes 150FPS on a game, I know that means that their rig is entirely too powerful for the game in question, but it still means something when you compare it to the lower end graphics card that only gets 90...then when they run Crisis you see these results play out more with differences that we can notice with the eye.

I think the HD2 gets that score because, as I can see in the video, the CPU tests run faster compared to my SGS, probably because of Froyo, and I know, from the time I had the Diamond and the HD2, that the internal memory and RAM are very fast. Sadly SGS has a slow internal memory, atleast when used by the phone`s software, when copying from PC is faster than my class 6 microSD. Luckily, we have mimocan`s fix. Hope this will be fixed in future FW`s.

NexusHD2 with-FRG83D V1.7 with hastarin r8.5.1 On my HD2 got 1920 in quadrant,31.5 on neocore, and 37 on linmark.

The lag might be because you are using launcher pro, I use launcher pro and sometimes it makes the the lock lag on my phone but it doesn't happen when I use the default lock also if you have alot of Widgets on your screen it will cause lag also

appelflap said:
Look at this (from 1:44 on):
It's a quadrant benchmark run on a android port on the HD2. Graphics are really bad, but in the end it has approximately the same score as the benchmarking score of the Galaxy with the original firmware. I mean what is in a score? If I look at the beginning of the movie, the UI is very slow and not as responsive as the Galaxy
(BTW i got 55.7 FPS with the neocore benchmark on JM2)
This is not to say that I don't have deep respect for what the HD2-android development team is doing. Really amazing job. I just can't wait to get my HD2 back from repair.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
same galaxy s scores 6000+ in quadrant with custem roms

The HD 2 is a better fit for quadrent then the sgs as quadrent was made for the snapdragon processor which the hd2 has and the sgs does not. Comparing apples to orenges in an apple juice contest doesn't really prove much. Use real life feel. If you care about the scores a rom can be made to get you over 3000 quad score but is laggy as hell. Don't believe me? Look at my sig

interesting... I was using quadrant to see how a stock xxjvo and gingerreal compared. Surely that would indicate a real speed difference and not just be some kind of "hack" ?

zelendel said:
The HD 2 is a better fit for quadrent then the sgs as quadrent was made for the snapdragon processor which the hd2 has and the sgs does not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's right.
HD2 uses two android OS :
- Cyanogenmod, that is faster than our samsung os..
- Nexus one's port to HD2, greatly optimized by google...
It's really fast. I upgraded my father's HD2 last month, replacing windows in the NAND with CM7. It really makes a big change, the phone is like brand new ^^

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1012556
Quadrant is pretty flawed. And I say that being someone who had a phone (before modifications) that was mid-range in Quadrant (Galaxy S), and having a phone that's right top of the heap (Galaxy S II)

Quadrant benchmark useless?

What do you think Androidcentral was talking about when they said "Quadrant benchmark (which is about useless on a Galaxy S phone -- blame the cheaters and developers lack of fixing the I/O scoring algorithm for that one)" Are they blaming EXT2 and EXT4 lagfix or the developers of the program? Just very curious.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App

Probably both. With a loopback filesystem, Quadrant is only reading and writing to a buffer instead of the actual disk. So the numbers are insanely high compared to true R/W scores. However lagfixes like Voodoo and Z4mod are not creating loopbacks and instead are converting the actual disks to another, faster, format. So Voodoo scores are real.
FWIW, I don't really think Quadrant as a whole is useless, just the overall score. I think Quadrant Advanced is actually a very good benchmarking program.

Not useless
Just not representing real life. They are good for setting a comparison, but in real life, the phone, computer or anything else with arbitrary measurement tools does not getting the whole story.
Case in point, my computer does not have have the fastest cpu but out performs my friends with the fastest components, Why, because there is more to a computer than just a fast cpu and vdo card. Same for the phones.
The real life tests i did with a G2 and Vibrant side by side did not make any of us go WOW about either phone, but on a whole All of us who were there left with " the Vibrant performs better overall.
Anyway, they are fun to use and do generate conversation.

The benchmark. The insane score of the I/O makes the score meaningless. You can have a phone with awesome I/O and a horrible cpu/gpu and itll score higher then a much faster phone (evo,vibrant, etc).

Thanks for the answers and your opinions, guys. All very good points.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App

Quadrant Scores

I'm really curious to see the "Quadrant Advanced" or "Quadrant Professional" scores. In particular, the cpu score. Wondering how 2.3 runs on the Hummingbird, since the Dalvik JIT Compiler in 2.2 didn't really offer the Hummingbird the same amount of cpu performance gain as the Scorpians did.
Can't find it anywhere on the internet, if you get your hands on a Nexus S, please run Quadrant Advanced, and post the screen shot. Thanks!

SamsungVibrant said:
I'm really curious to see the "Quadrant Advanced" or "Quadrant Professional" scores. In particular, the cpu score. Wondering how 2.3 runs on the Hummingbird, since the Dalvik JIT Compiler in 2.2 didn't really offer the Hummingbird the same amount of cpu performance gain as the Scorpians did.
Can't find it anywhere on the internet, if you get your hands on a Nexus S, please run Quadrant Advanced, and post the screen shot. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pretty sure there will be plenty of scores on the 16th

slowz3r said:
Pretty sure there will be plenty of scores on the 16th
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya but some people get their hands on it early, like some of the tech sites do, i.e. phonedog. Maybe someone had found a review video showing Quadrant Advanced being run, and could post it Thats all.

SamsungVibrant said:
Ya but some people get their hands on it early, like some of the tech sites do, i.e. phonedog. Maybe someone had found a review video showing Quadrant Advanced being run, and could post it Thats all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know that if androidandme get ahold of one early theyll bench it

SamsungVibrant said:
I'm really curious to see the "Quadrant Advanced" or "Quadrant Professional" scores. In particular, the cpu score. Wondering how 2.3 runs on the Hummingbird, since the Dalvik JIT Compiler in 2.2 didn't really offer the Hummingbird the same amount of cpu performance gain as the Scorpians did.
Can't find it anywhere on the internet, if you get your hands on a Nexus S, please run Quadrant Advanced, and post the screen shot. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant is obsolete. It was designed for Snapdragon architecture.

Engadget just ran the dual core LG Star running 2.2 through quadrant and it only scored 2100. I know Galaxy s phones with the file system fix has beat this easily, which makes me wonder, will the Nexus S have the same file issue problem?
If the dual core lg star was coming out next Thursday as well, I would still get the Nexus S.

the nexus s will have ext4 on the system, data, cache etc. and vfat on the sdcard. so there won't be any file system problem like the SGS already has.

Can't wait for futuremark to release their mobile benchmark and not have to rely on this quadrant bs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_3QG4U63I&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App

Also its been said million times galaxy s lag fix trick quadrant I/O scores not actual performance gain.
I don't see nexus s getting any higher than 16K at moment vibrant around 12-13 with Eugene new non lag fix that's base off new leaked firmware for i9000
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App

I'm fully sure that the Nexus S will have a wonderfully smooth experience.
And I think that this is all that matters.

someone talked about 1631 quadrant score in another thread

bananenlarry said:
someone talked about 1631 quadrant score in another thread
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya I don't know why he made a whole new thread instead of posting it in here. Anyway, I think he referenced phonedog, but I can't find it anywhere on phonedogs site.

SamsungVibrant said:
Ya I don't know why he made a whole new thread instead of posting it in here. Anyway, I think he referenced phonedog, but I can't find it anywhere on phonedogs site.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He did it because he was at work at the time, found the info and was excited to share it.

bananenlarry said:
someone talked about 1631 quadrant score in another thread
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ummm..... 1631 is not a very compelling score for my N1, so the NS had better exceed 1631 by a mile, or else what's the point???

makelegs said:
Ummm..... 1631 is not a very compelling score for my N1, so the NS had better exceed 1631 by a mile, or else what's the point???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant score is obselete. You will see drastic actual UI improvements.

Anderdroid said:
Quadrant score is obselete. You will see drastic actual UI improvements.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How is quadrant obsolete? Mind stating some factual evidence that shows quadrant is obsolete, or were you just stating your opinion as fact?

irishrally said:
If the dual core lg star was coming out next Thursday as well, I would still get the Nexus S.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
U LIE!!!!!!!

I don't I will still buy NS instead of that LG Star with dual core!
Reasons:
1. I am so tired waiting manufacturer or mobile operator to provide software update. So, pure Google experience is my biggest reason. I want to get the first update, always
Oh yeah, I don't have much time for rooting and ROM flashing.
2. The LG Star dual core benchmark are not that impressive. It is faster, but not by far, not fast enough to be significant. Hummingbird CPU + sgx 540 gpu platform is still not fully utilized.
I think, the dual core is more towards tablet. Good single core platform is more than enough to handle Android mobile phone, at least right now
andyandrwew said:
U LIE!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Check it out
YoutubeDotcomSlashwatch?v=wcOMLbIRmoQ
It's only the standard version and doesn't work at all...

Anderdroid said:
Quadrant score is obselete. You will see drastic actual UI improvements.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant, used as a benchmark standard, clearly isn't obsolete, because here we are talking about and comparing quadrant scores.
I think what you mean is that the score itself is pretty much useless as a predictor of user experience. In that sense, I couldn't agree more!!! I've seen ROMs that get higher scores run like total crap, and ROMs with lower scores run like a dream. I've also seen ROMs with high scores run super-fantastic, too!
My point is...that the Nexus S had better outperform my Nexus 1 on Quadrant, otherwise it's just not that impressive of a statement for the Nexus S hardware OR the Gingerbread software, when compared to my N1 (on CM).
I really hope this phone kicks ass, b/c I hope to upgrade my wife's bb to the Nexus S. But, I know that I'm gonna play with a lot, too.... so I want the goods!
Just my .02

3.1 Quadrant drop

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.

Galaxy S running 2.3.4, Quadrant

Looking good, battery ok, feels smooth.

2.3.4 Quadrant
At last 2.3.4 seems to be very fast ! Quadrant score with out ext4 is 1600-1800 amazing!
PDA:XXJVP
MODEM:XXJVO
CSC:JV4XEN

Why are you all using Quadrant?
Run it 3 times and you won't even get the same score :| Pretty not reliant as a benchmark!

you won`t get same score cuz first time i like a cold start , it loades files etc.. second time you will get a better score

When you run 3dmark on a PC, you get the same (or around the same) score, same goes to a lot of benchmark software out there. Caching a benchmark goes against benchmarking itself...

t1mman said:
When you run 3dmark on a PC, you get the same (or around the same) score, same goes to a lot of benchmark software out there. Caching a benchmark goes against benchmarking itself...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even that probably isn't truly indicative of performance. Nvidia and ATI both "optimise" *cough cheat* on benchmarks. Nvidia may blitz ATI in a certain game, but another game might be optimised for ATI. 3D mark also doesn't go into enough detail about what its testing (similar to Quadrant), which makes them both toys, because you don't get a breakdown. It doesn't tell you even basic stuff such as average random I/O speeds and very few benchmarks ensure that the test is run in a consistent fashion. You running the same test a second time leads to significantly better results, then caching is taking place, and the effect of caching should be added to the results too.
Benchmarks have unfortunately grown from an optimisation tool for developers, to a marketing tool for salespeople, and endusers who wish to boast. My suggestion, is that you should ignore them, and if you think the ROM feels nice, just use it. But, it seems most people are simply deciding on whether a ROM is nice AFTER they've seen the quadrant score, and that is a step backwards.
Its entirely possible to have dreadful real-world performance, but have the worlds highest Quadrant result (just like in a car, you might be able to drive 90km with 1litre of petrol. But if you only obtain that rate at 1km/h, its useless to almost everyone, especially if at 50km/h (normal speed), it starts gulping fuel like a ferrari).