Database Users

[2597] This is why friends don't let friends use Quadrant.

I just scored 2597 on a DK17 FroYo ROM (Quantum Rom v1.5 {WarpSpeed}) running at a stock 1.0 GHz. I believe this sets a record for a stock CPU on Android.
(At least it does according to smartphonebenchmarks.com) UPDATE - It's official. This is the 8th highest recorded Quadrant score and the very highest recorded stock clocked CPU score on that website.
This score was made possible by the EXT3 (EDIT - Correction, ramdisk) hack implemented in the most recent version of the ROM, released this morning.
EDIT - I'd like to note that the "lagfix" was incorporated into the ROM by the author with noobnl's assistance to prove a point; neither condone the serious use of Quadrant scores in it's current form. This hack is purely a Quadrant scores boost and does not provide real-world benefits. It is a demonstration that we should not rely upon inaccurate measurements to tell us what ROM or hardware is best.
An exploitable benchmark is no benchmark at all.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11825908/snap20101127_124836.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11825908/snap20101127_131805.png

So just to clarify, does the ext3 hack do nothing other than improve benchmark scores? Is there any real-world improvement?
As common knowledge as the Quadrant thing is, I'm amazed people KEEP IMPLEMENTING this tweak and bragging about the results... unless there was an actual (less-drastic than Quadrant shows) improvement.

I agree that first we have to look at the big picture..while it may not help as much as the number makes it out to be, that doesn't necessary mean that it gives no benefit.
Next is this, why do people complain about Quadrant so much? you are using a FREE version..the FREE version only gives you a total number..Quadrant Pro on the other hand gives you the scores in each category..and is actually one of the best for measuring atm on android...

Electrofreak said:
I just scored 2597 on a DK17 FroYo ROM (Quantum Rom v1.5 {WarpSpeed}) running at a stock 1.0 GHz. I believe this sets a record for a stock CPU on Android.
(At least it does according to smartphonebenchmarks.com)
This score was made possible by the EXT3 hack implemented in the most recent version of the ROM, released this morning.
An exploitable benchmark is no benchmark at all.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11825908/snap20101127_124836.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11825908/snap20101127_131805.png
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it is true, we mounted benchmark data folder as a ramdisk/tmpfs, theres no ext3 filesystem in the rom because just for the lulz and educate the group that a lag fix won't do ****.. just to cheat a benchmark.. we were pissed at roms user thinking making rfs to ext3 will make performance better...

gTen said:
I agree that first we have to look at the big picture..while it may not help as much as the number makes it out to be, that doesn't necessary mean that it gives no benefit.
Next is this, why do people complain about Quadrant so much? you are using a FREE version..the FREE version only gives you a total number..Quadrant Pro on the other hand gives you the scores in each category..and is actually one of the best for measuring atm on android...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It has nothing to do with cost. It has to do with the fact that Quadrant is the most commonly used benchmark and it is deeply flawed.
Yes, the Pro version does break down the scores. Most people don't pay for Quadrant. Secondly, the I/O scores are weighted very heavily... the score nearly tripled because an I/O test completed a little quicker. There's a significant problem with that.

I've been impressed by the Epic's speed, but your scores aren't truly valid because you are "cheating"
I assume you're using the new Quantum ROM (which I also have installed) that implements a lagfix in which one moves the app data and dalvik cache away from Samsung’s embarrasingly slow internal Storage. Doing this significantly boosts I/O scores in Quadrant, thereby cheating the system. In real-life use, your system is barely performing any faster than before the exploit/lagfix
Read here for more info to see how a dev exploited this to create a 3300 Quad score (can't post links so remove the spaces):
http : // androidspin .com /2010/08/23/my-quadrant-is-bigger-than-your-quadrant/
This exploit has even been confirmed by the almighty Cyanogen himself

So is there any real benifits to this Epic 4G "lag fix"? I've seen that the "lag fix" within the other galaxy S phones actually does give real world results...

Eazail70x7 said:
So is there any real benifits to this Epic 4G "lag fix"? I've seen that the "lag fix" within the other galaxy S phones actually does give real world results...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure, it provides a speed benefit. The only thing being addressed in this thread is that, just because your quadrant scores double, it doesn't mean your device is twice as fast in actual use

Look for Dameon's post a couple of days ago in the quantum rom thread (on tapatalk..and linking sux). He talks about this exploit, but sadly (and understandably), most of the rom migrants want something to quantify expected results.. Even if bs
sent from my RAZR

Its not fair to say quadrant cheats.. rather it just may or may not be measuring performance of an operation that is ever really used on your system. In fact your system does use some fsyncs like quadrant and those will be faster like quadrant. Your system could start using fewer fsyncs though and quadrant would never know. Also your device certainly doesn't use only fsyncs..but those are very related to the lag. So basically, quadrant says the lag fix works if I'm not missing something. That's OK...but you don't need a crazy number to say that.
Bottom line... the only thing that tells how your phone performs...is how your phone performs and that's not just some little disclaimer. Hardware speed depends DRAMATICALLY on how it is used.
Sent from my SHW-M110S using XDA App

biff6789 said:
Sure, it provides a speed benefit. The only thing being addressed in this thread is that, just because your quadrant scores double, it doesn't mean your device is twice as fast in actual use
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually the tweak, as noobnl states, quite specifically provides NO performance improvements to the phone. He would know because he made the hack. See the quote below.
noobnl said:
it is true, we mounted benchmark data folder as a ramdisk/tmpfs, theres no ext3 filesystem in the rom because just for the lulz and educate the group that a lag fix won't do ****.. just to cheat a benchmark.. we were pissed at roms user thinking making rfs to ext3 will make performance better...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Moving on...
biff6789 said:
I've been impressed by the Epic's speed, but your scores aren't truly valid because you are "cheating"
I assume you're using the new Quantum ROM (which I also have installed) that implements a lagfix in which one moves the app data and dalvik cache away from Samsung’s embarrasingly slow internal Storage. Doing this significantly boosts I/O scores in Quadrant, thereby cheating the system. In real-life use, your system is barely performing any faster than before the exploit/lagfix
Read here for more info to see how a dev exploited this to create a 3300 Quad score (can't post links so remove the spaces):
http : // androidspin .com /2010/08/23/my-quadrant-is-bigger-than-your-quadrant/
This exploit has even been confirmed by the almighty Cyanogen himself
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This was the whole point of my post... I think you might have missed that. I would also recommend this article as well: http://briefmobile.com/cyanogen-demonstrates-quadrants-flaws

Electrofreak said:
It has nothing to do with cost. It has to do with the fact that Quadrant is the most commonly used benchmark and it is deeply flawed.
Yes, the Pro version does break down the scores. Most people don't pay for Quadrant. Secondly, the I/O scores are weighted very heavily... the score nearly tripled because an I/O test completed a little quicker. There's a significant problem with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well realistically speaking even without the I/O exploit the none pro version never had any meaning to it..why?
Well it measures:
CPU
Memory
I/O
2d
3d
Now lets look at it from perspective..lets say we have a score of 3000 and 99% of it comes from 3d..the phone would still be laggy because even though it may have a good gpu it won't have the other things to back it up.
Quadrant weighs everything evenly...it exists for the sole purpose of getting people to buy the pro version..
So its not Quadrant that is flawed but the people who actually think a large number means everything is automatically super fast...
So in most cases yes, the I/O increase would be almost useless as nothing would utilize it to the point where you would need to utilize such high I/O..unless maybe you plan to run a database server on your phone? lol
But like any benchmark we have to not only look at the number but understand what the number means..similar to how on a linpack gets cheated on with use of a VFP since it measures with floating points...
Heck I can write a program called gTen Score which does an md5 sum of every file on the device and the closer the device is to mine the higher score it would get..would that make the device with the highest score the best? lol..benchmarks are benchmarks...we have to understand them and look at the details to how the numbers got there..In my opinion if its not Quadrant Pro people are wasting their time with the benchmark...

gTen said:
Well realistically speaking even without the I/O exploit the none pro version never had any meaning to it..why?
Well it measures:
CPU
Memory
I/O
2d
3d
Now lets look at it from perspective..lets say we have a score of 3000 and 99% of it comes from 3d..the phone would still be laggy because even though it may have a good gpu it won't have the other things to back it up.
Quadrant weighs everything evenly...it exists for the sole purpose of getting people to buy the pro version..
So its not Quadrant that is flawed but the people who actually think a large number means everything is automatically super fast...
So in most cases yes, the I/O increase would be almost useless as nothing would utilize it to the point where you would need to utilize such high I/O..unless maybe you plan to run a database server on your phone? lol
But like any benchmark we have to not only look at the number but understand what the number means..similar to how on a linpack gets cheated on with use of a VFP since it measures with floating points...
Heck I can write a program called gTen Score which does an md5 sum of every file on the device and the closer the device is to mine the higher score it would get..would that make the device with the highest score the best? lol..benchmarks are benchmarks...we have to understand them and look at the details to how the numbers got there..In my opinion if its not Quadrant Pro people are wasting their time with the benchmark...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You make some very good points, but Quadrant IS flawed in that it should be able to test performance in a manner that is more consistent with real-world performance. A benchmark tool that provides poor results for a different configuration of hardware or software (in this case, Samsung's RFS file system) when performance is in on par or even superior to a higher-scoring configuration is a benchmark tool with serious flaws.

Electrofreak said:
You make some very good points, but Quadrant IS flawed in that it should be able to test performance in a manner that is more consistent with real-world performance. A benchmark tool that provides poor results for a different configuration of hardware or software (in this case, Samsung's RFS file system) when performance is in on par or even superior to a higher-scoring configuration is a benchmark tool with serious flaws.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The flaw of quadrant is grouping up all of those categories into 1...usually as you said things are weighted into a benchmark and each benchmark measures things like 3d performance, i/o performance an etc would each be a separate benchmark..Quadrant will never do that because their goal is for you to buy the pro version...it was never intended to be used for anything other then a proof of concept for selling the pro version...
Since people are not gonna buy Quadrant Pro..the best way is to get them to use a different benchmark...I hear some people touting GLBenchmark is it any better?

gTen said:
The flaw of quadrant is grouping up all of those categories into 1...usually as you said things are weighted into a benchmark and each benchmark measures things like 3d performance, i/o performance an etc would each be a separate benchmark..Quadrant will never do that because their goal is for you to buy the pro version...it was never intended to be used for anything other then a proof of concept for selling the pro version...
Since people are not gonna buy Quadrant Pro..the best way is to get them to use a different benchmark...I hear some people touting GLBenchmark is it any better?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've been following GLBenchmark and it seems pretty accurate as far as I can tell. A buddy of mine outed the HTC Glacier (Mytouch 4G) when he found that a developer had erroneously left scores posted on GLBenchmark.com. We could tell it was a next-gen Snapdragon by the scores, and that it wasn't running an Adreno 200. Became big news soon thereafter.

Electrofreak said:
I've been following GLBenchmark and it seems pretty accurate as far as I can tell. A buddy of mine outed the HTC Glacier (Mytouch 4G) when he found that a developer had erroneously left scores posted on GLBenchmark.com. We could tell it was a next-gen Snapdragon by the scores... became big news soon thereafter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then the best bet is to contact rom developers and ask if they could include GLBenchmark instead of quadrant and explain the benefits of having a specified benchmark over a general unweighed one..
and yeah I saw th HTC Glacier thing..

Electrofreak said:
This was the whole point of my post... I think you might have missed that. I would also recommend this article as well: http://briefmobile.com/cyanogen-demonstrates-quadrants-flaws
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right, I originally DID miss your point. My bad... I thought you were just another fanboi raving about the awesomeness of Quadrant. I should have read more carefully
But in essence, you and I were saying the same thing all along: Quadrant is bunk and can easily be manipulated by a tmpfs tweak
As for my other point about lagfixes offering real-world performance boosts in other phones, I was saying "yes" in a general way as often times they do, not "yes" specifically regarding Dameon's tweak

biff6789 said:
You're right, I originally DID miss your point. My bad... I thought you were just another fanboi raving about the awesomeness of Quadrant. I should have read more carefully
But in essence, you and I were saying the same thing all along: Quadrant is bunk and can easily be manipulated by a tmpfs tweak
As for my other point about lagfixes offering real-world performance boosts in other phones, I was saying "yes" in a general way as often times they do, not "yes" specifically regarding Dameon's tweak
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, and from what I understand (forgive me, I am still a relative newcomer here) the other Galaxy S phones mount their file directory a little differently than the Epic does, negating the need for a real lag fix. However, the Captivate lag-fix, for example, does indeed provide actual performance improvements. Perhaps this misunderstanding is what is causing people to believe that the Epic needs to have some sort of lag fix too.

Electrofreak said:
Yeah, and from what I understand (forgive me, I am still a relative newcomer here) the other Galaxy S phones mount their file directory a little differently than the Epic does, negating the need for a real lag fix. However, the Captivate lag-fix, for example, does indeed provide actual performance improvements. Perhaps this misunderstanding is what is causing people to believe that the Epic needs to have some sort of lag fix too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're exactly right. Dameon himself stated that the other Galaxy phones need a lagfix while the Epic does not (read the last line of the following post):
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=9440522&postcount=1174

quadrant has been known to very inaccurate. I forget who it was but someone tweaking their evo was able to get like 6000 on quadrant awhile ago. After that it has been tricked many times into giving big numbers with no actual improvements over the actual phone itself.

GPU in Nexus S?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

maybe the nexus S has the gpu clocked lower?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holly Quadrant Batman! 1700+

Seems like I got a pretty quick device I got a best of 1703

fifedogg said:
Seems like I got a pretty quick device I got a best of 1703
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice score man, I would suggest running Smartbench 2010 however. Quadrant is skewed towards Snapdragon processors so its really not a good benchmark.

kenvan19 said:
Nice score man, I would suggest running Smartbench 2010 however. Quadrant is skewed towards Snapdragon processors so its really not a good benchmark.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Compared to other types of processors your right. But as far as our phones go I think its a pretty good score.
Smartbench is byast to phones with higher GPU's like the Epic just like quadrant is more byast to CPU speed, with Snapdragon having the upper hand. I'm sure the Epic will do much better on quadrant with a legit 2.2 build and JIT enabled. From what I understand Quadrant uses more CPU when processing the 2d/3d as opposed to Smartbench using mainly the GPU. IMO quadrant gets high scores with fast cpu's and Smartbench gets super high scores with high GPU phones. I have an Epic and my Shift is faster all around except when its something to do with pure GPU.

fifedogg said:
Compared to other types of processors your right. But as far as our phones go I think its a pretty good score.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh I wasn't saying you had a bad score, its just that Quadrant scores are meaningless, sure you can compare a Shift to a Shift but it won't give you any scores that are applicable in the real world. If you're just looking for a big number then quadrant is great for that, however if you want something that provides an accurate representation of your phone's power Smartbench is the ticket!
~Edit~
Also, I forgot to mention how easy it is to trick quadrant and fake scores. People have gotten it to give last gen devices 2500+ scores. Quadrant is just a terrible benchmarking tool all around.
~Edit #2~
I know I sound like a **** who is trolling you but what I'm really trying to do is prove to the Evo and Epic fanboys that this device is really great. If you quote a big quadrant score they'll jump all over you and discredit you. If you quote a Smartbench score they will 1) have to go look up what smartbench is (c'mon its really new lol) and 2) make up some other fake reason to claim the other devices are better.
My point is that having owned an Epic since launch day, an Evo for a few days and my wife owning a Shift for a few days I can find only one thing I dislike about the shift whereas I have a myriad of issues with the others (that one issue is the screen size).

Thread cleaned, let's get this back on track

Sorry for taking it down that path Impaler
Sent from my HTC Evo Shift 4G

My bad
Sent from my HERO200 using XDA App

BrandoKC said:
Sorry for taking it down that path Impaler
Sent from my HTC Evo Shift 4G
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the5ifty said:
My bad
Sent from my HERO200 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's ok guys, just trying to get stuff back on track

Anyway...i ran a smartbench on the wifes shift and it scored considerably lower than the G2...i get ~1650s in quadrant
Sent from my HERO200 using XDA App

fifedogg said:
Compared to other types of processors your right. But as far as our phones go I think its a pretty good score.
Smartbench is byast to phones with higher GPU's like the Epic just like quadrant is more byast to CPU speed, with Snapdragon having the upper hand. I'm sure the Epic will do much better on quadrant with a legit 2.2 build and JIT enabled. From what I understand Quadrant uses more CPU when processing the 2d/3d as opposed to Smartbench using mainly the GPU. IMO quadrant gets high scores with fast cpu's and Smartbench gets super high scores with high GPU phones. I have an Epic and my Shift is faster all around except when its something to do with pure GPU.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Slight correction - Smartbench simply reports the performance of each phones in comparison to Nexus One. Productivity Index scores aren't supposed to be compared with Games Index scores since the bases for each are different.
I own a G2, Vibrant and N1 (also Optimus One). I am pretty happy with what Smartbench reports vs real experience.
The numbers may change drastically in v2011 if another phone is chosen as the base (I am tempted to do this since it appears that almost every phone in the market today grossly outperforms Snapdragon QSD8x50 in GPU by a big margin...

I scored a little over 1500 on Quadrant. Smart bench gave me 759/1097 and 693/1116
not sure if that is good or not. But my phone does seem a little sluggish.

Heelfan71 said:
I scored a little over 1500 on Quadrant. Smart bench gave me 759/1097 and 693/1116
not sure if that is good or not. But my phone does seem a little sluggish.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For some reason, Evo Shifts (in general) aren't reporting numbers as high as the G2 or Desire Z. Have a look at http://smartphonebenchmarks.com you will see some numbers for G2 and Desire Z, both stock and overclocked.

I also found my Shift scores are considerably lower than the G2, but then again I don't put too much stock into benchmarking programs. I find that out of the box the Shift is buttery smooth and at 800Mhz the quadrant/SB scores soundly beat my EVO clocked at 1Ghz and the EVO is pretty beastly.
Also considering people have been able to overclock the processor in the G2 from 800 to 1.9Ghz, we should be able to boost the Shift considerably once we have root. Hopefully the Shift is embraced by the dev community because overclock plus AOSP will be a beautiful thing.

I'll be adding Evo Shift score to the chart shortly. So far, 759/1097 is the best score I've seen on here. If anyone can beat this score (in a stock form), please let me know here!

Acei said:
I'll be adding Evo Shift score to the chart shortly. So far, 759/1097 is the best score I've seen on here. If anyone can beat this score (in a stock form), please let me know here!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Will do, man thanks!

Acei said:
I'll be adding Evo Shift score to the chart shortly. So far, 759/1097 is the best score I've seen on here. If anyone can beat this score (in a stock form), please let me know here!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
832/1240 is what I got 1st try. I'm gonna try a few more times and see what she does. I can post screen shots if need be as well.

fifedogg said:
832/1240 is what I got 1st try. I'm gonna try a few more times and see what she does. I can post screen shots if need be as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great! Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.