Related
I wonder if honeycomb runs slow. The highest quadrant standard score I can get is 2130. My atrix was averaging 2650.
My gtablet gets around 3600 with a hack. Xoom, 2200.
Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk
I noticed that the benchmark hung at database writes and very low framerates for the first graphics test. I got 1907 overall...
jondwillis said:
I noticed that the benchmark hung at database writes and very low framerates for the first graphics test. I got 1907 overall...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exact same thing with me. Linpack is in the 30's though.
Could be quadrant is not honeycomb ready like it wasn't for gb till an update
www.redcardgreencard.com
I'm pretty sure that screen resolution is the culprit for the low scores. I ran smart bench and the results were basically double my Droid X. Only difference is in smart bench the graphics sections didn't scale for the screen.
Sent from my XOOM using Tapatalk
So I flashed Skyraider today, and my quadrant score dropped 100 points from stock sense. What the hell is going on here....
The Black Droid said:
So I flashed Skyraider today, and my quadrant score dropped 100 points from stock sense. What the hell is going on here....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sitting at 1032. With the stock ROM, I was getting around 1120.
Why are these scores so low???
Q scores || ROMs
Quadrant scores vary by ROM and kernel, and by different kernels in the same ROM.
Those scores are expected to vary.
Quadrant scores, don't take those to heart... It's all about feel. I've run roms where they might score low, but feel and move quick.
Sent from my ADR6300 using XDA App
I just don't understand how some of these guys have anywhere from 2700-3300 as their quad score. I would imagine their phones are running insanely fast
Maybe, they are most likely overclocking. Some phones don't like going too high. Like on mine, I can't go over 1.113, or my phone slows to a crawl and locks up/reboots.
Sent from my ADR6300 using XDA App
The Black Droid said:
I just don't understand how some of these guys have anywhere from 2700-3300 as their quad score. I would imagine their phones are running insanely fast
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where have you seen people post these scores for their Inc?
I'm willing to bet good money that if you are seeing people post scores that high, they are either:
A. Not running Quadrant from an Inc but a much more powerful device (like an Android tablet)
B. Faking the results in Photoshop (or just lying about the number if no screenshot is provided)
C. Running a setup that doesn't actually run through the Quadrant test properly. For example, Quadrant didn't run properly on Gingerbread roms at first, and the scores that it would produce were extremely erratic. Sometimes they would be extremely low, sometimes they would be extremely high, but they weren't accurate or repeatable.
D. Running some sort of insane setup that is only stable enough to finish a Quadrant run, and will never actually be used for anything
Frankly, even D is far-fetched.
I would be inclined to call a 100 point fluctuation in Quadrant scores insignificant.
If you really want to chase the highest benchmark scores, you'll need to overclock your CPU and run the system as lean as possible. That means uninstalling or disabling a lot of the things that make your life easier day-to-day.
Also, in case you haven't already seen it in your own testing, Quadrant scores are always lowest on the first run. If you press the back button and immediately start a new Quadrant run, you'll get a much higher score.
Like any unit of measurement, Quadrant scores do serve a useful purpose. But as is often the case when the score itself is seen by some as the end-goal, it is often misapplied.
The same can be seen in digital cameras and the megapixel arms race. Everyone wants to brag about how many megapixels their camera is capable of. Everyone wants the highest number of megapixels, assuming that more MP = better image. Few people realize what it actually means, or why it matters very little these days.
A lot of those people are overclocking to get really high scores and for all the reasons listed above (nice post!).
You really should not be looking to get that high on the incredible, you'll end up draining your battery like crazy. Around the 1,000 mark is great for playing higher-end games on the market as long as you aren't running a bunch of things in the background. Just about anything else you can think up of doing on your phone should run well, you won't have a sluggish device and you won't be killing your battery either.
If you do end up trying to overclock your phone or using a ROM or kernel combination that will give you a much higher score I don't think you'll notice any difference when doing anything on your phone, but your battery will drop much quicker.
Like other people have said, Quad scores don't matter much- take them lightly as you see them.
There is a lot that goes into that score. The highest score I could get today is 1656 but it was consistently in the Upper 1500s, I ran 5 tests.
My setup:
CM7 RC2
Incredikernel 03/06 OC to 1113Mhz/Performance Govenor
16Gb Class 2 microSD card.
If someone is using a class 4 or a class 6 card their i/o scores could be much higher than mine which would result in a much higher overall score than mine. Also keep in mind with Linux Kernels can very alot and that there are different types of task schedulers in them such as BFS or CFS which can have dramatic affect on the quadrent scores. Quadrent tends to score BFS kernels higher. So yeah I can believe people are hitting most of the score they post up. However byrong is right about it not being a setup you'd want to use on a daily basis. For me it causes random reboots, my phone gets hot and the UI becomes laggy after a little while also the battery drops like a brick.
My normal setup that I run on a daily basis is the same kernel uc to 803Mhz/smartass governor. It is extremely stable and is smooth as butter but my quadrent scores are only only in the 1100s with my high being 1244.
Its really not all about the score, if your happy with the performance who cares about the score.
I know about the differences in benchmarks and how they arent set up for dual core, but I just ran smartbench 2011 and my gaming score is off by 1000 points on a stock xoom, I am rooted and running stock kernel. I am not sure why, maybe something is wrong with it.
My quadrant scores are lower than my dx but my linpack score is 64mflops! Don't know why our quadrant scores are so low but I'm having the same problem.
Sent from my Xoom using XDA App
Off from what? A phone? Synthetic benchmarks say almost nothing about real world performance, and they will always be different with devices at different resolutions.
A 1280x800 tablet will always score unusually low on a graphics benchmark that scales to resolution compared to a phone.
Usmc7356 said:
My quadrant scores are lower than my dx but my linpack score is 64mflops! Don't know why our quadrant scores are so low but I'm having the same problem.
Sent from my Xoom using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant also places a lot of weight on the filesystem, and my Xoom always hangs quite a while during database writes.
Also I think that getting ~6 FPS on their first 2D animation test can't help.
The Xoom is really zippy, take the benchmarks with many, many grains of salt.
I was just talking about smart bench, everything else is working fine, but the smartbench 2011 shows a galaxy s as being more powerful than my xoom, and the half the speed of a stock xoom. I am just wondering if other people were showing that they are below what a stock xoom should be too.
you have to make sure that these benchmarks are compatible with dual core processors. otherwise the results are moot.
I know that, but it is shows below the average xoom, thats the problem I am seeing, average xoom gets like 2k I get 1k
I was having the same issue, I believe it is because of spare parts for gaming full screen. I factory restored my xoom and scored higher than average. The benchmark ran on a much smaller screen when I ran it on a fresh xoom.
joepfalzgraf said:
I was having the same issue, I believe it is because of spare parts for gaming full screen. I factory restored my xoom and scored higher than average. The benchmark ran on a much smaller screen when I ran it on a fresh xoom.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Confirmed that is it, thanks for this I guess I was overlooking it and thinking my xoom wasnt up to par.
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).
Running BeanStalk 4.3 here. Love it. But for some reason I just cannot get my I/O speeds as high as my old Galaxy S2.
(Warning alert!) I know Quadrant isn't everything, don't get me wrong here guys
I typically hit 4000 in Quadrant in the I/O side of things. Yet my Galaxy S2 without any change to Cm10.1 hits 6000+ every time. I mean it just rockets on up there without a hitch. And as old as it is, it's still very very snappy. I noticed the Droid DNA hits 9000 in I/O which blows my mind.
I'm presuming that faster I/O increases everything else, akin to an SSD making a PC faster with the same Processor and such specs.
Or am I daft?
It just puzzles me
I had an issue with my Nexus 4 when it was my daily device, It was laggy as hell and I had thought I'd blown something up. Nope, turns out the I/O scored around 1500. Change the I/O Scheduler and fooled around till I got it back to 5000. BAM. Lag gone.
Or maybe I worry to much?
Eh, more speed the better
Locklear308 said:
Running BeanStalk 4.3 here. Love it. But for some reason I just cannot get my I/O speeds as high as my old Galaxy S2.
(Warning alert!) I know Quadrant isn't everything, don't get me wrong here guys
I typically hit 4000 in Quadrant in the I/O side of things. Yet my Galaxy S2 without any change to Cm10.1 hits 6000+ every time. I mean it just rockets on up there without a hitch. And as old as it is, it's still very very snappy. I noticed the Droid DNA hits 9000 in I/O which blows my mind.
I'm presuming that faster I/O increases everything else, akin to an SSD making a PC faster with the same Processor and such specs.
Or am I daft?
It just puzzles me
I had an issue with my Nexus 4 when it was my daily device, It was laggy as hell and I had thought I'd blown something up. Nope, turns out the I/O scored around 1500. Change the I/O Scheduler and fooled around till I got it back to 5000. BAM. Lag gone.
Or maybe I worry to much?
Eh, more speed the better
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You mean I/O getting 9000 itself or all together? And the I/o on this phone is great. However I have noticed on aosp ROMS that the benchmarking don't touch that of a touch wiz based. It might just be drivers but who knows. In total I can hit about 13000 average score quadrant.
Tylor
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 4
Tylorw1 said:
You mean I/O getting 9000 itself or all together? And the I/o on this phone is great. However I have noticed on aosp ROMS that the benchmarking don't touch that of a touch wiz based. It might just be drivers but who knows. In total I can hit about 13000 average score quadrant.
Tylor
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
13,000? Whoa, I get about 8200. The phone feels fast, but opening photos is a big slow.
I/O it's self.
I don't have that problem. The problem I have revolving around that is the touch wiz gallery lags like mad but I like the camera app itself. Download ROM toolbox and run the tests it has.
Tylor
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 4