Database Users

Xperia Review by the Unoffical SE Blog - 384 MB RAM Confirmed...

Hi,
Finally a really in-depth review - really! And like i pointed in the title:
"The X1 comes with a total of 384 megabytes of RAM memory. Only 256 megabytes is visible in the system, but this is because these 256 megabytes is strictly for applications. At boot there’s about 152 megabytes free.
The remaining 128 megabytes of RAM memory is used for both the video graphics and CPU. According to the MSM7200A datasheet, the graphics part of the chipset (presumably the ATI Imageon 2300 or 2700G chip) is capable of delivering up to 4 million 3D triangles per second, and 133 million 3D textured pixels per second fill rate. Furthermore, it supports OpenGL ES - link that up with the large amount of dedicated video memory, and you’ve got an awesome power horse or gaming machine."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Best Regards.

Old news bro.

xmoo said:
Old news bro.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
new news for me though. I know at the system memory it only shows 256MB of RAM, but I didn't know there's 128MB of hidden memory for GPU, etc. In that case, I wonder if it's the same for other HTC device like HTC Touch Pro, or is this an unique architecture for Xperia?
I did observed that the memory after bootup, is much more for Xperia than HTC Touch Pro, maybe that 128MB of hidden memory is making that difference.

zenkinz said:
new news for me though. I know at the system memory it only shows 256MB of RAM, but I didn't know there's 128MB of hidden memory for GPU, etc. In that case, I wonder if it's the same for other HTC device like HTC Touch Pro, or is this an unique architecture for Xperia?
I did observed that the memory after bootup, is much more for Xperia than HTC Touch Pro, maybe that 128MB of hidden memory is making that difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, it is new to me too as it only states that X1 has 256MB Ram so it has the extra of 128MB memory hidden, no wonder it is faster compared to my previous Touch Pro.
Good Job, SonyEricsson!

xmoo said:
Old news bro.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry bro. Been out of the scene lately, and having seen this today was new to me.

That's no proof at all. We already knew that the Qualcomm chip has hardware acceleration capabilities. Even the Diamond and Touch Pro has it but there is a rumor that it isn't utilized because HTC didn't buy the license for it.
Until someone opens up the X1 and spots the exact 128MB memory chip (only the flash memory and the 256MB RAM chip have been spotted as of now) I won't believe anything. Information is rather dubious it needs to be cleared out by facts (and hardware pictures).
Also the source is rather biased too. The "unofficial SE Blog" as they call it, is SE friendly and will write anything will come to their mind to help SE image and sales. I've read the review and while I think it is overall detailed, on some points their objectivity is quite questionable.

Sounds good, but if Sony cant even get the freaking panels to work smoothly with low res screenshots, i doubt any other software will ever use this.
No game developer will limit his games to one phone, so they come up with rather simple games without 3d stuff...its not like with the iphone where millions of people have the same phone with the same hardware/software base...because of that, they have alot of great games that utilize the 3d hardware but i dont see that happening for any WinMo device.
There might an optimzed version of coreplayer or that PS1 Emu, well might.

XavierGr said:
That's no proof at all. We already knew that the Qualcomm chip has hardware acceleration capabilities. Even the Diamond and Touch Pro has it but there is a rumor that it isn't utilized because HTC didn't buy the license for it.
Until someone opens up the X1 and spots the exact 128MB memory chip (only the flash memory and the 256MB RAM chip have been spotted as of now) I won't believe anything. Information is rather dubious it needs to be cleared out by facts (and hardware pictures).
Also the source is rather biased too. The "unofficial SE Blog" as they call it, is SE friendly and will write anything will come to their mind to help SE image and sales. I've read the review and while I think it is overall detailed, on some points their objectivity is quite questionable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
damn true, we have nothing but words.

Also, think about it. A whopping 128MB VRAM for WVGA resolution? A desktop PC with 128MB VRAM on it's GPU could play full on 3D games at SXGA resolution easily. Doesn't sound logical to me at all if they put that much VRAM on this tiny device. Way too generous for HTC. 16MB or even 32MB sounds a lot more reasonable and realistic.

^ yep, I've also said that a few times here.....
so in the end I for one, can call SE is a liar here.

Is it true that LEO's CPU is limited to 712MHz?

Hello All
I've just found this line in Eugenia's ROM thread:
"*- CPU scales to a maximum of 1GHz instead of 712MHz"
Is it true that the CPU is limited to 712MHz in the shipping ROMs?
If Yes this may explain the lower performance compared to ACER F1 and Toshiba TG01

I was wondering this too

This could do with some deeper investigation by the experts amongst us...

If this is true, I can imagine the HD2 FLYING when we have custom ROMs!
Mine is pretty damn fast with ROM 1.48!

it's certainly a very bold claim, without any support to it..
I would like to see what hard evidence there is to support it,
as if it's true, then HTC have been illegally advertising the HD2 as 1ghz capable device..

fards said:
it's certainly a very bold claim, without any support to it..
I would like to see what hard evidence there is to support it,
as if it's true, then HTC have been illegally advertising the HD2 as 1ghz capable device..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Suppose it is so, they did deliver a 1Ghz device, it's just limited for some reasons. First to my mind is battery life. Nevertheless, investigation is required and I hope kholk can clear some things for us since the seed was found in his thread.

fards said:
it's certainly a very bold claim, without any support to it..
I would like to see what hard evidence there is to support it,
as if it's true, then HTC have been illegally advertising the HD2 as 1ghz capable device..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point exectly!
The only evidence we have for now is the line I quoted from Eugenia's soon to be released WM 6.5.3 ROM
But I've been thinking for a long time that the lower performance of the HD2 compared to other Snapdragon devices is due to some form of power management lowering the CPU frequence!

fards said:
it's certainly a very bold claim, without any support to it..
I would like to see what hard evidence there is to support it,
as if it's true, then HTC have been illegally advertising the HD2 as 1ghz capable device..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"HD2 as 1ghz capable"', does not mean it is running at 1GHZ but it could run at that speed, altough implied, but indeed it would be a misleading advert campaign
but i would like some proof too

tnyynt said:
Suppose it is so, they did deliver a 1Ghz device, it's just limited for some reasons. First to my mind is battery life. Nevertheless, investigation is required and I hope kholk can clear some things for us since the seed was found in his thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The way its advertised means it would have to actually run at 1GHz, not just be a 1GHz model limited to less.
Unless its just a rubbish claim then i assume the ROM developer means limited to 712Mhz in certain situations, which might be for perfectly good reasons.

rovex said:
The way its advertised means it would have to actually run at 1GHz, not just be a 1GHz model limited to less.
Unless its just a rubbish claim then i assume the ROM developer means limited to 712Mhz in certain situations, which might be for perfectly good reasons.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't agree: a software underclocked 1GHz CPU is still a 1GHz CPU. The chip is the same.

Not when the phone claims its a 1GHz CPU, which it does. The speed is not the name, its a physical attribute of the CPU that only exists if its actually running at that speed. This has been covered by EU law before, HTC cannot legally sell a phone running a CPU capable of 1GHz and claim its 1GHz if it never reaches that speed.

I suspect this ROM will just force full throttle all the time, which can only be bad for the battery life, but since we cannot flash it yet we dont know the effects, or if it even works at all.

HTC is advertising the HD2 machine as "1GHz capable device", but not as "1GHz device" that it's different.
It's barely legal.
Anyway, there IS evidence. And you can see it using TCPMP and doing some tests using the device's CPU
On this purpose, we've been talked on the xda-devs IRC channel about that, and I'm saying what I'm saying ONLY based on my tests: try to run TCPMP and see the CPU freq that it's reporting: 396-412MHz!
Use a program that is HEAVY on CPU load and run it in background (make sure that it won't close and that it will continue its work even in background) then see che CPU freq in TCPMP: you'll reach a maximum of 712MHz.
Another evidence of this statement is the performance of other SnapDragon machines like the Toshiba TG01.
P.S.: I think that the HTC HD2 will reach its 1024MHz frequency only when playing with the GLES2.0 Qualcomm test game, ELECTOPIA.
Electopia takes the device in EXCLUSIVE MODE, so it's possible that its frequency will be raised to 1GHz.

Its also quite possible that the CPU speed reporting programs do not support the snapdragon properly and report the wrong information.
The phone itself says the CPU speed is 1GHz in the phone hardware properties, this is a claim of speed, not name or theoretical capabilities.

So we're talking about dynamic freq adjustment on the go depending on processing power needed, similar to AMD's Cool and Quiet concept?

tnyynt said:
Suppose it is so, they did deliver a 1Ghz device, it's just limited for some reasons. First to my mind is battery life. Nevertheless, investigation is required and I hope kholk can clear some things for us since the seed was found in his thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
doesn't work like that does it though? they advertise the device running at 1ghz and it doesn't then that's false advertising..
If (and I doubt looking at the benchmarks) it ran at 700 ish mhz (maximum) then they should have advertised it as such
they don't mention "1ghz capable" here.. They clearly state its CPU processor Speed (not theoritical or otherwise) as
CPU Processing Speed
1GHz Snapdragon™ processor
http://www.htc.com/uk/product/hd2/specification.html
and Overview
HTC HD2 delivers an experience your senses have been waiting for. The unprecedented 4.3-inch pixel-packed display is stunning. The world’s first capacitive touch technology on a Windows® phone along with 1 GHz processing power ensure a smooth and lightning-fast response to the lightest touch of your finger
It's like stating it has a 4.3 inch screen and then actually finding it was 3.3 inches because the edge was covered in protective cover..
http://www.htc.com/uk/product/hd2/overview.html
not saying this is true at all.. we all know cpus have been scaling for a while, and the HD2 certainly scores high enough in integer testing..
but if that's what it is then they are likely to be in trouble over this.
anyway Kolhk you claim to have it able to scale up, how have you done that?
this way we can try to replicate it

rovex said:
Its also quite possible that the CPU speed reporting programs do not support the snapdragon properly and report the wrong information.
The phone itself says the CPU speed is 1GHz in the phone hardware properties, this is a claim of speed, not name or theoretical capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If it reports the frequencies of other snapdragon devices correctly it shouldn't be an issue. And to they can't advertise the device as having a 1Ghz processor unless it runs at that speed(would it be ok for amd and intel to sell 4Ghz chips if they actually run at 2+Ghz, just because that would be their theoretical maximum?). The processor is probably, as mentioned earlier, just scaling back when it isn't used to 100%.

fards said:
they don't mention "1ghz capable" here.. They clearly state its CPU processor Speed (not theoritical or otherwise) as
CPU Processing Speed
1GHz Snapdragon™ processor
http://www.htc.com/uk/product/hd2/specification.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...and I bet if there's a text on the chip inside the device, it states the same on it. As far as I see things, HTC has a device with a 1G Snapdragon CPU which I bought. CPU inside, as described.

Toss3 said:
If it reports the frequencies of other snapdragon devices correctly it shouldn't be an issue. And to they can't advertise the device as having a 1Ghz processor unless it runs at that speed(would it be ok for amd and intel to sell 4Ghz chips if they actually run at 2+Ghz, just because that would be their theoretical maximum?). The processor is probably, as mentioned earlier, just scaling back when it isn't used to 100%.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually AMD sells processors like this: AMD Athlon 64 3000+ which actually runs at 1800.

A CPU speed programs needs to support the way the CPU is actually controlled, not just the CPU, so basically the clock generator as well. If The HD2 uses a different method from the F1 or TG-01 then the program wont work.

720p Recording

There was a hack earlier that allowed n1 to record 720p video. Apparently now it's official. Would something like this be possible on our hero?
http://www.androidcentral.com/nexus-one-720p-video-recording

djoanes said:
There was a hack earlier that allowed n1 to record 720p video. Apparently now it's official. Would something like this be possible on our hero?
http://www.androidcentral.com/nexus-one-720p-video-recording
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldnt think 720p, but something like 640x480 might be possible

i think that hero hw specs are far from 720p requirements.

spooke said:
I wouldnt think 720p, but something like 640x480 might be possible
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My old N95 could do it so I suppose Hero can as well... That said N95 had a custom dedicated graphic chip and Hero's Adreno engine's integrated into CPU and not as powerfull, but everything else seems to be much more than N95 has, so some kind of compensation should be possible to get the camera to record 640x480.
I don's see anyone ever giving a shot at it, though. They're too busy cooking ROMs. ^__^

oh well, i'm happy with 2.1

maybe audio recording codec can be improved, i don't know how, but a rom that include this feature will be much appreciated as it would enable a "new" usage of hero.

RapFan said:
maybe audio recording codec can be improved, i don't know how, but a rom that include this feature will be much appreciated as it would enable a "new" usage of hero.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh Yes!!
This is the greatest problem of HTC Hero!!
Horrible audio rec and Horrible video rec!!

tron13 said:
Look here at my last post: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=697296
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see your point. What do you mean? Or are you just threadjacking to promote your rom

Would love to see 720P on our HERO's , if not at least 640x480 wouldnt be bad either... Get on hacking the kernel for our camera to record HD style now devs!!
Hanser01, Radug, behnaam,... waiting for you people to develop in your ROMS
720p is the future for our HEROS, not Froyo

rafi300 said:
720p is the future for our HEROS, not Froyo
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correction 720p WITH froyo. Best of both worlds.

the recording isn't the issue..It's the saving .
Our Hero doesn't has the power to compress the video to anything worth watching if you go above 352x288... the framerate is already low as it is.
So in _theory_ you could make a 640x480, 1280x720 or even higher capture tool. But it has nowhere to dump it's data.
Anything compression scheme that has low enough cpu requirements, probably generates too much bandwidth to be writable, even if you have a high-speed SD card. And I'm ignoring the storage-requirements with this.
Use the NDK to create a simple MJPEG or HuffyUV saver... and write an Android app that uses that NDK library to compress raw 640x480 images and write it to the SD card in any workable format.
I don't know if this works, I don't even know if the SDK exposes direct-camera access.. if it worked, the amount of data generated would be a couple of MB's for just a few seconds of video.
Doesn't sound usable, so it doesn't sound wise to invest the time.
A 'kernel hack' is out of the question with the Hero, I hope you guys realize that thinking a hack like that could work on the Hero is just plain stupid.

dipje said:
the recording isn't the issue..It's the saving .
Our Hero doesn't has the power to compress the video to anything worth watching if you go above 352x288... the framerate is already low as it is.
So in _theory_ you could make a 640x480, 1280x720 or even higher capture tool. But it has nowhere to dump it's data.
Anything compression scheme that has low enough cpu requirements, probably generates too much bandwidth to be writable, even if you have a high-speed SD card. And I'm ignoring the storage-requirements with this.
Use the NDK to create a simple MJPEG or HuffyUV saver... and write an Android app that uses that NDK library to compress raw 640x480 images and write it to the SD card in any workable format.
I don't know if this works, I don't even know if the SDK exposes direct-camera access.. if it worked, the amount of data generated would be a couple of MB's for just a few seconds of video.
Doesn't sound usable, so it doesn't sound wise to invest the time.
A 'kernel hack' is out of the question with the Hero, I hope you guys realize that thinking a hack like that could work on the Hero is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The legend has 640x480 video and a 600 mhz processor. Heros can be clocked to above 700 mhz.

therevell said:
The legend has 640x480 video and a 600 mhz processor. Heros can be clocked to above 700 mhz.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The top Pentium 4 CPU was clocked to 3.8GHz, and a Core2Duo E6600 is clocked to 2.2GHz but it's still faster. Clock doesn't mean anything if the CPU aren't based on the same architecture, which Legend and Hero aren't.

therevell said:
The legend has 640x480 video and a 600 mhz processor. Heros can be clocked to above 700 mhz.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, the legend and hero are the same Cpu architect actually. So the 600mhz 7227 in the legend is almost the same as our 518mhz 7200. The Droid / milestone for example is way (WAY) faster at 550mhz than the legend's 600mhz.
Anyway, why is 640x480 possible on the legend and at least very difficult on the hero?
The 7227 SoC is quite different ! It's flash controller is way faster, and more important: it has (more) hardware accelerated media functions (better media support chip in the package) .
The hero doesn't have a chip like that, so it has to do it completely on the CPU, where the legend has (limited ) hardware support / acceleration .

sizanx said:
The top Pentium 4 CPU was clocked to 3.8GHz, and a Core2Duo E6600 is clocked to 2.2GHz but it's still faster. Clock doesn't mean anything if the CPU aren't based on the same architecture, which Legend and Hero aren't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Clock speed does mean something. Your example isn't that correct. The 3.8ghz P4 only has 1 core whereas the Core2Duo has 2 cores each running 2.2ghz so that's like a total of 4.4ghz.

Sorry for the offtopic, but @info5i2002, don't say something you are far from knowing. It does not matter how many cores you have since the "clock speed" does not add up. E6600 is 2.2GHz. This means it has two cores running at 2.2GHz. You can't say it's running at 4.4GHz. And the high-end P4 was dual-core. P4 6xx I think. And also, you can compare clock-per-clock performance only when you're comparing CPUs with the same architecture.

RaduG said:
Sorry for the offtopic, but @info5i2002, don't say something you are far from knowing. It does not matter how many cores you have since the "clock speed" does not add up. E6600 is 2.2GHz. This means it has two cores running at 2.2GHz. You can't say it's running at 4.4GHz. And the high-end P4 was dual-core. P4 6xx I think.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I ain't saying that the clockspeed add up together. What I'm saying is that it is akin to having a combined clockspeed of 4.4ghz. Its like how a dual core 1ghz is still somewhat slower than a single core 3ghz.

Clock speed is not the only important thing when you compare two CPUs, the CPU architecture is extremely important too.

RaduG said:
Clock speed is not the only important thing when you compare two CPUs, the CPU architecture is extremely important too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes yes, I understand that too. Like how ARM Cortex A8 is so much better than say our ARM11 processor (i think its 11)

what someone said is wrong...
HERO/and Sapphire 32A could have 640x480 recording, because MSM7200 has a QDSP5 inside it. and recording is proceeded by VFE functions and not by CPU.
and it is tested with a legend port on Sapphire 32A, yes the fps is low, but I think that it could be improved, if we could get better camera libs and apps to proceed the output frames (which are from hardware and redirected to userspace by Camera kernel driver) faster.

[Q] i9000 RAM=384MB LP DDR1+128MB oneDRAM?

I just found this picture
dev.odroid.com/wiki/odroid-t/pds/FrontPage/s_blockdiagram.jpg
So does it mean only 384MB DDR is available in system?
May be this is the reason why 305M ram shows in JP3 firmware.

That could make sense.
I wonder what the difference between them is?...Could one be dedicated to the GPU or in charge of background stuff?

Did anyone notice MFC 1080p 30 fps there?

That system block diagram isn't a Samsung official one, and frankly, i think it's wrong.
If the main memory in the Galaxy S was LPDDR1, we'd see lower GPU performance, MUCH lower. Memory bandwidth is everything when it comes to GPU on mobile devices like this.

Pika007 said:
That system block diagram isn't a Samsung official one, and frankly, i think it's wrong.
If the main memory in the Galaxy S was LPDDR1, we'd see lower GPU performance, MUCH lower. Memory bandwidth is everything when it comes to GPU on mobile devices like this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GPU RAM must be OneDRAM，OneDRAM is much faster than normal DRAM.
You can google "OneDRAM".

So I guess we might not really have 512MB of ram (as advertised)... isn't it? I mean, if these MBs are reserved to GPU use only. There will come a day when they will be needed for other use than graphics :|.

They are not reserved for GPU use only.
OneDRAM is like an intersection for routing information with as-little-as-possible blockades in the middle.
Splitting the memory to "conventional" ram and onedram is going against the very principal of onedram. I am having a hard time to believe they actually did that.

^Sbk79^ said:
So I guess we might not really have 512MB of ram (as advertised)... isn't it? I mean, if these MBs are reserved to GPU use only. There will come a day when they will be needed for other use than graphics :|.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no official statement about RAM size.

I noticed the diagram says "TFT LCDC". That seems wrong, does it not?

coocood said:
There is no official statement about RAM size.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This. You'll find a lot of press about the Galaxy S having 512mb RAM, but where does Samsung itself advertise this? I cannot find anything about it anywhere on Samsungs website. Maybe we should ask them?

GSMarena pressed on the issue when the phone was released, and samsung replied that there are indeed 512MB.

Lol....So do we actually know if it has 512MB of RAM or not? As some others have stated it might help explain why the Sammy has lag issues and the Desire does not..
BTW, I dont own either at present and am just going by what I have read in these forums.

That diagram also doesn't list wireless N, does that mean our phones don't have wireless n???

Pika007 said:
GSMarena pressed on the issue when the phone was released, and samsung replied that there are indeed 512MB.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well..... using my onboard math processor I compuete that 384+128 = 512..
So samsung wouldnt have been lying if they had said there was 512.. even if 128 might be dedicated to the gpu or something else. 512+128 would have been nicer though.
I wonder if this diagram is accurate.

The picture is of ODROID-T which is a tablet style device for developers.
Its hardwares are quite similar to SGS but I don't think this block diagram should be showing exactly the same informations as SGS's.
Have a look at this site;
http://dev.odroid.com/wiki/odroid-t/

Well, the S5PC110 doesn't have the memory built in beforehand. It's changeable, the controller supports OneDRAM, LPDDR1 and LPDDR2. You can stick whatever you want in there.
Remember that only what's in the blue square is the actual SOC.

Kilack said:
well..... using my onboard math processor I compuete that 384+128 = 512..
So samsung wouldnt have been lying if they had said there was 512.. even if 128 might be dedicated to the gpu or something else. 512+128 would have been nicer though.
I wonder if this diagram is accurate.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How does this differ from the HTC Desire setup? I know it has 576 MB RAM, but not sure how its split up...

Well, I checked before posting. Google for an official press release from Samsung Australia. Xda is not letting me post external links due to my low number of posts. However, I love my S. I'm just saying that this mem thing is starting to smell a little bit of i7500, from a customer relations' POV. Let's just hope we actually have a different design and that, as rumors say, new kernels will unlock all available ram.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

I also found a tear down analysis of Korean version galaxy s.
The author said it has "4Gb NAND+3Gb DDR+1Gb OneNand",which is incorrect.
Some comment below said it is OneDram actually.
If not for the OneDram,How can samsung declare 90M triangles/sec instead of powerVR's figure of 28M triangles/sec.
OneDram is more expensive than DDR.
I guess samsung does't say anything about RAM because it's a different structure,and hard to explain.

gosh i have been lurking on these forums to buy this phone
but with this memory issue it seems like the OMNIA II all over again
there the phone was advertisied with 512mb but only so little was left to the user!!
samsung samsng oh samsung!

Is galaxy s Gpu really that power

i have heared that galaxy s Gpu can give 90M triangles/sec is that true as some sources claming that it only gives 28M tri/sec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerVR , and the higher one sgx 545 gives 40 m so how the sgx 540 gives 90M

hoss_n2 said:
i have heared that galaxy s Gpu can give 90M triangles/sec is that true as some sources claming that it only gives 28M tri/sec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerVR , and the higher one sgx 545 gives 40 m so how the sgx 540 gives 90M
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think the number listed on wikipedia is 'triangles' per second... It just says polys... So it could be a different shape thats harder to render?
Just my guess.
Besides if the 90M claimed is actually the 28 million then don't worry because the same thing for the iPhone's GPU (the 535) claims around 22m and wiki is listing it as 14.
Aaannnnddd if you're worried about the GPU feel comforted that no 3D benchmarks I've seen have even slowed it down so far and you can see tons of videos on youtube of Galaxy S series phones face rolling every single other Android device in gaming FPS benchmarks. Even if it isn't as amazing as the numbers they claimed there is no doubt that it's the best in the market at the moment, and by quite a lot too!

I'm not going to pretend that I read the comment thoroughly, but I've read a similar question. The person who seemed to know what they were talking about, said that essentially the 90m is a "theoretical number" and that about half of that number is what the phone should? can? will? potentially? do...(skimming, memory and probably comprehension make that a very difficult word to fill in accurately)....but this is how all manufacturers report their graphics capabilities (at least in smartphones, but I'll assume the same holds true for the desktop/laptop graphics cards).
So, while the number is definitely overstated, it's within the standard reporting convention...and relative to other numbers, still accurate (2x as many triangles is 2x as many whether everything gets cut in half of cut by a factor of 3).
*I'll remove my fuzzy language when someone better informed than me responds*

I also read a good article (don't know where it is now sorry) all about how the GPU relies heavily on the memory and bus between them etc and for example there could be a phone running the same GPU as another and have much less performance because they don't use much memory, or use slow memory. Apparently our SGS have done pretty well in all departments.

To untangle the confusion-
Triangles= "polys" (polygons)
The SGS does nothing bear 90M, but on the other side, none of the other phones are doing what the manufacturers are claiming them to do.
Plus, the wikipedia article is FAR from being reliable, it's been edited more than 5 times over the past 2 months, with ever changing results. No official specs are available from imgtec.
One thing i CAN tell you is that the GPU on the SGS is nothing less than a monster.
http://glbenchmark.com/result.jsp?benchmark=glpro11&certified_only=2
I'd like you to take as a refrence the Compal NAZ10 that uses the ever-glorified Nvidia TEGRA 2, and the iPhone 4 (SGX535)
I don't know what trick Samsung used, but there shouldn't be such a massive difference between the 535 and the 540.
Appearently someone over at Sammy did something right.
Extremely right.

Pika007 said:
...
One thing i CAN tell you is that the GPU on the SGS is nothing less than a monster.
http://glbenchmark.com/result.jsp?benchmark=glpro11&certified_only=2
I'd like you to take as a refrence the Compal NAZ10 that uses the ever-glorified Nvidia TEGRA 2, and the iPhone 4 (SGX535)
I don't know what trick Samsung used, but there shouldn't be such a massive difference between the 535 and the 540.
Appearently someone over at Sammy did something right.
Extremely right.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, one important fact is the pixelcount in the glbenchmark link you sent. iPhone4 and iPad share the same GPU. The difference in pixels is about 20%, and hence the difference between those two.
Let me make one ugly calculation to map SGS's score to iPhone4's. Pixelcount difference between i4 and SGS is a factor 0.625. That we would make the SGS score 1146 on the iPhone resolution. (or 1723 for i4 on 800*480 resolution). Offcourse there are more factors involved but this the best estimate i can make at the moment.
Difference turns out not te be that great after all.

I knew this argument was going to pop up soon enough, so i'll add one VERY important factor-
Score doesn't decrease proportionally to an increase in resolution.
For example, doubling the resolution won't give half the score. More like 70%~
Try running 3Dmark on your PC in different resolutions, you'll see some interesting results.
Personally, GLmark 1.1 for me is just a very crude example, for general demontstrations. It's not really close to be very accurate.
I'm waiting for GLmark 2.0 that should be a great tool to effectively compare the devices.

Who cares if the phone is powerful when there are no great games that take advantage of the power and when you have an OS that lags all the damn time despite the fact that Quadrant gives me 2100+. Even opening the PHONE app can take up to 10 seconds. This thing can drive me crazy at times.

Pika007 said:
To untangle the confusion-
Triangles= "polys" (polygons)
The SGS does nothing bear 90M, but on the other side, none of the other phones are doing what the manufacturers are claiming them to do.
Plus, the wikipedia article is FAR from being reliable, it's been edited more than 5 times over the past 2 months, with ever changing results. No official specs are available from imgtec.
One thing i CAN tell you is that the GPU on the SGS is nothing less than a monster.
http://glbenchmark.com/result.jsp?benchmark=glpro11&certified_only=2
I'd like you to take as a refrence the Compal NAZ10 that uses the ever-glorified Nvidia TEGRA 2, and the iPhone 4 (SGX535)
I don't know what trick Samsung used, but there shouldn't be such a massive difference between the 535 and the 540.
Appearently someone over at Sammy did something right.
Extremely right.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes it is edited more than 5 times but there is an offcial sources says that sgx 454 gives only 40M polygons so hw sgx450 gives 90M i know numbers are not important if there is nothing to use it but i only wanted to know

I think its due to fact that older chip has 2d acceleration too, while 450 is pure 3d and we use cpu for 2d. Thats why its faster.

It is important to note that PowerVR does not do 3D rendering using the traditional 3D polygon based pipeline, like those used in nVidia and ATi cards. It uses the unique tile based rendering engine. This approach is more efficient and uses less memory bandwidth as well as RAW horse power. IIRC, the original PowerVR 3D PC card is a PCI card that can compete head to head with AGP based cards from 3dfx and ATi at that time. Unfortunately, its unique rendering engine does not fit well with Direct3D and OpenGL which favor traditional polygon-based rendering pipelines.
So, the 90M figure could well be the equivelent performance number when using traditional 3D rendering pipeline as compared to Tile-based PowerVR setup.

Power VR does indeed use the traditional 3D polygon based pipeline.
Tile based rendering is in addition, not instead.
Do note that not all games (and actually, far from it) are using TBR properly (if at all).
Read the release notes and press release, it has enough details.
hoss_n2 said:
yes it is edited more than 5 times but there is an offcial sources says that sgx 454 gives only 40M polygons so hw sgx450 gives 90M i know numbers are not important if there is nothing to use it but i only wanted to know
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All the given numbers for "official" specs about PowerVR GPU's are for a frequenct of 200mhz.
Those chips can do well above 400mhz, so for example, if an SGX530 does 14M polygons and 500Mpixels per second @200mhz, if you clock it up to 400, it'll do 28Mpolys/1Gpixels.
Though i extremely doubt samsung has the SGX540 clocked at 600mhz in ths SGS...

A pratical and good exaple that shows of the power of the Galaxy S is Gameloft's Real Football 2010 game. The game hasn't got a framelock so it's playable on the Desire and Nexus One. Since pictures tell a thousand words and videos even moreso, I'll provide you this YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0DxP0sk5s0

Pika007 said:
All the given numbers for "official" specs about PowerVR GPU's are for a frequenct of 200mhz.
Those chips can do well above 400mhz, so for example, if an SGX530 does 14M polygons and 500Mpixels per second @200mhz, if you clock it up to 400, it'll do 28Mpolys/1Gpixels.
Though i extremely doubt samsung has the SGX540 clocked at 600mhz in ths SGS...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is true however overclocking the GPU to those numbers is silly because the memory & memory bus can't support that much data throughput anyway. I don't even think there is enough to support the amount of the standard clock rate. There is a lot more to consider than just the GPU when it comes to graphics here

You're taking that article you read way too seriously.
Plus, we have no idea what is the bandwidth limit of the galaxy S, we don't know what kind of memory is used, how much of it, at what frequency, etc.

WiseDuck said:
Who cares if the phone is powerful when there are no great games that take advantage of the power and when you have an OS that lags all the damn time despite the fact that Quadrant gives me 2100+. Even opening the PHONE app can take up to 10 seconds. This thing can drive me crazy at times.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
Re: lag, I want doing bad until I installed one of the fixes. Now I've officially entered crazy-town.

If I would have to guess it has to do with S5PC110 optimizations. When rendering polygons there are many things that contribute aside from the GPU. Think of it maybe similar to hybrid-sli...(but this is just a guess)
but if you want to look at it in more detail, someone posted the official documentation and spec sheet for the S5PC110 a while back..I ddint get a chance to look at it but my guess the clock speeds and other stuff would be there :/

WiseDuck said:
Who cares if the phone is powerful when there are no great games that take advantage of the power and when you have an OS that lags all the damn time despite the fact that Quadrant gives me 2100+. Even opening the PHONE app can take up to 10 seconds. This thing can drive me crazy at times.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well i dont have any lags, what so ever after lag fix. Something else must be troubleing your phone. Auto memory manager is a need tho if you want to keep it real snappy.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App