Thought i would drop in and let you know the results of my testing, as I have a lot of downtime.
I used antutu benchmark as it would give me values for each category.
Moto xoom - 1.5 oc kernel, stock 3.0
Fascinate - voodoo eb16 kernel, superclean 2.7
Processor - as you all have heard the new dual core tegra 2 is fast, through same benchmark tests I have found that it twice as fast as the hummingbird w/ no over clock, the tegra was oc to 1.2ghz
Xoom 1034 and 766
Fascinate 596 and 142
Graphics - this is where some eyebrows will be raised! Everyone says the tegra is supposed to be the best at 3d but I found quite to opposite. There are a lot of variables out there too though, multi threadding and is 3.0 as mature as 2.2 and last the screen resolution is higher on the xoom.
Xoom 2d 148 3d 205
Fascinate 2d 158 3d 364
These results can be seen by the naked eye as things just seem slower on the xoom in 3d.
I did not include linpack as its obvious the xoom will out perform the hummingbird no questions. I am just thrown off by the gpu scores, anything out for the tegra the fascinae should be able to run, extra help will come from the faster processor but i am not seeing an incredible difference that was advertised. After these findings I am more excited for the dual core snapdragon. Things my improve as honeycomb matures and they iron out the details, from first use right now it seems like its a beta 2.2 that we had on the fascinates, its just not smooth. Over all if you want a good tablet w/ verizon 3g/4g the xoom is a good chipoice, those wanting a finished product, I would hold out a few mnths. Thunderbolt vs fascinae coming soon, as soon as the phone hits the streets. I will compare stock TB to modded fascinate, for those considering the upgrade.
Final on the xoom, it is a good tablet, maybe expensive
forgot to include wifi, another big dissapoitment, xoom being 4g upgradeable, I thought would kill it, it did not.
Netgear wireless n router, 12mbps line
Xoom - 2mbps
Fascinate - 6.5mbps
Hopefully an update will fix that
Well, the fact that most benchmark applications, besides Smartbenchmark, are not optimized correctly for Tegra2 puts these benchmarks to shame. Nenamark caps at 30fps, Quadrant caps at 60 or 30fps, and 2D benchmarks cap at similar fps as well. Real world speed is faster, as well as games optimized for the Tegra2. Though, movie compatibility with the Fascinate is better because of the extra codecs courtesy of Samsung. Not sure whats wrong with your Wifi..
Hitting fps caps is not in the cards right now quadrant hits 6fps 2d and about 20 3d, maybe when its optimized it will reflect capability better but now it just looks like its close. Everyday useability, my only compplain is the keyboard is sometimes laggy in the browser, most likely will be patched in an update.
I have both. And its too early to do a fair comparison. Apps haven't been optimized for the xoom.
I'm just bummed out that i can't use my fascinate to tether the xoom. I'm stuck paying for verizon monthly bill until the fascinate offers wifi infrastructure not ad-hoc. or switch to a phone that actually offers it.
You can get 3g mobile hotspot free google it
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
I think partially the difference comes from the higher resolution on the Xoom. But we do have a great GPU indeed.
Related
Ok so I checked out the Evo at sprint. It had full bars of 4g and luckily I had full bars 3g/hsdpa on My n1. I tested/raced to about a dozen sites. Results are a tie. One would beat the other by about .5 seconds. Now download speed may be better on 4g but as far as browser goes for now until Evo gets froyo. There a tie on 4g vs 3g/hsdpa so actually 3.5g.
I wanna see them both race on the same wifi network...
All I gotta say is " long live the n1"....
On a wifi network...they'd be exactly the same, plus or minus a meaningless margin. It's the exact same core hardware. Same CPU, same memory, same graphics hardware running the same resolution screen.
But not same OS, 2.2 is faster then 2.1 that's for sure, beats the crap out of the iApple products! 2.1 was about the same
@jaapschaap : did you compare yourself, or do you say that because you read that 2.2 is faster ?
What you have to understand is that 2.2 speed up java execution. The browser is mainly C++ (Webkit) so it gains nothing from 2.2.
And for the new Javascript engine, it is indeed faster, it's visible on benchmarks (sunspider, etc) but on "normal" pages there isn't much difference.
I made some browser tests with my 2.2 Nexus and a 2.1 Desire side by side, and the speed was almost identical
Wait wait
I thought all the sensui phones didn't use the stock browser. so this means that the browser aren't identical. The HTC browser was always fast, faster than stock browser (i think till 2.2). so you can't really say the browser will be faster on 2.2 even if the evo gets update to 2.2 it will still use the HTC browser.
To be sure there have to be some testing to do and show it on video, till than ......
Because i know, i have a milestone, nexus one, desire and an ipod touch to compare! Milestone and nexus 2.1 are as fast as the ipod, nexus one with 2.2 (unofficial so could even be better on final ) is sick fast! Because the browser itself is became better, they worked on it...
And finally i overclocked my milestone to 1.2ghz (550Mhz stock) and then it's about same speed as nexus in browsing and the milestone @ those speeds is faster (in raw power) then the nexus
Both 2.1 to make fair comparrison:
Nexus: 1Ghz (6.5/7 MFLOPS)
Milestone: 1.2Ghz (9.5/10 MFLOPS)
So to make up that missing power of nexus vs OCed milestone Android 2.2 did a good job, almost no difference in browsing site without flash (nexus is slightly faster)...
Both @ 2.1 the milestone wins!
jaapschaap said:
Because i know, i have a milestone, nexus one, desire and an ipod touch to compare! Milestone and nexus 2.1 are as fast as the ipod, nexus one with 2.2 (unofficial so could even be better on final ) is sick fast! Because the browser itself is became better, they worked on it...
And finally i overclocked my milestone to 1.2ghz (550Mhz stock) and then it's about same speed as nexus in browsing and the milestone @ those speeds is faster (in raw power) then the nexus
Both 2.1 to make fair comparrison:
Nexus: 1Ghz (6.5/7 MFLOPS)
Milestone: 1.2Ghz (9.5/10 MFLOPS)
So to make up that missing power of nexus vs OCed milestone Android 2.2 did a good job, almost no difference in browsing site without flash (nexus is slightly faster)...
Both @ 2.1 the milestone wins!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your comparisons do not make sense though. You need to compare apples to apples. Overclock your Milestone to 1GHz as well or overclock your Nexus One to 1.2 GHz for the benchmarks. Otherwise they don't match up and it invalidates the results.
Doesn't matter... nexus is faster now and on 1. 2ghz even faster ofcourse... that was the whole point
Btw compare @ same speed don't count either cause cpu in milestone is faster clock per clock... milestone @ +-800mhz would be as fast as nexus @ 1ghz.
Hello all, just a quick question about the general performance of the D2...
I currently have an Evo, and i seem to get fairly consistently decent Linpack scores (35-40) even in Sense roms (OC'd to 1152). I also typically have around 200mb free memory after running a task killer.
I have been considering switching to VZW for a variety reasons, so I went and tried out a D2 at the Verizon store. Ran Linpack a few times and got nothing better than 10-12, which came as quite a surprise to me. Also could barely eek out 120mb free memory after running task killer.
So what id like to know is...what kind of numbers are you seeing on your D2 (Linpack, Quadrant, free memory, etc). Additionally, are you getting these numbers with a blur rom or vanilla?
Thank you very much for your input.
theshade89 said:
Hello all, just a quick question about the general performance of the D2...
I currently have an Evo, and i seem to get fairly consistently decent Linpack scores (35-40) even in Sense roms (OC'd to 1152). I also typically have around 200mb free memory after running a task killer.
I have been considering switching to VZW for a variety reasons, so I went and tried out a D2 at the Verizon store. Ran Linpack a few times and got nothing better than 10-12, which came as quite a surprise to me. Also could barely eek out 120mb free memory after running task killer.
So what id like to know is...what kind of numbers are you seeing on your D2 (Linpack, Quadrant, free memory, etc). Additionally, are you getting these numbers with a blur rom or vanilla?
Thank you very much for your input.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just remember that benchmarks are only just that... much of the performance is just everyday feel. But in my opinion, the Evo is the smoothest android out there right now
linpack is faster on snapdragon cores (evo 4g) because of a 128bit SIMD vs the droid 2's OMAP cores 64bit SIMD.
the two processors are pretty much the same, except the GPU is faster in the Droid 2 and the droid2 will have better battery life due to having a 45nm CPU vs the 65nm in the evo 4g snapdragon...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3908/motorola-droid-2-review-rebooting-the-droid
droid2andyou said:
linpack is faster on snapdragon cores (evo 4g) because of a 128bit SIMD vs the droid 2's OMAP cores 64bit SIMD.
the two processors are pretty much the same, except the GPU is faster in the Droid 2 and the droid2 will have better battery life due to having a 45nm CPU vs the 65nm in the evo 4g snapdragon...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3908/motorola-droid-2-review-rebooting-the-droid
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HTC GPU's are bad, but I'd give up graphics for overall performance that HTC offers. Just my 3 cents
Droid 2 omap is faster than the scorpion cpu used in the evo 4g
Sent from my DROID2 using XDA App
Benchmarks are the stupidest thing one could base performance on. Instead of actually using the phone to see how it performs, you were too worried about benchmark numbers, and how much free ram the phone has after killing its tasks? If all you care about are those two things, why bother asking here? You already tested the phone with what matters to you.
I've heard that by design linpack does not score well on OMAP processors. If you are getting scores around 16 then you are doing well, but again it's just a benchmark
both running 2.2 (epic on dk28)
epic gets 991-1000 and the evo just scored 1241... wtf?!
the evo isn't EXT4 is it?
the epic is currently RFS... I'm having problems going to EXT4
The Quadrant was made specifically for the Snapdragon process; which the Evo uses if i'm not mistaken.
Besides; they don't prove real world performance. I've gotten my hands on numerous evo's and all seemed to be 'laggy' they arn't nearly as responsive as my Epic.
Quadrant scores do not accurately represent Snapdragon vs the Galaxy S Hummingbird (or any other Cortex-A8 like those in Verizon's Droid lineup). Certain functions such as the Virtual Floating Point extension in Snapdragon allow for artificially inflated Linpack scores which do not represent real-world performance. Additionally, the RFS file system that Samsung uses on the Galaxy S phones is not well-understood by Quadrant, resulting in drastically lower scores.
For example, when we switch to EXT4 from RFS, our FroYo Quadrant scores can jump from 1100 to the 1600 range (which kicks the pants off that EVO). The actual performance increase however is hardly perceptible.
In short, Quadrant sucks, and Linpack is susceptible as well. For ****s and giggles, a little while back I made a minor modification to my Epic and produced a Quadrant score of 2597, which is currently listed as the 10th highest score on SmartphoneBenchmarks.com, and is the highest stock clock Quadrant score recorded. I accomplished this score utilizing a simple hack devised by a few developers here on XDA that fools the Quadrant application by utilizing a ramdrive for the I/O test. I posted about it on their forums and was advised by an administrator that they are aware of the problems with Quadrant and are releasing their own benchmark tool.
Android runs on top of a virtual machine so really what you're testing is virtual machine performance, and currently that virtual machine is tweaked for Snapdragon. With the Nexus S now a Google flagship phone, we'll likely see the VM better optimized for Hummingbird in the near future, and in fact, Gingerbread had a few more JIT enhancements as well.
Hummingbird is a slightly better performing chip MHz for MHz than the first-generation Snapdragons, if by a small amount. However it is significantly more power-efficient. Second-gen Snapdragons do draw even in terms of efficiency and performance, but both are going to be blown away by the Cortex-A9 Tegra phones we'll be seeing this spring.
EDIT - So I just noticed that SmartphoneBenchmarks.com has released their own benchmark tool recently, Smartbench 2010. I just ran it on my phone and scored 1178 on the Productivity Index (CPU) and 2610 on the Games Index (GPU). The highest-scoring competitor, the HTC G2, scores 1045 and 1396 respectfully. DRockstar on IRC ran the benchmark on his Epic that has RFS, and scored 1133 and 2521. So, this benchmark tool actually performs fine on RFS. Amazing! Grab it off the Android Market!
Electrofreak said:
Quadrant scores do not accurately represent Snapdragon vs the Galaxy S Hummingbird (or any other Cortex-A8 like those in Verizon's Droid lineup). Certain functions such as the Virtual Floating Point extension in Snapdragon allow for artificially inflated Linpack scores which do not represent real-world performance. Additionally, the RFS file system that Samsung uses on the Galaxy S phones is not well-understood by Quadrant, resulting in drastically lower scores.
For example, when we switch to EXT4 from RFS, our FroYo Quadrant scores can jump from 1100 to the 1600 range (which kicks the pants off that EVO). The actual performance increase however is hardly perceptible.
In short, Quadrant sucks, and Linpack is susceptible as well. For ****s and giggles, a little while back I made a minor modification to my Epic and produced a Quadrant score of 2597, which is currently listed as the 10th highest score on SmartphoneBenchmarks.com, and is the highest stock clock Quadrant score recorded. I accomplished this score utilizing a simple hack devised by a few developers here on XDA that fools the Quadrant application by utilizing a ramdrive for the I/O test. I posted about it on their forums and was advised by an administrator that they are aware of the problems with Quadrant and are releasing their own benchmark tool.
Android runs on top of a virtual machine so really what you're testing is virtual machine performance, and currently that virtual machine is tweaked for Snapdragon. With the Nexus S now a Google flagship phone, we'll likely see the VM better optimized for Hummingbird in the near future, and in fact, Gingerbread had a few more JIT enhancements as well.
Hummingbird is a slightly better performing chip MHz for MHz than the first-generation Snapdragons, if by a small amount. However it is significantly more power-efficient. Second-gen Snapdragons do draw even in terms of efficiency and performance, but both are going to be blown away by the Cortex-A9 Tegra phones we'll be seeing this spring.
EDIT - So I just noticed that SmartphoneBenchmarks.com has released their own benchmark tool recently, Smartbench 2010. I just ran it on my phone and scored 1178 on the Productivity Index (CPU) and 2610 on the Games Index (GPU). The highest-scoring competitor, the HTC G2, scores 1045 and 1396 respectfully. DRockstar on IRC ran the benchmark on his Epic that has RFS, and scored 1133 and 2521. So, this benchmark tool actually performs fine on RFS. Amazing! Grab it off the Android Market!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Electrofreak,
I just wanted to thank you (I pushed the button, too!) for this post. I'm trying to decide between three phones for my Sprint upgrade next month. My three candidates are the Epic, Evo, & new Evo Shift.
I was not aware of everything you stated, so it helped me look at the Epic in a different light.
Again, thanks.
tps70 said:
Electrofreak,
I just wanted to thank you (I pushed the button, too!) for this post. I'm trying to decide between three phones for my Sprint upgrade next month. My three candidates are the Epic, Evo, & new Evo Shift.
I was not aware of everything you stated, so it helped me look at the Epic in a different light.
Again, thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No probs, and if you're interested in still more info, you're welcome to read an article I wrote comparing the hardware in multiple smartphones back in April (though the focus was on the EVO 4G and the Samsung Galaxy S I9000). The article is starting to get a little outdated, (neither the EVO nor the Galaxy S line had been released at that point yet) and it also doesn't cover some other details I've unearthed since then (my blog in my signature is where you'll find that) but most of it is still relevant.
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=17125
Edit - I think I have an addiction to parenthesis (which I'm ashamed to admit)
Electrofreak said:
Quadrant scores do not accurately represent Snapdragon vs the Galaxy S Hummingbird (or any other Cortex-A8 like those in Verizon's Droid lineup). Certain functions such as the Virtual Floating Point extension in Snapdragon allow for artificially inflated Linpack scores which do not represent real-world performance. Additionally, the RFS file system that Samsung uses on the Galaxy S phones is not well-understood by Quadrant, resulting in drastically lower scores.
For example, when we switch to EXT4 from RFS, our FroYo Quadrant scores can jump from 1100 to the 1600 range (which kicks the pants off that EVO). The actual performance increase however is hardly perceptible.
In short, Quadrant sucks, and Linpack is susceptible as well. For ****s and giggles, a little while back I made a minor modification to my Epic and produced a Quadrant score of 2597, which is currently listed as the 10th highest score on SmartphoneBenchmarks.com, and is the highest stock clock Quadrant score recorded. I accomplished this score utilizing a simple hack devised by a few developers here on XDA that fools the Quadrant application by utilizing a ramdrive for the I/O test. I posted about it on their forums and was advised by an administrator that they are aware of the problems with Quadrant and are releasing their own benchmark tool.
Android runs on top of a virtual machine so really what you're testing is virtual machine performance, and currently that virtual machine is tweaked for Snapdragon. With the Nexus S now a Google flagship phone, we'll likely see the VM better optimized for Hummingbird in the near future, and in fact, Gingerbread had a few more JIT enhancements as well.
Hummingbird is a slightly better performing chip MHz for MHz than the first-generation Snapdragons, if by a small amount. However it is significantly more power-efficient. Second-gen Snapdragons do draw even in terms of efficiency and performance, but both are going to be blown away by the Cortex-A9 Tegra phones we'll be seeing this spring.
EDIT - So I just noticed that SmartphoneBenchmarks.com has released their own benchmark tool recently, Smartbench 2010. I just ran it on my phone and scored 1178 on the Productivity Index (CPU) and 2610 on the Games Index (GPU). The highest-scoring competitor, the HTC G2, scores 1045 and 1396 respectfully. DRockstar on IRC ran the benchmark on his Epic that has RFS, and scored 1133 and 2521. So, this benchmark tool actually performs fine on RFS. Amazing! Grab it off the Android Market!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That was great!
I scored 1147/2704 but i'm rooted/rommed.
the evo scored 700/910
razorseal said:
That was great!
I scored 1147/2704 but i'm rooted/rommed.
the evo scored 700/910
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That EVO on 2.2? I would have expected it to score around 1000 at least. I wonder how it would score on EXT4 running CM6...
Smartphone benchmarks is a great benchmark.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Electrofreak said:
That EVO on 2.2? I would have expected it to score around 1000 at least. I wonder how it would score on EXT4 running CM6...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yup, it's a stock evo running whatever sprint updated for it
Scored 1257/2751 CM6 EXT4
Sent from my CM6 EXT4 Epic
1255p 2945g,Im running my ROM,how could I be faster then CM6? maybe not the best benchmark.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
My Epic w/ Cmod's latest gave me 1115 and 2600
My wife has an Evo with CMods latest as well but only got 1089 and 1050, why so low on the second one?
My Epic scored 606\1901 in smartbench 2010. Weird... much lower productivity score than other people, but really high gaming score.
My Epic is stock.
EDIT: I ran it a few more times and watched it carefully.
603/1808
618/1954
633/1941
Seems I/O is pretty slow...
I'm just wondering why it matters? It's not like Android has a robust collection of high performance games.
razorseal said:
both running 2.2 (epic on dk28)
epic gets 991-1000 and the evo just scored 1241... wtf?!
the evo isn't EXT4 is it?
the epic is currently RFS... I'm having problems going to EXT4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Probably because she keeps her Evo in her bra and you keep your Epic in your pocket. It's a fact (check quadrant scores) that smartphones prefer boobs to guys hips 9 out of 10 days of the week. So obviously her Evo is happier and therefor performs better than yours. Do your Epic a favor and give him some booby time and watch those Quadrant scores rise!
+1,agreed and its been proven time and time again...
jirafabo said:
Probably because she keeps her Evo in her bra and you keep your Epic in your pocket. It's a fact (check quadrant scores) that smartphones prefer boobs to guys hips 9 out of 10 days of the week. So obviously her Evo is happier and therefor performs better than yours. Do your Epic a favor and give him some booby time and watch those Quadrant scores rise!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So I ran some benchmarks today between my Acer Iconia a500 and my brothers motorola atrix 4g.
Quadrent.
Acer Iconia 2130
Atrix 4g 2586
How is it the atrix scores higher they both have tegra 2 chip and a gig of ram and he had a crapload of background task open also. In line pack i get bout 43 flops his around 55-70
Just found this interesting.
Sent from my A500 using XDA Premium App
l3giticonia said:
So I ran some benchmarks today between my Acer Iconia a500 and my brothers motorola atrix 4g.
Quadrent.
Acer Iconia 2130
Atrix 4g 2586
How is it the atrix scores higher they both have tegra 2 chip and a gig of ram and he had a crapload of background task open also. In line pack i get bout 43 flops his around 55-70
Just found this interesting.
Sent from my A500 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A couple reasons. Quadrant is synthetic first of all, and only looking at one core. Synthetic means it's testing real world performance and not the actual hardware performance - this is great when you're testing 2 phones with the same resolution and similar guts but not 2 products that are this different.
The resolution of the Atrix is less than the A500 and Quadrant is testing at full screen so this weighs down the A500s results vs. the Atrix in synthetic benchmarks. Honeycomb is also significantly heavier than Gingerbread is. This means that for all intents and purposes, no Honeycomb device (tablet) will beat Gingerbread devices (phones) in these apps because Honeycomb right now is just too slow compared to GB. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's slow as in laggy I just mean it needs more optimizations and streamlining on tablets to catch up to how lean Gingerbread is on phones, especially in a case where we're talking about just 1 core.
Honeycomb is the Cupcake of Android for phones, so this is not a bad score at all.
You want to use something like Smartbench 2011 to test dual core stuff. It's synthetic as well, but it tests everything at the same resolution and will see both cores. Linpack also doesn't support multi-cores yet. Granted, the Atrix may still beat the A500 in Smartbench 2011, but it should be a much closer number like a matter of 100 or 200 or so. If the A500 beats the Atrix it's more than likely getting an unfair (but realistic) boost from not utilizing the full screen size for gfx tests.
Dont pay too much attention to those scores anyway.
Neoprimal said:
This means that for all intents and purposes, no Honeycomb device (tablet) will beat Gingerbread devices (phones) in these apps because Honeycomb right now is just too slow compared to GB.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant is a total waste of time as a benchmark as it doesn't give you any real indication of the difference in speed between two different devices. However, it should be said that my Transformer does pull 3000+ on Quadrant running MoDaCo's custom ROM, and given that the hardware is almost identical between the A500 and Transformer, I would expect them to be broadly similar in terms of real world performance.
Regards,
Dave
When shall we get custom from?
Sent from my A500 using XDA Premium App
l3giticonia said:
When shall we get custom from?
Sent from my A500 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As soon as we get unlazy and make one? I need to upgrade my hard drives to have any more space otherwise I'd at least **** around recompiling kernels etc. Also, have they even released the source for ours?
I get 2800+ everytime I do quadrant on my A500.. no complaints, but I am running CM7 on my touch4G and get 2600+ on that too. so I hate quadrant... it sucks..
Not sure how you get 2800 without custom kernel\rom. That is around a 30% increase from stock. My galaxy tab and sgs don't get the same benchmarks and they have the same cpu\gpu but different screen resolutions. The cpu\gpu work a lot harder with the higher resolution screens.
960х540 in Atrix
1280x800 in A500
Why is everyone saying this tablet has lower performance than the likes of other Tegra 2 tablets? Shouldn't it be pretty much the same? For example, Engadget said it only got a 1500 in quadrant and that it wasn't too nice with games whereas other tablets did just fine. I'm concerned about this because my primary use for a tablet would be gaming and web browsing.
Regarding the Quadrant score.
The Transformer shipped with 3.0.1 and had a Quadrant score of around 2000. After updating to 3.1 the score dropped to 1500.
I'm hearing the same thing with the Galaxy Tab now, with 3.0.1 it had scores of around 2000 and post 3.1 they dropped to 1500.
Yet at the same time Transformer owners felt that despite the Quadrant score drop, the tablet did feel slightly more responsive and quicker. Not sure what is causing the Quadrant scores to drop, but it might be an example of why we shouldn't put too much stock in just benchmarks.
I haven't heard anything negative about the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and gaming performance.
Sadly the Android 3.1 update did make the stock browser keyboard really laggy with the Transformer. Don't know how much this has affected the browser with the Galaxy Tab, though I created a thread about it and it doesn't sounds like it's as big of an issue as it has been for the Transformer.
I got around 1500 as well. Its funny because my Droid x is getting almost 1700. The tablet feels much snappier then the X. I wouldn't worry about the numbers. Maybe Quadrant needs an update.
Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk
Just like computer video cards... Don't put a lot of faith into synthetic benchmarks... It's all about the real world frame rates and speed...
Reminds me of an ancient editorial at HardOCP as to why synthetic benchmarks are generally bad.