Database Users

Quadrant Benchmark on Vibrant 2600???

One of my coworkers has a tmobile vibrant with some lag fix according to him.. he did a quadrant benchmark right in front of me and it was showing 2500 plus everytime.. Im very curious as to what is making his phone so fast. And can it be dont to ours. Hes not running a custom rom or overclocking. Im only getting 1030 with mine clocked at 1.2ghz. Any Ideas? I couldnt get into too much details with him yesterday and I dont know whens the next time ill see him..

If you were to look at a test break down you would see generally all the scores are identical or the epic a little ahead except in the read/write area. The scores from their read/write are just inflating their overall score. It's a issue with quadrant and how it handles its overall score. Basically it just makes the system easy to abuse/cheat. So I wouldn't worry much about the difference in your score and his.
Sent from my Samsung Epic

The reason other Galaxy S phones score high in quadrant is because of the lag fix they use. The lag fix mounts a different file system on the phone with DRAMATICALLY increases read-write times. That portion of the quadrant benchmark gets inflated beyond reason. Using this game technique, Cyanogen was able to score more than 3000 on a snapdragon phone.
All of the Galaxy S phones have the same processor. Also, quadrant is a terrible benchmark. It's the most over-quoted and abused benchmark for android phones

Ahh ok.. thats good to know.. so what would be a better benchmark to use? Linpack?

jok3sta said:
Ahh ok.. thats good to know.. so what would be a better benchmark to use? Linpack?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Linpack is good for measuring raw CPU processing power... but only on devices running the same version of android. Phones with 2.2 will score insanely high due to the JIT compiler. For example, a snapdragon phone with Froyo can score ~40 Mflops. A snapdragon phone with eclair scores around 7 Mflops. Does Froyo make the phone run 5-6X faster? Hell no. In some cases, the difference is almost unnoticeable to the human eye.
Here is a rundown of what I believe to be the pros and cons of various benchmarks:
Linpack
Pros:
- Good for measuring CPU processing power on the same version of Android
- Great tool for measuring the performance gain from overclocking
Cons
- Scores are boosted unreasonably by Froyo's JIT compiler on snapdragon phones
Quadrant
Pros:
- Great tool for measuring the performance gain from overclocking
- Decent tool for measuring 3D graphics performance (just pay attention to FPS, not the end result)
- Decent tool for measuring 2D graphics performance (again, look at FPS)
- The paid version ("Quadrant Pro" I believe) shows which parts of the benchmark contributed to the score. Easier to spot the inflated CPU or I/O inflation
Cons:
- I/O portion isn't valued as much as others, but can boost scores beyond reason via exploits, hacks, fixes, etc.
- CPU portion is inflated on phones running 2.2. A Nexus One is not faster than any Galaxy S, Droid X, Droid 2, etc.
Neocore
Pros:
- Good tool for measuring graphics processing power
Cons:
- Graphics are not intense enough to push the power of very fast GPU's. Some phones will hit their FPS limit
- Only measures graphics processing power.
Nenamark1
Pros:
- Great tool for measuring graphics processing power
- Effects are advanced enough to show the performance of faster GPUs in relation to phones with lesser GPUs.
Cons:
- Only measures graphics processing power.

Sweet thanks for all the info man..

Agreed, this is great info thanks. I think the quadrant score is the most quoted becuase it provides a very easy to read graph built in with it for instant comparing/gratification. I guess I am gonna start going by linpack and nenamark1.

hydralisk said:
Linpack is good for measuring raw CPU processing power... but only on devices running the same version of android. Phones with 2.2 will score insanely high due to the JIT compiler. For example, a snapdragon phone with Froyo can score ~40 Mflops. A snapdragon phone with eclair scores around 7 Mflops. Does Froyo make the phone run 5-6X faster? Hell no. In some cases, the difference is almost unnoticeable to the human eye.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Linpack is ok for when your using same CPU comparison, different CPU's can cause issues...The reason why snapdragon gets scores of 5-6x is for some reason the snapdragon utilizes the VFP rather then using raw processing power..aka snapdragon cheats on the Linpack.
In reality our I/O scores should be a lot higher then it is as even in the Epic some of samsung's crappy file system still exists. But not as high as the lagfixed Vibrant of course.
Quadrant Pro is probably best indicator out of them all(The non-pro version is pretty much useless unless your comparing the same phone)...the con of having 2.2 show is higher is expected as it is a measure of efficiency of JIT in comparison to the current. The OS always played a role in Benchmarks so it is expected.

it can be faked by using a different partition to test on. IIRC the data partition making the speeds much faster than they should be so be careful when accepting those high scores

rjmjr69 said:
it can be faked by using a different partition to test on. IIRC the data partition making the speeds much faster than they should be so be careful when accepting those high scores
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is not exactly faking it..as you are increasing performance..thing is you cannot see at what it performs well at unless you see the individual scores from the Pro version....

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.

Lower Quadrant Score With New ROM

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.

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.

Performance Concerns

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.