Samfirmware "speed test" Nexus S vs Galaxy S "credibility" of samfirmware
Not much to say to it really. But with this I lost any last drop of "faith" I had for them, even after the fiasco with the latest JVK.
http://goo.gl/t3uik
Are they joking? I mean, late 1 april joke? (link to the youtube video http://goo.gl/3ADAD )
For those that wont understand what I am saying with this:
1. quadrant cant be used to test the "real" speed or "user experience" its completely irrelevant. (look up threads about it)
2. they compared 2 different filesystems rfs4 vs ext4 .
The test and samfirmware along with it is a joke
(If its already here, erase me , if I got into the wrong forum do the same )
very true!
once the video started, and that guy clicked run benchmark, i did the same with my phone and it ended up completing only a second later than the nexus s.. besides i am on 2.2.1 wheras the nexus one was 2.3.3.. very strange?? but if u overlook the speed of completing the test, the scores were correct. that is purely because of the crappy touch wiz....but this does not in any way mean that nexus s was faster in reality.. and hey did u check the colours in galaxy s compared to nexus s.. i mean both have the same screen but it did not seem that way, probably the nexus s used for the display was super lcd..!
Well I meant with this test that samfirmware should know better as to compare rfs with ext4.
The Samsung Galaxy S has rfs compared to ext4 to the nexus S. The filesystem itself will give another score in the "benchmark". But this benchmark cant be used as a reference. NOT even comparing speed on one phone. Look up threads about it.
And yeah the colors look better on SGS,but thats irrelevant too
Why RFS is on Samsung Galaxy S ??????????????????????????
Noticed that the Colors on Gingerbread version of Nexus S look a bit off. White looks Yellowish. Noticed this with CM7.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/27/nexus-s-2-3-3-update-adjusts-screens-color-temperature-we-go-e/
Naeem786 said:
Why RFS is on Samsung Galaxy S ??????????????????????????
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ive tried ext4 on my 2.3.3 and its not as smooth... im now using stock and its much smoother.
my phone is faster and smoother than my old froyo 2100 quadrant setup - yet scores 980 on avg on quadrant.
ive already left a few comments on that samfirmware post.
enable jit and add ext4 to samsung galaxy s, which is a match to the nexus s and the galaxy s wins by some distance.
2300 - galaxy s with jit enabled and ext4
1800 - nexus s
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
chrisjcks said:
...enable jit...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thing is JIT is enabled on JVK (and I think since froyo roms). Dunno why some ppl thing its still disabled
the build.prop line that everyone is tweaking is the one with stagefright to tweak/hack the quadrant score. (it pushes the score from 1600-1700 above 2000)
But funny their comment to me:
We just test both phones on his speed.
Its only a show how slow Samsungs own software is when you compare this with a clean Google rom. like the Nexus S.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@Samfirmware ITS NOT A SPEED TEST! Its testing books with tanks....
Samfirmware
We are bringing Samsung mobile fans together!
Trusted by 3 Site Members!
i am running stock xxjvk, rooted with cf-root 2.7.
started the benchmark at the same time, finished it 13 seconds BEFORE GOOGLE NEXUS S, 990 points ).
It's clear that the SGS they are using have an issue when I/O test get stuck there at 0/4 for a long time, however, change this line in build.prop from :
media.stagefright.enable-player=false
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
to:
media.stagefright.enable-player=true
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And your quadrant score will be 1600-1700 points, now install the hacked kernel by supercurio and enable ext4: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=975349 and see your device score 2400-2500 if not more.
Samfirmware have proved again that they mean as much as a Quadrant score in a worthless comparison that is only meant to promote Nexus S against Galaxy S, even though that we all know that they are mainly the same device.
Thanks to PAGOT for this find
Quadrant means nothing, in my desire I had about 3000pts, on my galaxy s about 2400pts but the galaxy is quicker when you use it..
I know that you all say quadrant score means nothing, or maybe it's just sgs owners that say that (ducks for cover ;-)
...but if you go over to the Droid X forum, there is a video review of a Droid X with Gingerbread and it clearly shows that the Droid X Quadrant score is doubled with Gingerbread and the phone looks really speedy on the video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=339bnvTQ87g
Can anyone explain this?
nice ginger on droid x look faster than my Froyo on galaxy
Oh yeah, and just FYI, I though that the samfirmware video review was absolute rubbish too.
markdj57 said:
I know that you all say quadrant score means nothing, or maybe it's just sgs owners that say that (ducks for cover ;-)
...but if you go over to the Droid X forum, there is a video review of a Droid X with Gingerbread and it clearly shows that the Droid X Quadrant score is doubled with Gingerbread and the phone looks really speedy on the video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=339bnvTQ87g
Can anyone explain this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The topic of this thread is about comparing to devices which are pretty much similar to each other, both have Gingerbread 2.3.3 installed but they have installed ext4 on one of them and left the other with RFS, beside that the SGS gets stuck on I/O test which is clearly indicate a problem with SGS which non of us have while running quadrant...this comparison is worthless..this is my opinion.
Although this is pretty much off-topic, but:
I wrote how to boost score numbers by changing only 1 line in build.prop from 900-1000 points to 1600-1700 points which proves how worthless quadrant scores are.
Beside that, any SGS owner will tell you that he/she can get 56fps in 3d test, while DroidX fails to deliver more than 10fps in that test.
Moving to linpack, DroidX scores 10-12 MFLOPS, any SGS owner can confirm that SGS scores no less than 14 MFLOPS.
Based on scores now, how is DroidX faster than SGS ? Well it's not, but in the other hand I can agree that Motorola software is better optimized for DroidX than Samsung have done with SGS.
Thanks ramad, I did notice that the fps on the quadrant test were very very low in comparison to the SGS which maxs out at 56fps (on planet test) so I do agree but interesting that so many rely on Quadrant so much that it seems flawed.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1012556
Have anyone noticed in Quadrant if you are on RFS the database write/read test finishes very quickly compared to ext4 whhch takes 2-3x longer to finish. Yet the score with ext4 is higher. THis does'nt make sense at all. Something is really very WRONG with Quadrant.
Quadrant? oh puuuhleeeezz.. shocked @ samfirmware..
Related
According to this link, the upcoming Epic 4G has an I/O benchmark that is much higher than Vibrant (and therefore the similarly handicapped Captivate and international and Bell Galaxy S i9000). I started wondering whether this is due to actual hardware differences, or if there have been tweaks incorporated into the firmware that are helping. Then I found an Epic 4G system dump here. I haven't personally downloaded the dump from that link, because even if I did, I wouldn't know how to find anything. Could someone with more ability study this dump and possibly learn something useful for us?
I have also heard reports that Epic 4G has a GPS that works well. This is less of an issue for me personally, as I am on JH2, and find my GPS adequate for the occassional use I have put it through. This is another area that might be worth looking at.
Edit:
alternate Epic 4G dump download location
Interesting to say the least. Wonder if they dumped RFS or if they just figured out how to optimize it. The hardware differences between the devices shouldn't be significant enough to show that big of an I/O difference.
Who knows, maybe this indicates that Samsung has an idea what's going on with the performance issues and will eventually filter it down to the SGSs variants
Zilch25 said:
Interesting to say the least. Wonder if they dumped RFS or if they just figured out how to optimize it. The hardware differences between the devices shouldn't be significant enough to show that big of an I/O difference.
Who knows, maybe this indicates that Samsung has an idea what's going on with the performance issues and will eventually filter it down to the SGSs variants
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
QFT .................
I am going to go ahead and download the system dump zip file for archiving purposes. I'll probably put it up at an alternate download location, once I have it.
I'm not 100% sure on this but I think the Epic's total internal memory is NAND (1GB) unlike the other phones that use an internal SD card. Much different memory transfer speeds.
Thats why the one lag fix works so well, it copies data/data to the internal NAND.
I am already running the gps fix from the dump(haven't tested it yet). There is no lag fix as far as I can tell. The epic gets 850+ in quadrant. If it had a lag fix it would get a lot higher score.
I believe derek4484 is right on the 1gig of NAND. I just checked it out on a review site.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Yeah doublechecked derek too... it appears it comes with 1GB ROM only, all other storage is via microSD.
False alarm =P Samsung didn't fix or optimize anything, they just used a cheaper, more shortsighted method to avoid having to give up their precious RFS
Those test results are questionable. You can click on the link under the graph and compare other phones. They have Droid X edging out SGS in linpack: SGS- high 7's; X- low 8's.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
tiger4j said:
Those test results are questionable. You can click on the link under the graph and compare other phones. They have Droid X edging out SGS in linpack: SGS- high 7's; X- low 8's.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dont think they are right either. If the phone had that fast of a file system it would kill in quadrant. The epic has been reported to only get 850+ in quadrant.
Unless you're actually running an epic, the GPS fixes out there only dump the GPS files, so it wouldn't do anything to indicate the speed of the actual Epic in terms of file system performance =P
why would they let sprint have the nicest version of the galaxy s ugh -___-
Zilch25 said:
Unless you're actually running an epic, the GPS fixes out there only dump the GPS files, so it wouldn't do anything to indicate the speed of the actual Epic in terms of file system performance =P
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Two different issues regarding GPS locking and file system I/O performance
rajendra82 said:
Two different issues regarding GPS locking and file system I/O performance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know, I was commenting on sheps post =P He seems to be saying that using the gps fix from the epic would alter file system performance.
No I am saying people with epics have tested them with quadrant and are getting 850+. I cant see it getting so high scores from laptopmag.com under the file sytem benchmarks but only get 850+ in quadrant. laptopmag.com says the droid x file system benchmarks the same but it gets over 1200 in quadrant with slower cpu and gpu.
shep211 said:
No I am saying people with epics have tested them with quadrant and are getting 850+. I cant see it getting so high scores from laptopmag.com under the file sytem benchmarks but only get 850+ in quadrant. laptopmag.com says the droid x file system benchmarks the same but it gets over 1200 in quadrant with slower cpu and gpu.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah okay Thanks for the clarification. The posts were a little confusing as to what you were saying.
shep211 said:
No I am saying people with epics have tested them with quadrant and are getting 850+. I cant see it getting so high scores from laptopmag.com under the file sytem benchmarks but only get 850+ in quadrant. laptopmag.com says the droid x file system benchmarks the same but it gets over 1200 in quadrant with slower cpu and gpu.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
FYI, Quadrant scores MEAN JACK
andy2na said:
FYI, Quadrant scores MEAN JACK
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unless youre comparing the same phone. Especially when one with lag vs one without it get the same score. Even though quadrant isn't the best thing to use you can still use it to show an improvement after a fix or a mod from the base number. So his question was why do the phones get the exact same score but one has lag.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
Clienterror said:
Unless youre comparing the same phone. Especially when one with lag vs one without it get the same score. Even though quadrant isn't the best thing to use you can still use it to show an improvement after a fix or a mod from the base number. So his question was why do the phones get the exact same score but one has lag.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant only tests throughput bandwidth not latency, etc. The internal NAND may be just as fast in terms of MB/s but it could have lower latency or other charecterists that Quadrant does not test.
post your official froyo / Gingerbread bechmarks here (without lagfix)
if you got upgrade via kies
Got jp6 trough norwegian kies
1020 is highest before lagfix
2015 is highest after oclf lagfix
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
as I've noticed before, without lagfix on 2.1 the I/O check takes ages
but as compare,
2.1 without lagfix around 850
2.2 without lagfix around 1000
2.1 with lagfix around 2200
2.2 with lag fix, not tested yet, need to find a root
AsgardCurse said:
as I've noticed before, without lagfix on 2.1 the I/O check takes ages
but as compare,
2.1 without lagfix around 850
2.2 without lagfix around 1000
2.1 with lagfix around 2200
2.2 with lag fix, not tested yet, need to find a root
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
here is a root for you
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=788108
OCLF only boost IO on Galaxy s : nexus 1 is still way faster in processor optimization test and this is what we need in galaxy s
dadyal said:
OCLF only boost IO on Galaxy s : nexus 1 is still way faster in processor optimization test and this is what we need in galaxy s
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Faster in real world performance or in synthetic benchmarks?
DarthV said:
Faster in real world performance or in synthetic benchmarks?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess for using FPU intensive task, like Mathematical design, database, encoding video or MP3, file sharing and sugh... :|
For me, I use the phone for mostly GPU intense task, such as taking pictures/video, listening to video, gaming, browsing pictures, etc. so I asume that better gpu makes it better all around eh!
Kinda like being able to lift heavy wieght but doing a desk job I assume!
(BTW, sorry for the sarcasm )
2.2 without lagfix 1001
2.1
before: 854
after: 2273
Sorry guy for a stupid question but which app are you using for the benchmark test?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Quadrant Standard banchmark - U can find it in market
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Thx for the app info! I got 1010
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
t1mman said:
I guess for using FPU intensive task, like Mathematical design, database, encoding video or MP3, file sharing and sugh... :|
For me, I use the phone for mostly GPU intense task, such as taking pictures/video, listening to video, gaming, browsing pictures, etc. so I asume that better gpu makes it better all around eh!
Kinda like being able to lift heavy wieght but doing a desk job I assume!
(BTW, sorry for the sarcasm )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So wouldn't benchmarks for your specific application be better than synthetic benchmarks suck as linpack and quadrant? The snapdragon CPU in the n1 is very very friendly with linpack (NEON + 128bit SIMD). I doubt that the hummingbird in our SGSs will ever score as high, but that doesn't mean that real performance is going to be worse. And well quadrant is pretty much a joke or at least how it weights cpu/gpu/io.
Maybe someone group will get a bunch of phones together and test things like gaming speed, web render times etc etc. That would be meaningful.
DarthV said:
So wouldn't benchmarks for your specific application be better than synthetic benchmarks suck as linpack and quadrant? The snapdragon CPU in the n1 is very very friendly with linpack (NEON + 128bit SIMD). I doubt that the hummingbird in our SGSs will ever score as high, but that doesn't mean that real performance is going to be worse. And well quadrant is pretty much a joke or at least how it weights cpu/gpu/io.
Maybe someone group will get a bunch of phones together and test things like gaming speed, web render times etc etc. That would be meaningful.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you mean VFP? the Hummingbird is the one with the ARM Neon chip...
VFP is pretty much a floating point accelerator which is why benchmarks are so high on linpack which calculates floating points.
my score is 1034, was over 2000 before Froyo update
Lostja said:
my score is 1034, was over 2000 before Froyo update
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you got this update via kies ?
i flashed JPA and it go 970 - 1050
960 without
How to do the OCLF? It says "Unavailable" on everything...
Edit: got it fixed
1819 with
If everything shows unavailable check the following:
Phone is Rooted,
Ext2 tools installed,
BATTERY MUST BE MORE THAN 40%
last one is the one that most people dont check
Score was around 1008 with standard Froyo. (Kies update)
With root and lagfix i get around 1873.
With official Enclair and lagfix i could easily get 2200+ points.
970. not the best!
frankatboy said:
If everything shows unavailable check the following:
Phone is Rooted,
Ext2 tools installed,
BATTERY MUST BE MORE THAN 40%
last one is the one that most people dont check
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Battery is more than 40%.
How do I root and install Ext2? (stupid question I know but I am new lol). I see it can root and install ext2 as well, but those are unavailable too.
Edit: *fixed* 1819 with lagfix
So DK28 is supposedly 2.2.1 but I ran Quandrat with the stock rom and it comes up 873, almost exactly the same as Galaxy S 2.1, leading me to believe that JIT is not in the rom. Correct?
avenger213 said:
So DK28 is supposedly 2.2.1 but I ran Quandrat with the stock rom and it comes up 873, almost exactly the same as Galaxy S 2.1, leading me to believe that JIT is not in the rom. Correct?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I may be wrong but quadrant:
1) Isn't the best way to base performance
2) Doesn't really show improvements that JIT provides
Download linpack if you want and your score should be around a 14 or so, compared to the 8.5-9 on 2.1
Quadrant isn't a real life benchmark, and is highly flawed. Check out Quantum's "warp speed edition" ROM for proof.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
I got 1205 with stock dk28 but I have noticed others reporting lower scores. Variability in testing with a bad benchmark perhaps?
I've got 1839 lol... For some reason I doubt that's accurate
I did a quadrant test with a stock epic 2.1 and an epic on dk28 and the scores were pretty much the same every time. The major difference was that the Froyo epic ran the cpu benchmarks much faster but hung during the first I/O test. The 2.1 epic ran everything about the same speed and completed the whole test much faster than the froyo epic.
I also noticed this and posted in another thread...
to quote myself
I was getting around 8.3xx in 2.1, and now I'm getting 13.7xx in 2.2.
(I used the 1506bdf2e04b.update-SPH-D700_DI18ToDK28.zip renamed to update.zip method.)
Saw a video the other day showing a nexus 1 scoring 20+ on 1st run and 40+ on 2nd.. My friends Evo (with 2.2) scored @ 38 or so..
Quadrant still shows me well under all of the 2.2+ phones listed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I expected a bit more of an increase..
I too am wondering if the JIT was left out of our Froyo (if that's even possible, I'm still a total nube to andriod stuff).
What exactly is JIT, does it speed the phone up?
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Just In Time compiling...
From what I know about .Net (I'm a C# coder), it allows for compilation of the app for the specific CPU during the 1st run.
Someone please correct me if this differes from andriod's JIT...
the epic has fast computation hw between the cpu and gpu, it could be the case that the JIT benefit doesn't show in the benchmark margins.
the device is a fast one, all compared.
i was surfing the net and i found this, hope it could give us a glimpse of what is coming, http://bit.ly/fhO6Sr
bobgaby
We wont get 2.3 till sometime next year...BUT
I don't understand why we have not seen a 2.2.1 leak yet!??? The galaxy S has already gotten a few leaks of it.
2.2.1 is much improved!
A lot of what is in the SGS 2.2.1 update is already on the Tab.
Sent from my GT-P1000
Croak said:
A lot of what is in the SGS 2.2.1 update is already on the Tab.
Sent from my GT-P1000
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant scores show otherwise!
rmanaudio said:
Quadrant scores show otherwise!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What are those 2.2.1 features?
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
It'll get an extra 0.1, that's about all we know for sure.
rmanaudio said:
Quadrant scores show otherwise!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant scores are worth precisely *nothing*.
If you want to see this, try OCLF on your Tab - your Quadrant score will more than double, but you won't see any tangible performance improvement in real world usage.
My HTC Desire scores way higher than the Tab in Quadrant, but again in the real world performance is similar, and in the case of 3D games, the Tab is quite a bit better.
Regards,
Dave
foxmeister said:
Quadrant scores are worth precisely *nothing*.
If you want to see this, try OCLF on your Tab - your Quadrant score will more than double, but you won't see any tangible performance improvement in real world usage.
My HTC Desire scores way higher than the Tab in Quadrant, but again in the real world performance is similar, and in the case of 3D games, the Tab is quite a bit better.
Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You need to understand why with OCLF you get such a higher score!
In 2.2.1 Samsung did not change the file system and it still scores 20% higher with 2.2.1 compared to 2.2. Now with OCLF or Voodoo or any other lag fix the file system is changed and file move tests are done faster thus giving a higher score! But with 2.2.1 it is the same old file system so the improvements are else where!
Lots are saying that Samsung has finally released a somewhat optimized firmware with 2.2.1!
IMHO, everything is perfect, and keeps getting better with every firmware update. Just because they haven't added the .1 to the firmware number, it doesn't mean we don't have those benefits that others have seen. The Tab was born well into the late stages of 2.2 and Samsung are probable paying more attention to updating their devices with Gingerbread, hopefully
Sent from my GT-P1000
rmanaudio said:
But with 2.2.1 it is the same old file system so the improvements are else where!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly!
The Tab uses RFS, same as the Galaxy S, yet it does not suffer the same lag issues as the Galaxy S.
If the Galaxy S is now "fixed", this would tend to imply (to me at least) that the Tab already has those fixes.
That's not to say that an updated firmware would be welcome. All I was saying is that if you are looking at Quadrant to determine the "speed" of your device, you are looking in the wrong place because it is a deeply flawed benchmark!
I have personally run OCLF for a week, and then removed. I noticed absolutely *no* difference in overall real world performance during daily usage. I know that some people say that it improves lag on the notification bar, but I've never experienced any lag there anyway.
Regards,
Dave
Guys i have good news the samsung galaxy sl gets more quadrant than the S
on same tweaks
proof:watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXk84fKXAVQ&feature=colike
o f.... I have to commit suicide
same specs on both but diffrent gpu/cpu, and honestly i prefer super amoled before super lcd
sl did not had a lock on gps - the gps icon blinked on both = gps deamon was still searching fix means you gd preloaded location on sl - changing ntp server basicly does not impact gps performance
galaxy s on some shoots seems to have autobrighteness on so screen goes darker
Galaxy sl is trim down version of galaxy s i9000 so even if it gets 100000 quadrant score still it can't beat super amoled screen and hummingbird processor in real world
No both were at full brightness it's an unbiased review we in the end we conclude that s is better but i was surprised sl got a better score in quadrant
Sent from my GT-I9003 using XDA App
i would like to see cfbench runed on both - ofc clean phone, latest stock firmware no rooting no kernels nothin
and a real gps test comparisment of both lined on window ledge (because none will fix indoors) with wirless networks aiding deactivated
best would be first gps run after flashing stock firmwares for both
$omator said:
i would like to see cfbench runed on both - ofc clean phone, latest stock firmware no rooting no kernels nothin
and a real gps test comparisment of both lined on window ledge (because none will fix indoors) with wirless networks aiding deactivated
best would be first gps run after flashing stock firmwares for both
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Check my signature for part 1 which has stock firmware test
Sent from my GT-I9003 using XDA App
ok so the quadrant score on second was boosted by well known tweaks to boost quadrant score - well useless test then =)
anyways i would like to se cfbench on both and a real gps test, still you have blinking gps icon = that means no fix
$omator said:
ok so the quadrant score on second was boosted by well known tweaks to boost quadrant score - well useless test then =)
anyways i would like to se cfbench on both and a real gps test, still you have blinking gps icon = that means no fix
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the first the sl had a beta gingerbread tom which had a bug where quadrant and other application never made use of,in the second a fixed firmware is used and cf root is applied on both, if u still have trouble believing me FYI the slowly uses a omap similar to the droid x,as we all know a stock droid x has been getting a better score than the s you can observe that in the comparison chart by quadrant,as with your query ill be making a part 3 soon with cf bench.
Sent from my GT-I9003 using XDA App
and please not root at all - cfroot also aplies some tuning on the flash
just pure stock
Oh my god, it's such a dumb-a$$ rewiev, bad english and even worse cam. And it's all just a difference in the firmware. If you trimm the galaxy with a custom rom and may overclock your phone to 1,6ghz then you will get 3600+ in quadrant, does it matter? no, quadrant isnt a real benchmark with that you can compare a phone, its just image, nothin less.
And the sgsl has a super-lcd screen, which totally sucks true story Super-AMOLED ist the superior type of display.
It's quadrant... It doesn't mean anything.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using xda premium
alexx910 said:
Oh my god, it's such a dumb-a$$ rewiev, bad english and even worse cam. And it's all just a difference in the firmware. If you trimm the galaxy with a custom rom and may overclock your phone to 1,6ghz then you will get 3600+ in quadrant, does it matter? no, quadrant isnt a real benchmark with that you can compare a phone, its just image, nothin less.
And the sgsl has a super-lcd screen, which totally sucks true story Super-AMOLED ist the superior type of display.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant does not mean anything,did you watch the whole video?,galaxy s was the winner in the end,as with my accent im sorry for the inconvenience.
Sent from my GT-I9003 using XDA App
but still i would like to see cfbench numbers =)
Install latest clean rom on both devices and compare browsing speed, games apps ,and than upload a video
alexx910 said:
Oh my god, it's such a dumb-a$$ rewiev, bad english and even worse cam. And it's all just a difference in the firmware. If you trimm the galaxy with a custom rom and may overclock your phone to 1,6ghz then you will get 3600+ in quadrant, does it matter? no, quadrant isnt a real benchmark with that you can compare a phone, its just image, nothin less.
And the sgsl has a super-lcd screen, which totally sucks true story Super-AMOLED ist the superior type of display.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess you are the only guy who thing Cannon EOS D7 is a "worse cam"
Its one of the best DSLR out there!!
phzi said:
It's quadrant... It doesn't mean anything.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this. this and this.
/thread
yamchirobe said:
Quadrant does not mean anything,did you watch the whole video?,galaxy s was the winner in the end,as with my accent im sorry for the inconvenience.
Sent from my GT-I9003 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well dude, sry for being so unfriendly Wasnt meant that way Of course you could improve your english a bit by stayin in contact with english-speaking people Thats my way to improve the language.
But actually its all up to the firmware of the phone. one year ago sgs was so bad in quadrant. It had always something about 800-1000 points. Not more. But with some work on the firmware by the sammy dev's they improved the jit compiler and now the phone beats even the nexus one and so on on the scale. I had my phone powered up to 3600 score with using darkys rom and a great kernel (1,6ghz). But actually it doesnt really matter...
The most important thing is, that you can use your phone as you want If your sgsl doesnt lag, its great. But the development is a little bit slow atm.
ciao dude
Yawns, I enjoy my Galaxy S gingerbread speed. If it'd go any faster, I'd have to run (and recharge the phone even more often).