Related
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
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.
Motorola Xoom overclocked to 1.5GHz, eats Quadrant and Linpack for breakfast
Hold on to your hats, gents, because things just got real -- that's a Motorola Xoom in the picture above, clocked at a blazing 1.504GHz. While we highly doubt that's a new world record of any sort, the dual-core Tegra 2 inside seriously screams at that clockspeed, scorching Quadrant to the tune of 3105 (remember this?) and delivering 47 MFLOPS in Linpack. Oh, and in case you're curious, this achievement wasn't some random hack. It was perpetrated for our collective benefit by the master of SetCPU himself, and you'll find full video proof of his accomplishment below and instructions at our source link. Got root? Then you're on your way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey guess what? At 1.5GHz the Nexus S can break 4k without a sweat. Simms22, care to post some of your Quadrant scores
******Official Scoreboard*******
Premier DC Honeycomb Tablet: 0
Google Nexus S: 1
who cares quadrant sucks not to mention it still does not still work correctly with 2.3 i highly doubt its accurate with honeycomb and dualcore CPU
also you're talking about a 4k plus score with voodoo
demo23019 said:
who cares quadrant sucks does not still work correctly with 2.3 i highly doubt its accurate with honeycomb and dualcore CPU
also youre talking about a 4k plus score with voodoo
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pardon? What do you mean by Voodoo? If you mean the ext4 hack then the 4k I am referring to was actually before the ext4 hack was implemented. And if its broken for both Gingerbread and Honeycomb then wouldn't it kind of negate the being broken? Since their both broken?
Why do people always have to **** all over everything? It was an interesting post and I found it funny that Engadget would use the phrase "eat for breakfast" when in reality 3.1k is not that impressive. Seriously though, why is it necessary to be an ass instead of just having a laugh? Clearly I posted this in good fun. JFC.
And only scores 47 MFLOPS when the nexus one snapdragon can score higher you going to say nexus one is faster than xoom and Nexus S i dont thin so
Being huge into PC benchmarking and im not impressed with what android currently has for software...Anything that can be manipulated into giving false result is bogus
reminds me of 3dmark vantage with nvidia cards giving off very high inaccurate CPU scores with physx is enabled
....Not saying vantage is bogus
demo23019 said:
And only scores 47 MFLOPS when the nexus one snapdragon can score higher you going to say nexus one is faster than xoom and Nexus S i dont thin so
Being huge into PC benchmarking and im not impressed with what android currently has for software...Anything that can be manipulated into giving false result is bogus
reminds me of 3dmark vantage with nvidia cards giving off very high inaccurate CPU scores with physx is enabled
....Not saying vantage is bogus
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which benchmarks if any do you think are valid or quasi valid for the NS? I use Fps2D to test FPS
jlevy73 said:
Which benchmarks if any do you think are valid or quasi valid for the NS? I use Fps2D to test FPS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am using an3DXL for benchmarking as well as nenamark. an3DXL gave results that had the lowest spread, while quadrant was all over the place, having as much as a 500 point different..
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.
Here are the various benchmark results from the OnePlus X device.
AnTuTu Benchmark score:38132
AnTuTu HTML5 test: 18219
Geekbench 3 score: Single-Core: 918
Multi-core: 2433
3DMark Score: SlingShot using ES 3.0 : 701
I've attached the screenshots of all the test result for reference.
38132 Antutu makes no sense. My OnePlus One with the same CPU/GPU gets almost 50K
XblackdemonX said:
38132 Antutu makes no sense. My OnePlus One with the same CPU/GPU gets almost 50K
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Reaches upto 40K+ for mine in an tu tu.
And OPO has 2.5Ghz CPU but OP X has 2.3Ghz that differs the score.
I had 50k with my oneplus one and 39k with my oneplus x.
But, the htc one m8 had 2.3ghz s801 with 2gb of ram and had 45k antutu...
PoloB49 said:
I had 50k with my oneplus one and 39k with my oneplus x.
But, the htc one m8 had 2.3ghz s801 with 2gb of ram and had 45k antutu...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I know op x uses the least powerful 801 and m8 used the more powerful sd801 2.3ghz cpu.
Legolas.X said:
As far as I know op x uses the least powerful 801 and m8 used the more powerful sd801 2.3ghz cpu.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, the X has the AA variant which has a lower clocked CPU and GPU hence the differences between other SD801 chips.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7846/...-snapdragon-800-and-801-clearing-up-confusion
kinghu said:
Yup, the X has the AA variant which has a lower clocked CPU and GPU hence the differences between other SD801 chips.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7846/...-snapdragon-800-and-801-clearing-up-confusion
View attachment 3538054
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, enough for UI animations and Fruit Ninja. I think that's a reasonable expectation for a $250 device with an awesome build.
CafeKampuchia said:
So, enough for UI animations and Fruit Ninja. I think that's a reasonable expectation for a $250 device with an awesome build.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
U could say that. Putting sd801 doesn't mean that u can always expect the top notch performance. Not everyone does hardcore gaming on mobile leave that to pc. Looking at price point it's kinda perfect.
I knw some ppl would tell sd615 performs better but that's a newer chip.
Those scores really don´t do the OnePlus X justice. The device runs so smooth and fast it´s an incredible device for 250$! I had no lags at all since using it.
The oneplus x uses sd 8974AA
but the gpu is clocked at 578mhz just like AB and AC version
^ Interesting.
Specs and benchmarks aside, it's a really smooth and fluid experience. I can't tell the difference between the OPX and OPO regardless of the extra 5k or so in Antutu. They did a really good job with the hardware and software for a nice user experience.
Agreed with everyone!
I dont know why antutu benchmark is low on this device, it runs smooth and neverlags till now, even tough i have filled my device with all the daily apps i need ,
If u ask me, i guess oxygen os is again to be blamed here,
I m not sure about this, but on my previous device some custom rom offers a difference of almost 5-6 k. So i believe an update or custom rom might enhance the score,
But still antutu benchmark dosent matter to me if my device is running smoothly??
Yup ur right Oxygen OS is the enemy here... Can't wait for custom ROMs
do the benchmarks change after flashing the custom kernel? If so, can someone upload a pic of the new benchmarks and see how it compares?
NekoXiu said:
do the benchmarks change after flashing the custom kernel? If so, can someone upload a pic of the new benchmarks and see how it compares?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here you go on default settings of blu_spark v25 kernel
loveboy_lion said:
Here you go on default settings of blu_spark v25 kernel
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, seems like benchmark didn't go up by much but the performance definitely is better !
41k
My antutu benchmark was 40801 with the stock kernel and stock cpu&gpu governor.
Changing both the CPU and GPU governors (on stock kernel) let me reach 43375.
I think there's room for further optimization.
By the way, the SOC version is nether AA or AB, since the complete code is
MSM8974PRO-AA,
just as this is a sort of "pro" version. In the table, the AA GPU frequency is 400 MHz, whereas in the OPX it is 578 MHz. I looks like qualcomm produced a newer version of the SOC, unsurprisingly the cited article, more than 1.5 years old, may didn't notice this.
Wow, my LG G2 is slightly faster? Disappointing because I got an invite and was going to buy one. Hmmmmm.
len_smith said:
Wow, my LG G2 is slightly faster? Disappointing because I got an invite and was going to buy one. Hmmmmm.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't hold to much stock in what the benchmarks have to say. On my one plus one some of the laggiest kernel's gave the best scores.
Though having said that has anyone looked in to the voltage tables and CPU binning? I suspect there is more useful information there than a whole bunch of benchmark scores.
I have always regarded CPU benchmarks to be more about management of heat and thermal throttling than user performance.
For example my old lg g2 would let the CPU bake at about 72° where as on my one plus one the CPU is pretty much brick walled at about 60°, thanks to my kernels very conservative thermal profile.
The result is disappointing benchmark scores of around 32-38 antutu's. But in day to day use the one plus one is much smoother than my old g2.
I could install the original cm12s and start scoring about 51 antutu's, but in day to day use that ROM is a lag monster in comparison to what I have now. Also I prefer not to thermally stress my phone to much with hot CPU's. That's what killed my g2.