Database Users

Quadrant benchmark for Android on HD2 compared to SGS (What's in a score)

Look at this (from 1:44 on):
It's a quadrant benchmark run on a android port on the HD2. Graphics are really bad, but in the end it has approximately the same score as the benchmarking score of the Galaxy with the original firmware. I mean what is in a score? If I look at the beginning of the movie, the UI is very slow and not as responsive as the Galaxy
(BTW i got 55.7 FPS with the neocore benchmark on JM2)
This is not to say that I don't have deep respect for what the HD2-android development team is doing. Really amazing job. I just can't wait to get my HD2 back from repair.

appelflap said:
Look at this (from 1:44 on):
It's a quadrant benchmark run on a android port on the HD2. Graphics are really bad, but in the end it has approximately the same score as the benchmarking score of the Galaxy with the original firmware. I mean what is in a score? If I look at the beginning of the movie, the UI is very slow and not as responsive as the Galaxy
(BTW i got 55.7 FPS with the neocore benchmark on JM2)
This is not to say that I don't have deep respect for what the HD2-android development team is doing. Really amazing job. I just can't wait to get my HD2 back from repair.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant scores have been criticized for their non-descript breakdowns, at least on their free suite. Also, the fact that they chose the weighting of the scores, so should they chose 2D is equal to 3D weight, I don't know their formula (and for all I know, they give equal weighting to all or they give equal weighting to all test where the CPU has 12 tests and the 3D graphics has 4), but the fact that we, as users don't have access to their formula on their website is a bit unnerving.
Add to that the fact that many reviews and videos rely on it so heavily leaves users a bit misinformed. In reality, and thorough review should definitely run a custom test suite to give individual scores to:
CPU
Memory
I/O
2D graphics
3D graphics
That way users can compare what's important to them. The Galaxy S suffers from terrible I/O and the hacks that have given the fixes typically boost Galaxy scores to nearly double their rates, and it's majorly attributed to improving a bunk I/O score.

Totally agree. In addition, it would be really nice to know which benchmarked factors are responsible for which functions. For example it is really interesting to see how the hd2 performs before the user is running the tests. When the user is scrolling through the setting menu there is a very noticible lag. Given the fact that the total score is nearly the same as the scrore for the SGS, and thar the graphic score of the hd2 is bad in comparisson to the SGS, I would conclude that graphic performance is very important for the way the ui responds.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

appelflap said:
Totally agree. In addition, it would be really nice to know which benchmarked factors are responsible for which functions. For example it is really interesting to see how the hd2 performs before the user is running the tests. When the user is scrolling through the setting menu there is a very noticible lag. Given the fact that the total score is nearly the same as the scrore for the SGS, and thar the graphic score of the hd2 is bad in comparisson to the SGS, I would conclude that graphic performance is very important for the way the ui responds.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I can tell, the HD2 got a decent score 'cos it was running Froyo. When we get bumped up to an official froyo build with JIT fully optimized, We should be top of the pile.

don't forget, android isn't working 100% on the HD2.
I personally think it's pointless comparing to a not complete port.

woops dbl post

alovell83 said:
Quadrant scores have been criticized for their non-descript breakdowns, at least on their free suite. Also, the fact that they chose the weighting of the scores, so should they chose 2D is equal to 3D weight, I don't know their formula (and for all I know, they give equal weighting to all or they give equal weighting to all test where the CPU has 12 tests and the 3D graphics has 4), but the fact that we, as users don't have access to their formula on their website is a bit unnerving.
Add to that the fact that many reviews and videos rely on it so heavily leaves users a bit misinformed. In reality, and thorough review should definitely run a custom test suite to give individual scores to:
CPU
Memory
I/O
2D graphics
3D graphics
That way users can compare what's important to them. The Galaxy S suffers from terrible I/O and the hacks that have given the fixes typically boost Galaxy scores to nearly double their rates, and it's majorly attributed to improving a bunk I/O score.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even then though, it's possible to write a benchmark which wins constantly for any phone.
In regards to "terrible I/O", that might even be due to a bug in the FAT32 drivers. Yes you can benchmark it, but it wont mean much. The best way is to actually TEST the applications you need, rather than select a phone based on benchmarks. However, you are possibly best off looking at the component specs, because they ignore software bugs.

scrizz said:
don't forget, android isn't working 100% on the HD2.
I personally think it's pointless comparing to a not complete port.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But the topic is about "what's in a score". Maybe one can generally say that is pointless to compare devices this way. I think that such benchmark scores are only (a bit) relevant at the two poles of the benchmark score spectrum. Everything in between can be neglected due to the uninformed way sub-scores are evaluated.

You got 55.7 FPS on Neocore as the sgs has vertical sync enabled, the refresh rate on the sgs'es screen is 56 fps and thus you can only go up to 56 fps as the v-sync is on. This proves that the sgs is indeed a much more powerful device that is actually being held back. If you can disable the v-sync then you can get a higher fps score

appelflap said:
But the topic is about "what's in a score". Maybe one can generally say that is pointless to compare devices this way. I think that such benchmark scores are only (a bit) relevant at the two poles of the benchmark score spectrum. Everything in between can be neglected due to the uninformed way sub-scores are evaluated.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just read in a post that the Galaxy S gets a 0 on the 2D score:
"JIT isn't fully enabled in the current froyo versions, and quadrant, frankly, is bull**** (for exmple, 2d acceleration gets the same weight in the final result as 3D. Due to the fact that the SGS doesn't have a dedicated 2D accelerator, quadrant doesn't try to use the cpu- it just gives a round zero in that part)"
I can't confirm this, but that definitely seems like a terrible set-up, seeing as how I'm pretty sure I have games run in 2D, so to say that it can't do it just seems wrong regardless of if the SGS has a dedicated 2D accelerator or not (so if you aren't testing the way it performs in real-world, why are you testing?)
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=737787&page=3

Qazz~ said:
You got 55.7 FPS on Neocore as the sgs has vertical sync enabled, the refresh rate on the sgs'es screen is 56 fps and thus you can only go up to 56 fps as the v-sync is on. This proves that the sgs is indeed a much more powerful device that is actually being held back. If you can disable the v-sync then you can get a higher fps score
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It isn't really being held back - the screen can't display more than 56 fps as you say, and it wouldn't really be visible even if it could. Disabling v-sync isn't really that important, we need a benchmark that can actually use the advanced features in the SGS GPU (Neocore just pushes a fairly small amount of polygons with no real extras.) Using current 3D benchmarks to benchmark the SGS is like using quake 1 to benchmark the brand new ATI/nVidia cards.
The benchmark is what is at fault here, not the device

RyanZA said:
It isn't really being held back - the screen can't display more than 56 fps as you say, and it wouldn't really be visible even if it could. Disabling v-sync isn't really that important, we need a benchmark that can actually use the advanced features in the SGS GPU (Neocore just pushes a fairly small amount of polygons with no real extras.) Using current 3D benchmarks to benchmark the SGS is like using quake 1 to benchmark the brand new ATI/nVidia cards.
The benchmark is what is at fault here, not the device
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't want to speak for the other poster, and I agree with your premise, however, it isn't actually solving the issue at hand. Better FPS wouldn't be noticed, however, it would give a better score and, more importantly, indicate it's potential. So, getting 56FPS isn't doing the phone any justice within the score, which is what reviews are using, giving it an artificially low score, and putting it more in line with units that can't compete on higher end games. So, when a site like anand pushes 150FPS on a game, I know that means that their rig is entirely too powerful for the game in question, but it still means something when you compare it to the lower end graphics card that only gets 90...then when they run Crisis you see these results play out more with differences that we can notice with the eye.

I think the HD2 gets that score because, as I can see in the video, the CPU tests run faster compared to my SGS, probably because of Froyo, and I know, from the time I had the Diamond and the HD2, that the internal memory and RAM are very fast. Sadly SGS has a slow internal memory, atleast when used by the phone`s software, when copying from PC is faster than my class 6 microSD. Luckily, we have mimocan`s fix. Hope this will be fixed in future FW`s.

NexusHD2 with-FRG83D V1.7 with hastarin r8.5.1 On my HD2 got 1920 in quadrant,31.5 on neocore, and 37 on linmark.

The lag might be because you are using launcher pro, I use launcher pro and sometimes it makes the the lock lag on my phone but it doesn't happen when I use the default lock also if you have alot of Widgets on your screen it will cause lag also

appelflap said:
Look at this (from 1:44 on):
It's a quadrant benchmark run on a android port on the HD2. Graphics are really bad, but in the end it has approximately the same score as the benchmarking score of the Galaxy with the original firmware. I mean what is in a score? If I look at the beginning of the movie, the UI is very slow and not as responsive as the Galaxy
(BTW i got 55.7 FPS with the neocore benchmark on JM2)
This is not to say that I don't have deep respect for what the HD2-android development team is doing. Really amazing job. I just can't wait to get my HD2 back from repair.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
same galaxy s scores 6000+ in quadrant with custem roms

The HD 2 is a better fit for quadrent then the sgs as quadrent was made for the snapdragon processor which the hd2 has and the sgs does not. Comparing apples to orenges in an apple juice contest doesn't really prove much. Use real life feel. If you care about the scores a rom can be made to get you over 3000 quad score but is laggy as hell. Don't believe me? Look at my sig

interesting... I was using quadrant to see how a stock xxjvo and gingerreal compared. Surely that would indicate a real speed difference and not just be some kind of "hack" ?

zelendel said:
The HD 2 is a better fit for quadrent then the sgs as quadrent was made for the snapdragon processor which the hd2 has and the sgs does not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's right.
HD2 uses two android OS :
- Cyanogenmod, that is faster than our samsung os..
- Nexus one's port to HD2, greatly optimized by google...
It's really fast. I upgraded my father's HD2 last month, replacing windows in the NAND with CM7. It really makes a big change, the phone is like brand new ^^

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1012556
Quadrant is pretty flawed. And I say that being someone who had a phone (before modifications) that was mid-range in Quadrant (Galaxy S), and having a phone that's right top of the heap (Galaxy S II)

Hummingbird VS Snapdragon

I cannot understand why everyone is saying that hummingbird processor is better than snapdragon and that's why I started this thread.
I own an HD2 (snapdragon) and SGS (hummingbird).
I've run linpack and quadrant in both phones and here are the results showing that snapdragon is 4 to 5 times faster.
Hummingbird: linpack 13,864 quadrant CPU 1456
Snapdragon: linpack 63,122 quadrant CPU 4122
I'm only talking for the CPU cause if you go to 3D I'll agree that hummingbird is better (but I don't care about 3D cause I don't use my device for games)
Both phones have android 2,2 installed and I have voodoo lagfix installed in SGS

johcos said:
I cannot understand why everyone is saying that hummingbird processor is better than snapdragon and that's why I started this thread.
I own an HD2 (snapdragon) and SGS (hummingbird).
I've run linpack and quadrant in both phones and here are the results showing that snapdragon is 4 to 5 times faster.
Hummingbird: linpack 13,864 quadrant CPU 1456
Snapdragon: linpack 63,122 quadrant CPU 4122
I'm only talking for the CPU cause if you go to 3D I'll agree that hummingbird is better (but I don't care about 3D cause I don't use my device for games)
Both phones have android 2,2 installed and I have voodoo lagfix installed in SGS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
After looking into it for a while, I was focusing on what makes the Nexus One so much better than the other phones. On the chip level, I didn’t see it. Then it dawned on me to look at what Google had to say on the matter. Well, it was there in black and white. In their 20 May 2010 Developer’s Blog entry (http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/05/android-22-and-developers-goodies.html) they say that people could see a 2-5x speed increase. I think it is pointed out in an entry later in the blog dealing with NDK, which I initially missed: “ARM Advanced SIMD (a.k.a. NEON) instruction support The NEON instruction set extension can be used to perform scalar computations on integers and floating points. However, it is an optional CPU feature and will not be supported by all Android ARMv7-A based devices. The NDK includes a tiny library named “cpufeatures” that can be used by native code to test at runtime the features supported by the device’s target CPU.”
So, I guess this means that NEON is the difference. If your phone’s CPU has it and it’s enabled for JIT, you can expect higher Linpack numbers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.greenecomputing.com/2010...ack-scores-so-mucher-higher-than-on-my-phone/
Now stop making topics like this.

the difference you notice is software related

If you want a real test, run a hd video on both phones, or a psx emulator and see if the nexus one is 5x faster... it is the same if not slower then the sgs

Well, SGS got hardware h264 decoding acceleration. Also, maybe you forget, but:
he Hummingbird comes with 32KB each of data and instruction caches, an L2 cache, the size of which can be customized, and an ARM® NEON™ multi-media extension.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
SAMSUNG and Intrinsity Jointly Develop the World's Fastest ARM® Cortex™-A8 Processor Based Mobile Core in 45 Nanometer Low Power Process
Advanced SIMD (NEON)
The Advanced SIMD extension, marketed as NEON technology, is a combined 64- and 128-bit single instruction multiple data (SIMD) instruction set that provides standardized acceleration for media and signal processing applications. NEON can execute MP3 audio decoding on CPUs running at 10 MHz and can run the GSM AMR (Adaptive Multi-Rate) speech codec at no more than 13 MHz. It features a comprehensive instruction set, separate register files and independent execution hardware. NEON supports 8-, 16-, 32- and 64-bit integer and single-precision (32-bit) floating-point data and operates in SIMD operations for handling audio and video processing as well as graphics and gaming processing. In NEON, the SIMD supports up to 16 operations at the same time. The NEON hardware shares the same floating-point registers as used in VFP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
source: wiki
This means Hummingbirds are equipped with NEON. Why its not so effective/used in Quadrant/Linpack? My guess they (these benchmarks) are not compiled/optimised for Hummingbirds, just for Snapdragons.

I came from owning an iPhone and playing lots of games on it. I bought the SGS purely for the gaming performance of the Hummingbird processor.
Having seen the difference in game quality between the HTC Desire and the SGS, I know I made the right decision. Benchmarks don't mean anything.

As long as the device can run apps, games, multimedia smoothly, I dont care much about those benchmarkers, maybe they were designed and/or optimized for snapdragon prior to hummingbird.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

i bet you anything he actually doesn't have a sgs...lol
jealousy maybe just a troll, ignore

In terms of overall smoothness (everything, not just games) the SGS is vastly superior to any other android phone I've seen (Desire included).

Darkimmortal said:
everything
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really? You have to go all out and use the word "everything" when the phone can get major lockups?
"most things" sounds like a more reasonable and believable choice of words...
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

My friends I do own an SGS (not happy with it thought) and the tests that I posted were run from me.
I wasn't talking about the gaming performance (I know that SGS is the best out there)
This thread was started so that we can find an answer why is this happening?
I see some answers that cover it but I believe not completely because in everyday use of the phones I see that HD2 is snappier (not much but it is) than SGS (with lagfix).
The best test I believe would be to put the phones to encode something (like a video) but I don't know any software that could do that. (If anyone knows some please point them to me and I'll be happy to post the results here)
The tests you mention with psx and multimedia won't show as what we're looking because the SGS will clearly win because of the GPU.

johcos said:
My friends I do own an SGS (not happy with it thought) and the tests that I posted were run from me.
I wasn't talking about the gaming performance (I know that SGS is the best out there)
This thread was started so that we can find an answer why is this happening?
I see some answers that cover it but I believe not completely because in everyday use of the phones I see that HD2 is snappier (not much but it is) than SGS (with lagfix).
The best test I believe would be to put the phones to encode something (like a video) but I don't know any software that could do that. (If anyone knows some please point them to me and I'll be happy to post the results here)
The tests you mention with psx and multimedia won't show as what we're looking because the SGS will clearly win because of the GPU.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
man. if you are not happy, then i think you should sell it. no one here will give you a satisfying answer that warm your heart. look for desire hd or something.
to answer ur questions. i get a 2100+ on quadrant. using voodoo fix and oclf on my eclaire. lag free and smooth as butter.
but either way, these test scores mean nothing. they were not designed for samusng hardware. it was designed based on htc and the snapdragon processor.
even people who use neocore for gpu are wrong. if you wana test the gpu performance, use nenamark1. the sgs gives u 49+ fps while the desire HD struggle to give u 35. while if you use neocore. the sgs gives u 56 while desire hd 58
my point is most of those software were designed with htc hardware in mind. so you cant really compare them.
just test your device for your self. apply whatever best roms you find here. if it doesnt lag and smooth for you. then ^^^^ everyone else.
the display alone is worth keepin the sgs for me. sure people might like i phone 4 display more. but nothing in my eyes come close to the contrast and colors of the super amoled. watching a movie or playing a game is a joy in this device.
hell yesterday evening a local htc store had a demo of desire hd. and the guy was nice enough to me play with it for like 1 hour.
device as a hardware look. its friggin sexy as hell. screen ? beauitful large 4.3 screen. quality colors compared to sgs ? fail. a lil slow and laggy " i am sure its because of the firmware. once roms are out, it will be faster "
i was thinking to change to desire hd honestly. but i wake away from the store kissing my sgs.
i love the desire hf look and feel. but as of now its not as smooth as my sgs. and the screen isnt as vibrant.

Psx emulator does not use the gpu...yet
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

android53 said:
Psx emulator does not use the gpu...yet
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this. i played king of fighters on my hd2 and it was laggy as hell
smooth as butter on my galaxy s
to be honest. the day psx4droid use gpu. galaxy owners are in heaven.

Its unlikely it ever will though, even modern pc emulators barely use the gpu, only for anti aliasing
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

johcos said:
My friends I do own an SGS (not happy with it thought) and the tests that I posted were run from me.
I wasn't talking about the gaming performance (I know that SGS is the best out there)
This thread was started so that we can find an answer why is this happening?
I see some answers that cover it but I believe not completely because in everyday use of the phones I see that HD2 is snappier (not much but it is) than SGS (with lagfix).
The best test I believe would be to put the phones to encode something (like a video) but I don't know any software that could do that. (If anyone knows some please point them to me and I'll be happy to post the results here)
The tests you mention with psx and multimedia won't show as what we're looking because the SGS will clearly win because of the GPU.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why in hell woul you want to incodea video using a smartPHONE...?
It's like trying to fit your family and grocery in a sport car... not made for this bro!
stop trying to find reason to "not like" the SGS, if you don't like it, sell it and be done...

Snapdragon/Hummingbird scores in glbenchmark (nexus one/galaxy s):
integer: 20661/27624
float: 11173/7968
I guess glbenchmark uses native C code (hopefully with armv7 optimization), so the JIT compiler has no effect. From the scores it seems that the floating point unit in Snapdragon is faster - but most of the time it is not used (except video & games).
Anyway, a benchmark to measure the same algorithm in both native & java code with scalar & vector instructions would be great...

t1mman said:
Why in hell woul you want to incodea video using a smartPHONE...?
It's like trying to fit your family and grocery in a sport car... not made for this bro!
stop trying to find reason to "not like" the SGS, if you don't like it, sell it and be done...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
he's not whining, well, not in the first place and i don't see any harm on that i think he's trying to UNDERSTAND reasons behind numbers and daily use with help of other people, so am i. if i had to sell phones for every problem i encounter i will problaby be without (smart)phone at this time
i don't care about benchmarks, but if you think that sgs is smoother than hd2 xda optimized (with wm 6.5 or android 2.2) you obviously never owned an hd2 i'm not talking about games, like johcos says galaxy s performance is not questionable. but android is not all about game. anyway, i don't think hardware is the problem here, sure sgs is superior in many aspects, we know that, regardless benchmarks (even if it seems here that only benchmarks where sgs win are trustworthy, others are not good, not optimized, not realistic, meaningless for real life performance etc.). with a little help from samsung and this community sgs will soon outperform (in real usage) all snapdragon phones. i hope

...when average men talk about the high tech w/o knowledge, boo

ll_l_x_l_ll said:
man. if you are not happy, then i think you should sell it. no one here will give you a satisfying answer that warm your heart. look for desire hd or something.
to answer ur questions. i get a 2100+ on quadrant. using voodoo fix and oclf on my eclaire. lag free and smooth as butter.
but either way, these test scores mean nothing. they were not designed for samusng hardware. it was designed based on htc and the snapdragon processor.
even people who use neocore for gpu are wrong. if you wana test the gpu performance, use nenamark1. the sgs gives u 49+ fps while the desire HD struggle to give u 35. while if you use neocore. the sgs gives u 56 while desire hd 58
my point is most of those software were designed with htc hardware in mind. so you cant really compare them.
just test your device for your self. apply whatever best roms you find here. if it doesnt lag and smooth for you. then ^^^^ everyone else.
the display alone is worth keepin the sgs for me. sure people might like i phone 4 display more. but nothing in my eyes come close to the contrast and colors of the super amoled. watching a movie or playing a game is a joy in this device.
hell yesterday evening a local htc store had a demo of desire hd. and the guy was nice enough to me play with it for like 1 hour.
device as a hardware look. its friggin sexy as hell. screen ? beauitful large 4.3 screen. quality colors compared to sgs ? fail. a lil slow and laggy " i am sure its because of the firmware. once roms are out, it will be faster "
i was thinking to change to desire hd honestly. but i wake away from the store kissing my sgs.
i love the desire hf look and feel. but as of now its not as smooth as my sgs. and the screen isnt as vibrant.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly couldn't agree anymore, even with all the problems the SGS has. The screen+hardware combination is just too overwhelming for me to swap the phone for something else.

[2597] This is why friends don't let friends use Quadrant.

I just scored 2597 on a DK17 FroYo ROM (Quantum Rom v1.5 {WarpSpeed}) running at a stock 1.0 GHz. I believe this sets a record for a stock CPU on Android.
(At least it does according to smartphonebenchmarks.com) UPDATE - It's official. This is the 8th highest recorded Quadrant score and the very highest recorded stock clocked CPU score on that website.
This score was made possible by the EXT3 (EDIT - Correction, ramdisk) hack implemented in the most recent version of the ROM, released this morning.
EDIT - I'd like to note that the "lagfix" was incorporated into the ROM by the author with noobnl's assistance to prove a point; neither condone the serious use of Quadrant scores in it's current form. This hack is purely a Quadrant scores boost and does not provide real-world benefits. It is a demonstration that we should not rely upon inaccurate measurements to tell us what ROM or hardware is best.
An exploitable benchmark is no benchmark at all.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11825908/snap20101127_124836.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11825908/snap20101127_131805.png

So just to clarify, does the ext3 hack do nothing other than improve benchmark scores? Is there any real-world improvement?
As common knowledge as the Quadrant thing is, I'm amazed people KEEP IMPLEMENTING this tweak and bragging about the results... unless there was an actual (less-drastic than Quadrant shows) improvement.

I agree that first we have to look at the big picture..while it may not help as much as the number makes it out to be, that doesn't necessary mean that it gives no benefit.
Next is this, why do people complain about Quadrant so much? you are using a FREE version..the FREE version only gives you a total number..Quadrant Pro on the other hand gives you the scores in each category..and is actually one of the best for measuring atm on android...

Electrofreak said:
I just scored 2597 on a DK17 FroYo ROM (Quantum Rom v1.5 {WarpSpeed}) running at a stock 1.0 GHz. I believe this sets a record for a stock CPU on Android.
(At least it does according to smartphonebenchmarks.com)
This score was made possible by the EXT3 hack implemented in the most recent version of the ROM, released this morning.
An exploitable benchmark is no benchmark at all.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11825908/snap20101127_124836.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11825908/snap20101127_131805.png
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it is true, we mounted benchmark data folder as a ramdisk/tmpfs, theres no ext3 filesystem in the rom because just for the lulz and educate the group that a lag fix won't do ****.. just to cheat a benchmark.. we were pissed at roms user thinking making rfs to ext3 will make performance better...

gTen said:
I agree that first we have to look at the big picture..while it may not help as much as the number makes it out to be, that doesn't necessary mean that it gives no benefit.
Next is this, why do people complain about Quadrant so much? you are using a FREE version..the FREE version only gives you a total number..Quadrant Pro on the other hand gives you the scores in each category..and is actually one of the best for measuring atm on android...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It has nothing to do with cost. It has to do with the fact that Quadrant is the most commonly used benchmark and it is deeply flawed.
Yes, the Pro version does break down the scores. Most people don't pay for Quadrant. Secondly, the I/O scores are weighted very heavily... the score nearly tripled because an I/O test completed a little quicker. There's a significant problem with that.

I've been impressed by the Epic's speed, but your scores aren't truly valid because you are "cheating"
I assume you're using the new Quantum ROM (which I also have installed) that implements a lagfix in which one moves the app data and dalvik cache away from Samsung’s embarrasingly slow internal Storage. Doing this significantly boosts I/O scores in Quadrant, thereby cheating the system. In real-life use, your system is barely performing any faster than before the exploit/lagfix
Read here for more info to see how a dev exploited this to create a 3300 Quad score (can't post links so remove the spaces):
http : // androidspin .com /2010/08/23/my-quadrant-is-bigger-than-your-quadrant/
This exploit has even been confirmed by the almighty Cyanogen himself

So is there any real benifits to this Epic 4G "lag fix"? I've seen that the "lag fix" within the other galaxy S phones actually does give real world results...

Eazail70x7 said:
So is there any real benifits to this Epic 4G "lag fix"? I've seen that the "lag fix" within the other galaxy S phones actually does give real world results...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure, it provides a speed benefit. The only thing being addressed in this thread is that, just because your quadrant scores double, it doesn't mean your device is twice as fast in actual use

Look for Dameon's post a couple of days ago in the quantum rom thread (on tapatalk..and linking sux). He talks about this exploit, but sadly (and understandably), most of the rom migrants want something to quantify expected results.. Even if bs
sent from my RAZR

Its not fair to say quadrant cheats.. rather it just may or may not be measuring performance of an operation that is ever really used on your system. In fact your system does use some fsyncs like quadrant and those will be faster like quadrant. Your system could start using fewer fsyncs though and quadrant would never know. Also your device certainly doesn't use only fsyncs..but those are very related to the lag. So basically, quadrant says the lag fix works if I'm not missing something. That's OK...but you don't need a crazy number to say that.
Bottom line... the only thing that tells how your phone performs...is how your phone performs and that's not just some little disclaimer. Hardware speed depends DRAMATICALLY on how it is used.
Sent from my SHW-M110S using XDA App

biff6789 said:
Sure, it provides a speed benefit. The only thing being addressed in this thread is that, just because your quadrant scores double, it doesn't mean your device is twice as fast in actual use
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually the tweak, as noobnl states, quite specifically provides NO performance improvements to the phone. He would know because he made the hack. See the quote below.
noobnl said:
it is true, we mounted benchmark data folder as a ramdisk/tmpfs, theres no ext3 filesystem in the rom because just for the lulz and educate the group that a lag fix won't do ****.. just to cheat a benchmark.. we were pissed at roms user thinking making rfs to ext3 will make performance better...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Moving on...
biff6789 said:
I've been impressed by the Epic's speed, but your scores aren't truly valid because you are "cheating"
I assume you're using the new Quantum ROM (which I also have installed) that implements a lagfix in which one moves the app data and dalvik cache away from Samsung’s embarrasingly slow internal Storage. Doing this significantly boosts I/O scores in Quadrant, thereby cheating the system. In real-life use, your system is barely performing any faster than before the exploit/lagfix
Read here for more info to see how a dev exploited this to create a 3300 Quad score (can't post links so remove the spaces):
http : // androidspin .com /2010/08/23/my-quadrant-is-bigger-than-your-quadrant/
This exploit has even been confirmed by the almighty Cyanogen himself
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This was the whole point of my post... I think you might have missed that. I would also recommend this article as well: http://briefmobile.com/cyanogen-demonstrates-quadrants-flaws

Electrofreak said:
It has nothing to do with cost. It has to do with the fact that Quadrant is the most commonly used benchmark and it is deeply flawed.
Yes, the Pro version does break down the scores. Most people don't pay for Quadrant. Secondly, the I/O scores are weighted very heavily... the score nearly tripled because an I/O test completed a little quicker. There's a significant problem with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well realistically speaking even without the I/O exploit the none pro version never had any meaning to it..why?
Well it measures:
CPU
Memory
I/O
2d
3d
Now lets look at it from perspective..lets say we have a score of 3000 and 99% of it comes from 3d..the phone would still be laggy because even though it may have a good gpu it won't have the other things to back it up.
Quadrant weighs everything evenly...it exists for the sole purpose of getting people to buy the pro version..
So its not Quadrant that is flawed but the people who actually think a large number means everything is automatically super fast...
So in most cases yes, the I/O increase would be almost useless as nothing would utilize it to the point where you would need to utilize such high I/O..unless maybe you plan to run a database server on your phone? lol
But like any benchmark we have to not only look at the number but understand what the number means..similar to how on a linpack gets cheated on with use of a VFP since it measures with floating points...
Heck I can write a program called gTen Score which does an md5 sum of every file on the device and the closer the device is to mine the higher score it would get..would that make the device with the highest score the best? lol..benchmarks are benchmarks...we have to understand them and look at the details to how the numbers got there..In my opinion if its not Quadrant Pro people are wasting their time with the benchmark...

gTen said:
Well realistically speaking even without the I/O exploit the none pro version never had any meaning to it..why?
Well it measures:
CPU
Memory
I/O
2d
3d
Now lets look at it from perspective..lets say we have a score of 3000 and 99% of it comes from 3d..the phone would still be laggy because even though it may have a good gpu it won't have the other things to back it up.
Quadrant weighs everything evenly...it exists for the sole purpose of getting people to buy the pro version..
So its not Quadrant that is flawed but the people who actually think a large number means everything is automatically super fast...
So in most cases yes, the I/O increase would be almost useless as nothing would utilize it to the point where you would need to utilize such high I/O..unless maybe you plan to run a database server on your phone? lol
But like any benchmark we have to not only look at the number but understand what the number means..similar to how on a linpack gets cheated on with use of a VFP since it measures with floating points...
Heck I can write a program called gTen Score which does an md5 sum of every file on the device and the closer the device is to mine the higher score it would get..would that make the device with the highest score the best? lol..benchmarks are benchmarks...we have to understand them and look at the details to how the numbers got there..In my opinion if its not Quadrant Pro people are wasting their time with the benchmark...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You make some very good points, but Quadrant IS flawed in that it should be able to test performance in a manner that is more consistent with real-world performance. A benchmark tool that provides poor results for a different configuration of hardware or software (in this case, Samsung's RFS file system) when performance is in on par or even superior to a higher-scoring configuration is a benchmark tool with serious flaws.

Electrofreak said:
You make some very good points, but Quadrant IS flawed in that it should be able to test performance in a manner that is more consistent with real-world performance. A benchmark tool that provides poor results for a different configuration of hardware or software (in this case, Samsung's RFS file system) when performance is in on par or even superior to a higher-scoring configuration is a benchmark tool with serious flaws.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The flaw of quadrant is grouping up all of those categories into 1...usually as you said things are weighted into a benchmark and each benchmark measures things like 3d performance, i/o performance an etc would each be a separate benchmark..Quadrant will never do that because their goal is for you to buy the pro version...it was never intended to be used for anything other then a proof of concept for selling the pro version...
Since people are not gonna buy Quadrant Pro..the best way is to get them to use a different benchmark...I hear some people touting GLBenchmark is it any better?

gTen said:
The flaw of quadrant is grouping up all of those categories into 1...usually as you said things are weighted into a benchmark and each benchmark measures things like 3d performance, i/o performance an etc would each be a separate benchmark..Quadrant will never do that because their goal is for you to buy the pro version...it was never intended to be used for anything other then a proof of concept for selling the pro version...
Since people are not gonna buy Quadrant Pro..the best way is to get them to use a different benchmark...I hear some people touting GLBenchmark is it any better?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've been following GLBenchmark and it seems pretty accurate as far as I can tell. A buddy of mine outed the HTC Glacier (Mytouch 4G) when he found that a developer had erroneously left scores posted on GLBenchmark.com. We could tell it was a next-gen Snapdragon by the scores, and that it wasn't running an Adreno 200. Became big news soon thereafter.

Electrofreak said:
I've been following GLBenchmark and it seems pretty accurate as far as I can tell. A buddy of mine outed the HTC Glacier (Mytouch 4G) when he found that a developer had erroneously left scores posted on GLBenchmark.com. We could tell it was a next-gen Snapdragon by the scores... became big news soon thereafter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then the best bet is to contact rom developers and ask if they could include GLBenchmark instead of quadrant and explain the benefits of having a specified benchmark over a general unweighed one..
and yeah I saw th HTC Glacier thing..

Electrofreak said:
This was the whole point of my post... I think you might have missed that. I would also recommend this article as well: http://briefmobile.com/cyanogen-demonstrates-quadrants-flaws
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right, I originally DID miss your point. My bad... I thought you were just another fanboi raving about the awesomeness of Quadrant. I should have read more carefully
But in essence, you and I were saying the same thing all along: Quadrant is bunk and can easily be manipulated by a tmpfs tweak
As for my other point about lagfixes offering real-world performance boosts in other phones, I was saying "yes" in a general way as often times they do, not "yes" specifically regarding Dameon's tweak

biff6789 said:
You're right, I originally DID miss your point. My bad... I thought you were just another fanboi raving about the awesomeness of Quadrant. I should have read more carefully
But in essence, you and I were saying the same thing all along: Quadrant is bunk and can easily be manipulated by a tmpfs tweak
As for my other point about lagfixes offering real-world performance boosts in other phones, I was saying "yes" in a general way as often times they do, not "yes" specifically regarding Dameon's tweak
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, and from what I understand (forgive me, I am still a relative newcomer here) the other Galaxy S phones mount their file directory a little differently than the Epic does, negating the need for a real lag fix. However, the Captivate lag-fix, for example, does indeed provide actual performance improvements. Perhaps this misunderstanding is what is causing people to believe that the Epic needs to have some sort of lag fix too.

Electrofreak said:
Yeah, and from what I understand (forgive me, I am still a relative newcomer here) the other Galaxy S phones mount their file directory a little differently than the Epic does, negating the need for a real lag fix. However, the Captivate lag-fix, for example, does indeed provide actual performance improvements. Perhaps this misunderstanding is what is causing people to believe that the Epic needs to have some sort of lag fix too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're exactly right. Dameon himself stated that the other Galaxy phones need a lagfix while the Epic does not (read the last line of the following post):
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=9440522&postcount=1174

quadrant has been known to very inaccurate. I forget who it was but someone tweaking their evo was able to get like 6000 on quadrant awhile ago. After that it has been tricked many times into giving big numbers with no actual improvements over the actual phone itself.

List Of Current Android Benchmarks

The purpose of this post is to inform people of all the major benchmarks, pros/cons or each and what each of them do.
Quadrant Standard/Advanced - This benchmark is made for phones using the Snapdragon proccessor such as the g2/droids/evo etc. Please do not rely on this benchmark for the Epic as the Epic has a Hummingbird.
SmartBench - This benchmark was made to show fair scores for the actual speed of the phone. The developer of this app works very hard to work out "cheats" and bugs. This benchmark seperates the speed in games from the speed in doing other, non-game, tasks.
Linpack - This benchmark, like Quadrant, is mainly for Snapdragon. It shows floating point speed that does not really determine real life performance. Phones like the Evo and G2 get scores way higher than the Epic even though the proccessor on the Epic is faster.
0xBench - This benchmark is a combonation of different benchmarks. The purpose of this benchmark is to find out how fast your phone is for many different things.
Total Benchmark - This benchmark is a FULL benchmark. It not only measures speed but it measures many other things such as accelerometer, display, multitouch, etc.
An3dBench - This benchmark does a wide variety of tests to determine 3d speed
SQLight - This benchmark measures the time it takes to complete a series of non-gaming/non-media tasks.
SetCpu - If you didn't know, SetCpu has 3 different benchmarks included in it. These benchmarks show proccessor speed improvements from your overclock/kernal or rom change.
Nenamark - A GPU benchmark
Neocore - Another GPU benchmark. Made by Qualcomm to showcase their GPU. Since our GPU isnt Qualcomm, you cant fully trust it, but it seems pretty legit.
Did I miss any? Please send me a PM telling me. I know there are alot more but I think I got all of the major ones.
It would be great if this could be stickied.

Reserved for later use

A few others I've got on my phone:
Benchmark Pi: I don't recommend, since all it really does is test one function of the CPU, hardly a comprehensive benchmark.
GLBenchmark: Pretty decent benchmark, all things considered. Lots of options.
NenaMark1: Primarily a GPU benchmark, provides FPS (frames per second) score.
Neocore: Same as the above, mostly tests GPU performance. Created by Qualcomm to showcase their Adreno GPU, so take the FPS scores with a grain of salt.
Another I've heard of, BaseMark. AFAIK its currently only available to software developers. Looking to get my hands on it... looks to be pretty full-featured.
I still recommend SmartBench2010 over anything else right now, mostly because it seems to be accurate and the developer has shown himself to be very dedicated.

Also note AnTuTu. It's comprehensive, and gives a very good breakdown of what goes into its scores.

Added Nenamark and Neocore
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA Premium App

GLbenchmarks
Its one of the best. I personally only really care about benchmarks that Anandtech uses since they give the most detailed and comprehensive reviews and testing of new phones and devices. I would check out there site to make sure you got what they use. I know for a fact that GLbenchmarks is one of them. Its a graphical benchmark that tests the GPU. There are also a benchmark to test browser performance, java and i think one other one that they use.

You can get all these on the market?

No, some of these you have to get outside of the market. GLbenchmarks for example is downloaded from their website.

Galaxy S running 2.3.4, Quadrant

Looking good, battery ok, feels smooth.

2.3.4 Quadrant
At last 2.3.4 seems to be very fast ! Quadrant score with out ext4 is 1600-1800 amazing!
PDA:XXJVP
MODEM:XXJVO
CSC:JV4XEN

Why are you all using Quadrant?
Run it 3 times and you won't even get the same score :| Pretty not reliant as a benchmark!

you won`t get same score cuz first time i like a cold start , it loades files etc.. second time you will get a better score

When you run 3dmark on a PC, you get the same (or around the same) score, same goes to a lot of benchmark software out there. Caching a benchmark goes against benchmarking itself...

t1mman said:
When you run 3dmark on a PC, you get the same (or around the same) score, same goes to a lot of benchmark software out there. Caching a benchmark goes against benchmarking itself...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even that probably isn't truly indicative of performance. Nvidia and ATI both "optimise" *cough cheat* on benchmarks. Nvidia may blitz ATI in a certain game, but another game might be optimised for ATI. 3D mark also doesn't go into enough detail about what its testing (similar to Quadrant), which makes them both toys, because you don't get a breakdown. It doesn't tell you even basic stuff such as average random I/O speeds and very few benchmarks ensure that the test is run in a consistent fashion. You running the same test a second time leads to significantly better results, then caching is taking place, and the effect of caching should be added to the results too.
Benchmarks have unfortunately grown from an optimisation tool for developers, to a marketing tool for salespeople, and endusers who wish to boast. My suggestion, is that you should ignore them, and if you think the ROM feels nice, just use it. But, it seems most people are simply deciding on whether a ROM is nice AFTER they've seen the quadrant score, and that is a step backwards.
Its entirely possible to have dreadful real-world performance, but have the worlds highest Quadrant result (just like in a car, you might be able to drive 90km with 1litre of petrol. But if you only obtain that rate at 1km/h, its useless to almost everyone, especially if at 50km/h (normal speed), it starts gulping fuel like a ferrari).