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)

Quadrant Benchmark on Vibrant 2600???

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

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

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

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

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

Sweet thanks for all the info man..

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

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

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

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

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.

Lower Quadrant Score With New ROM

So I flashed Skyraider today, and my quadrant score dropped 100 points from stock sense. What the hell is going on here....

The Black Droid said:
So I flashed Skyraider today, and my quadrant score dropped 100 points from stock sense. What the hell is going on here....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sitting at 1032. With the stock ROM, I was getting around 1120.
Why are these scores so low???

Q scores || ROMs
Quadrant scores vary by ROM and kernel, and by different kernels in the same ROM.
Those scores are expected to vary.

Quadrant scores, don't take those to heart... It's all about feel. I've run roms where they might score low, but feel and move quick.
Sent from my ADR6300 using XDA App

I just don't understand how some of these guys have anywhere from 2700-3300 as their quad score. I would imagine their phones are running insanely fast

Maybe, they are most likely overclocking. Some phones don't like going too high. Like on mine, I can't go over 1.113, or my phone slows to a crawl and locks up/reboots.
Sent from my ADR6300 using XDA App

The Black Droid said:
I just don't understand how some of these guys have anywhere from 2700-3300 as their quad score. I would imagine their phones are running insanely fast
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where have you seen people post these scores for their Inc?
I'm willing to bet good money that if you are seeing people post scores that high, they are either:
A. Not running Quadrant from an Inc but a much more powerful device (like an Android tablet)
B. Faking the results in Photoshop (or just lying about the number if no screenshot is provided)
C. Running a setup that doesn't actually run through the Quadrant test properly. For example, Quadrant didn't run properly on Gingerbread roms at first, and the scores that it would produce were extremely erratic. Sometimes they would be extremely low, sometimes they would be extremely high, but they weren't accurate or repeatable.
D. Running some sort of insane setup that is only stable enough to finish a Quadrant run, and will never actually be used for anything
Frankly, even D is far-fetched.
I would be inclined to call a 100 point fluctuation in Quadrant scores insignificant.
If you really want to chase the highest benchmark scores, you'll need to overclock your CPU and run the system as lean as possible. That means uninstalling or disabling a lot of the things that make your life easier day-to-day.
Also, in case you haven't already seen it in your own testing, Quadrant scores are always lowest on the first run. If you press the back button and immediately start a new Quadrant run, you'll get a much higher score.
Like any unit of measurement, Quadrant scores do serve a useful purpose. But as is often the case when the score itself is seen by some as the end-goal, it is often misapplied.
The same can be seen in digital cameras and the megapixel arms race. Everyone wants to brag about how many megapixels their camera is capable of. Everyone wants the highest number of megapixels, assuming that more MP = better image. Few people realize what it actually means, or why it matters very little these days.

A lot of those people are overclocking to get really high scores and for all the reasons listed above (nice post!).
You really should not be looking to get that high on the incredible, you'll end up draining your battery like crazy. Around the 1,000 mark is great for playing higher-end games on the market as long as you aren't running a bunch of things in the background. Just about anything else you can think up of doing on your phone should run well, you won't have a sluggish device and you won't be killing your battery either.
If you do end up trying to overclock your phone or using a ROM or kernel combination that will give you a much higher score I don't think you'll notice any difference when doing anything on your phone, but your battery will drop much quicker.
Like other people have said, Quad scores don't matter much- take them lightly as you see them.

There is a lot that goes into that score. The highest score I could get today is 1656 but it was consistently in the Upper 1500s, I ran 5 tests.
My setup:
CM7 RC2
Incredikernel 03/06 OC to 1113Mhz/Performance Govenor
16Gb Class 2 microSD card.
If someone is using a class 4 or a class 6 card their i/o scores could be much higher than mine which would result in a much higher overall score than mine. Also keep in mind with Linux Kernels can very alot and that there are different types of task schedulers in them such as BFS or CFS which can have dramatic affect on the quadrent scores. Quadrent tends to score BFS kernels higher. So yeah I can believe people are hitting most of the score they post up. However byrong is right about it not being a setup you'd want to use on a daily basis. For me it causes random reboots, my phone gets hot and the UI becomes laggy after a little while also the battery drops like a brick.
My normal setup that I run on a daily basis is the same kernel uc to 803Mhz/smartass governor. It is extremely stable and is smooth as butter but my quadrent scores are only only in the 1100s with my high being 1244.
Its really not all about the score, if your happy with the performance who cares about the score.

Transformer beats Samsung Tab in all performance tests

and every other Tablet for good measure... so much for an additional $100
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-101-Review-Android-31-Tablet/?page=4

To be fair, they did mention the fact that the Galaxy Tab is running HC 3.0

Real World Performance is What Really Matters But This is Still Surprising. Asus just needs to fix typing and browser lags and all is gravy for me. Oh Also Samsung 10.1 Doesn't have 3.1 yet so that might boost its quadrant scores.

HorsexD said:
Real World Performance is What Really Matters But This is Still Surprising. Asus just needs to fix typing and browser lags and all is gravy for me. Oh Also Samsung 10.1 Doesn't have 3.1 yet so that might boost its quadrant scores.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pretty sure the 10.1 is now shipping with (or being upgraded to) 3.1
http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/internet-tablets/samsung-galaxy-tab-10.1-review/12086.html

Nice results for the G-Tablet. Not bad for a $250 tablet.

S4F4M said:
To be fair, they did mention the fact that the Galaxy Tab is running HC 3.0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not fair to mention at all, since TF101 ALL benchmarks went down not up after 3.1 update.

I hope someone can figure out why it's getting such poor performance results. What makes this really odd is that most reviews site its snappy performance when web browsing and its ability to play back 1080p movies very well.

nothing odd about it - simulated benchmarks are useless because they can never properly simulate real world usage or properly simulate the differences in hardware and software on the devices being benchmarked.
For instance 1080p video playback has absolutely nothing todo with the instructions being simulated in benchmarks like these, videoplayback are handled by a hardware codec and the abilities of this codec has nothing todo with the rest of the cpu, or weather the cpu are 600mhz or 1.2ghz, single core or dual core etc.
Quadrant scores etc. tells nothing about how optimized the software on the device is - like how smooth the device feels in normal operations. Example, the same device will score the same quadrant score no matter which launcher is used, and no matter how smooth or how laggy this launcher operates when swiping homescreens. It will score the same result no matter how laggy a device may feel because of wrong memory management configuration and so on, it will score the same result no matter if the device has 512mb or 1gb ram, despite the device with 1gb will feel smoother in operations because it can store more open applications in ram. Etc. etc.
Quadrant score shows nothing except how good a device can run Quadrant, and this may differ depending on how Quadrant are optimised for the specific chipset/cpu.
It wont show anything else, it wont show how good the device can run specific games because this depends on the individual game and how this is optimised for the specific cpu/gpu, it wont show how smooth the device feels in general operation handling the gui or different applications because this depends on so many other things which cant be simulated, it wont show how good it can handle different video because this also depends on other things which cant be simulated.
Quadrant scores and other test scores like it are good for only one thing
They are tools for "big boys" that needs to compare "**** sizes"
- but since you cant go around showing pictures of your ****, you can allways show a screenshot of a quadrant score and go "mines bigger than yours"

spawndk said:
Quadrant scores and other test scores like it are good for only one thing
They are tools for "big boys" that needs to compare "**** sizes"
- but since you cant go around showing pictures of your ****, you can allways show a screenshot of a quadrant score and go "mines bigger than yours"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great description of Quadrant. There's a t-shirt in there somewhere
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using XDA Premium App

spawndk said:
nothing odd about it - simulated benchmarks are useless because they can never properly simulate real world usage or properly simulate the differences in hardware and software on the devices being benchmarked.
For instance 1080p video playback has absolutely nothing todo with the instructions being simulated in benchmarks like these, videoplayback are handled by a hardware codec and the abilities of this codec has nothing todo with the rest of the cpu, or weather the cpu are 600mhz or 1.2ghz, single core or dual core etc.
Quadrant scores etc. tells nothing about how optimized the software on the device is - like how smooth the device feels in normal operations. Example, the same device will score the same quadrant score no matter which launcher is used, and no matter how smooth or how laggy this launcher operates when swiping homescreens. It will score the same result no matter how laggy a device may feel because of wrong memory management configuration and so on, it will score the same result no matter if the device has 512mb or 1gb ram, despite the device with 1gb will feel smoother in operations because it can store more open applications in ram. Etc. etc.
Quadrant score shows nothing except how good a device can run Quadrant, and this may differ depending on how Quadrant are optimised for the specific chipset/cpu.
It wont show anything else, it wont show how good the device can run specific games because this depends on the individual game and how this is optimised for the specific cpu/gpu, it wont show how smooth the device feels in general operation handling the gui or different applications because this depends on so many other things which cant be simulated, it wont show how good it can handle different video because this also depends on other things which cant be simulated.
Quadrant scores and other test scores like it are good for only one thing
They are tools for "big boys" that needs to compare "**** sizes"
- but since you cant go around showing pictures of your ****, you can allways show a screenshot of a quadrant score and go "mines bigger than yours"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant Envy?
Honestly the benchmarks results are the more relevant part of that review. Obviously that review was either paid for or the writer is devout samsung fanboy. I'm not going to to defend the benchmarks(which do have value), however to write a review where the reviewed device loses is almost every category and then summarize that the benchamrks you yourself chose to run are meaningless and that the reviewed device is obviously superior to the other devices is amazing. Rings of many ipad reviews.