Database Users

Quadrant score for galaxy s running froyo

I got 1932
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

Without any lagfix?!

You should really give more detail, which lagfix if there was one or just stock froyo from Samsung?

leoon said:
Without any lagfix?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, I'm sure he's got OCLF. Without lagfix froyo isn't any quickier than eclair as of now. Actually, it's slower. I used to get 2200 points with JM9 + OCLF. Now with JP6 + OCLF i get 1850p.

aitzo said:
No, I'm sure he's got OCLF. Without lagfix froyo isn't any quickier than eclair as of now. Actually, it's slower. I used to get 2200 points with JM9 + OCLF. Now with JP6 + OCLF i get 1850p.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah that's what I thought, though I don't know why people post like he does there is no point to it, in no way does it help benifit the community.

aitzo said:
No, I'm sure he's got OCLF. Without lagfix froyo isn't any quickier than eclair as of now. Actually, it's slower. I used to get 2200 points with JM9 + OCLF. Now with JP6 + OCLF i get 1850p.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you mean it's slower, or rather that it gets a lower Quadrant score? Those are two entirely different statements. I realize the OP mentions Quadrant scores specifically and I apologize for sort of imposing my opinion, but such benchmarks, especially with such little score difference and such major operating system differences, do not tell you a whole lot at all.
One separate test of Quadrant might bottleneck the entire score, even when all other parts of the system are much faster. Just look at how a simple 'lag fix' suggests the phone is twice as fast (quadrant goes from 1k to 2k) which of course, is not the case. Also look at how Cyanogen gets a 3K score with a simple hack, where the phone speed was barely altered.
So I am curious about real world performances:
Do you still get lags on Froyo?
Does the GPS take only a few seconds to get a fix?
Does it launch apps almost instantly stock or with some lag fix?
Does it feel ultra responsive, as should be the result of using a JIT compiler?
Does it render webpages faster than iPhone 4 like the Nexus One, like it should?
Does it still run actual applications, such as Quake 3, faster than any HTC despite their higher Linpack scores, and is there an increase in FPS since Eclair?
Would love to hear about this!

Do you still get lags on Froyo?
- I think it lags more than last eclair builds
Does the GPS take only a few seconds to get a fix?
- Same as JM9. Haven't played with gps in outdoors so can't be specific with fix times
Does it launch apps almost instantly stock or with some lag fix?
- Same as JM9, or slower. Lagfix makes it ok.
Does it feel ultra responsive, as should be the result of using a JIT compiler?
- No, even though others have said that JIT is on.
Does it render webpages faster than iPhone 4 like the Nexus One, like it should?
- Webpages are ultra laggy when there is flash content
Does it still run actual applications, such as Quake 3, faster than any HTC despite their higher Linpack scores, and is there an increase in FPS since Eclair?
- Don't know

nin2thevoid said:
So I am curious about real world performances:
1 Do you still get lags on Froyo?
2 Does the GPS take only a few seconds to get a fix?
3 Does it launch apps almost instantly stock or with some lag fix?
4 Does it feel ultra responsive, as should be the result of using a JIT compiler?
5 Does it render webpages faster than iPhone 4 like the Nexus One, like it should?
6 Does it still run actual applications, such as Quake 3, faster than any HTC despite their higher Linpack scores, and is there an increase in FPS since Eclair?
Would love to hear about this!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1: yes (when no lagfix applied)
2: yes <5s on warm start, <30s on cold start
3: yes with lagfix only
4:i don't think thats the result of the compiler, just the lagfix but yes, and the JIT does make things a little faster overall
5: no the browser is a bit slow i don't know why. Even Fennec alpha is much faster.
6: yes Q3 is extremely smooth, full details + lightmap, getting 56-60fps (=FPS cap on the SGS), it never slows down
Note that Q3 is using the NDK as in native app. I don't know if Linpack tests native code.

Do you still get lags on Froyo?
Not that i've noticed but I will be installing Voodoo anways.
Does the GPS take only a few seconds to get a fix?
GPS is A LOT better.
Does it launch apps almost instantly stock or with some lag fix?
Certain Apps launch almost instantly where others take a few seconds such as PikPok Games, Fruit Ninja, etc.
Does it feel ultra responsive, as should be the result of using a JIT compiler?
Seems fast to me but only as it's a new install will wait a few days, plus I install Voodoo's fix anyway for the screen fixes too.
Does it render webpages faster than iPhone 4 like the Nexus One, like it should?
No, we have flash it's more demanding but you can set it to be on demand then its just on par with them no major difference.
Does it still run actual applications, such as Quake 3, faster than any HTC despite their higher Linpack scores, and is there an increase in FPS since Eclair?
Not sure but all games i've played are smooth without a hiccup.
hope this helps
1000 in Quadrant and 14 in Linpack

New Froyo+OCLF = 1722 Quadrant
No problems. Gps, camera,market... all is ok.

How are you guys getting such a large score? I'm getting about 1000 and it shows the Samsung Galaxy S on the graph even less (I assumed 1000ish was better than the average score). Or am I using some newer version of the app?? :/

XXJPK with OCLF
I've tested 3 times with Quadrant. Scores: 1550, 1764, 1995.
Phone works much faster after OCLF.
I takes 2 seconds to open a book in Aldiko instead 10.

My galaxy s with froyo, one click root and one click lag fix scores 2029. If i could post a url of the picture i would, but i'm not allowed

ive tried jp6 and jpm and not impressed with either. still getting some lag, even when switching home screens with a live wallpaper.

If you use oclf with quadrant you want get a real result.
What i understand it's one database test that is not real.
It don't do it right. The result is that it seems faster then it is.
Sent from GT-I9000 Jpm OS kernel with z4mod

My quadrant bench mark is 2017.
I've got JPK, OCLF v2.2 and SETCPU installed.

If anybody is interested in a little comparison to the HTC Desire:
1550 on LeeDroid 2.2f (Froyo) with OC to 1153 MHz. Some got speeds upto 1700 with more overclocking, but that'll heat up the phone beyond healthy values, I guess. Do not want to put in a fan there .
So with some optimizations like lag fix and file system enhancement the Galaxy S is a really fast Smartphone indeed, let alone the 3D graphic performance. Cudos!

Great performance improvement for my Samsung Galaxy Tab

I followed this guide to install Overcome_v2.0.0_RC1:
(cant link yet)overcome.mimzo.com/?page_id=64
I started from: Re-“Stocking” Yer System…
I love it! My Tab is faster, does not lag anymore and just works great!
Thanks to all devs.

great news will try it thanks.

Same here. The improvement in the stock browser is jaw dropping. It used to be shocking, now it hangs with my iPad now problems.

hmmm . i think the thread is out of record .. !!

So this will not work with the Sprint Tab? I am new to all of this.
Sent from my SPH-P100 using XDA Premium App

ThaClown said:
I followed this guide to install Overcome_v2.0.0_RC1:
(cant link yet)overcome.mimzo.com/?page_id=64
I started from: Re-“Stocking” Yer System…
I love it! My Tab is faster, does not lag anymore and just works great!
Thanks to all devs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It lags on 720p and 1080p movies if u dont enable hw acc , but then u break avi containers. . . U still can use any alternative player like moboplayer wich uses hw acc
Sent from my Overcomed Tegrafied Smartass Chainfired 3D Tab

i experienced that it is quite fast to change between stagefright on and of with blade buddy, even without any reboot or ui restart, so more or less enables playing all movies in best way.
anyway, when someone could write a very small app that just toggles stagefright for the player on and off through widget, it would be the perfect solution (until there is a real fix available - which doesn't seem to be yet)

Its really nice

Lemo777 said:
i experienced that it is quite fast to change between stagefright on and of with blade buddy, even without any reboot or ui restart, so more or less enables playing all movies in best way.
anyway, when someone could write a very small app that just toggles stagefright for the player on and off through widget, it would be the perfect solution (until there is a real fix available - which doesn't seem to be yet)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you turn all of your mediafright settings on, or just the one with -http at the end?
I already downloaded it. I enabled hw.acceleration, but for mediafright the only one I have on is the one with the -http tag. Should I turn all on?
I'm using mVideoPlayer for videos btw. My Mobo still lags.

Liars !!!!
OVERCOME 1.64 ON FROYO is farmore polishes and miles ahead in performance compared to OVERCOME 2.0RC1.
Ext4 filesystem on froyo ****s over gingerbread stock.
Quad scores
FROYO - 3800
GINGER - 1500
I can get 4000+ quad if I o/c

ziggary said:
Liars !!!!
OVERCOME 1.64 ON FROYO is farmore polishes and miles ahead in performance compared to OVERCOME 2.0RC1.
Ext4 filesystem on froyo ****s over gingerbread stock.
Quad scores
FROYO - 3800
GINGER - 1500
I can get 4000+ quad if I o/c
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whoaaa.... Chill out mate. No point trying to call people names., or accusing anyone of lying.
It's true that the Gingerbread-based ROMs (including Overcome RC1) doesn't have ext4 support so it'll make some file-intensive tasks to be slower than it is on the optimised, ext4-enabled Froyo-based firmwares.
Benchmarks, and especially synthetic benchmarks like Quadrant are slightly skewed in that area. As anyone with extensive experience with these tools will tell you, benchmark tools like these do not reflect real-world experience.
However, on non-I/O intensive based tasks, the back-end optimisations on GB does provide for a much more smoother experience. It's just not as properly optimised as the Froyo-based Overcome 1.x series yet...
... And yes, there will be someI apps that will be broken, whenever a new, major base like this is released.
Of course, the best scenario would be an overclocking/undervolting, ext4-supporting kernel for Gingerbread, of which AB86 is currently busy working on in his Batcave...
Trust me, as a person who has extensive experience with ALL Overcome ROMs and kernels, I prefer the current Gingerbread-based ROMs compared to the Froyo-based ones.
Anyway, my point is this... everybody's got their own preference and choice. Some prefer the Froyo-based ROMs/kernels over Gingerbread, just like some prefer Windows XP over Windows 7. No point trying to be fanboi-ish or militant about stuffing your choices down people's throats...
Relax and enjoy the fruits of AB86 labours...
Sent from my Overcome-Powered Tab!

I'm using an "old" 1.4.x overcome version and I am fully happy with.
I have no issue at all, that's why I don't upgrade to 2.x
Anyway, when google talk video will work, I'll be pleased to upgrade to 2.x, in the meantime, I have no reason to upgrade.
The other reason is the upgrade processing : I have no windowz computer, so using odin and friends is a pain in the a**.

If they released this with overcome it might have had half a chance in the market against ipad.
The difference is night and day
Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk

People laim gingerbread has better browser yet news.com.au on oc 1.64 at 1.2mhz is three tkmes smoother lol
Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk

pendevous said:
Did you turn all of your mediafright settings on, or just the one with -http at the end?
I already downloaded it. I enabled hw.acceleration, but for mediafright the only one I have on is the one with the -http tag. Should I turn all on?
I'm using mVideoPlayer for videos btw. My Mobo still lags.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i have to toggle the stagefright "player" setting on and off depending on material. depending on material and setting, i think i dont realise any greater lag, even from external sd card. but i havnt watched a complete movie in 1080p.

MoxFulder_CH said:
The other reason is the upgrade processing : I have no windowz computer, so using odin and friends is a pain in the a**.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I used heimdall under Linux with success fyi. Just need to untar the package, and choose all the correct files separately ( except Movinand.mst and hidden.rfs, no use).

ziggary said:
Liars !!!!
OVERCOME 1.64 ON FROYO is farmore polishes and miles ahead in performance compared to OVERCOME 2.0RC1.
Ext4 filesystem on froyo ****s over gingerbread stock.
Quad scores
FROYO - 3800
GINGER - 1500
I can get 4000+ quad if I o/c
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, 3800 on Froyo! Only made it to 2400 max. You must have been tweeking the hell out of your tab =)

For discussion GB VS ICS in performance ..

Hi all
i used a lot of ICS roms here but it seemed to be bad in gameing and not fast as the GB ..
Is this the problem of ICS ????
when I use GB i play a heavy games with no problem , but in ICS it is laggy and i need to overclock the cpu to play .. even though still laggy ..
also in the performance , i see the GB is much better and smooth than ICS ..
I am now back to GB but I missed the ICS ..
It will be better if there is a hyberd rom that is contain GB and ICS togather ..
so in your opinion : what is the problem ??
is it from ICS ?? or the arc is weak to get good ICS ???

Neither the arc, nor the arc s is too weak.
Let's take my HTC Wildfire S as instance:
600 MHz SC CPU
512 MB RAM (400 useable, btw this is more than on arc (s))
CM9 runs perfectly smoothly. Also the new xperia lineup has 800 MHz phones which have the new timescape gui and ICS.
I think the problem are insufficient drivers or just a *****y programming with memleaks.
The amount of free RAM is also a reason.

everyone has their own definition of what is smooth. as for me, i define it as:
1. Fling of homescreens and applications on stock launcher is solid iPhone-like even with widgets on a non-live wallpaper. The smoothness that would not let you think of Jelly Bean at all.
2. Basic applications critical for phone use like Contacts, Messaging, Browser should also be as smooth as number 1 above.
3. Temple Run Brave while in the gameplay, no lost frames and instant response on swipes. Reason is not for gaming, but means the phone will behave smoothly on heavy processing.
Since everyone has different opinion on smoothness, nobody can tell that their phone is smoothest.
What I can say though is that on any ICS ROM I have tried, nothing meets my 3 criteria above. Hence I stick with Gingerbread.
I am critical and allergic to laggy interface / phone. Destroys the experience, makes you insecure of other phones.

I installed "Jellybread" by omenHTX today and it's great Gingerbread Stuff! You should give it a shot
After so many bad experiences with ICS I am really glad someone focused on GB again
Greetings!
Sent from my LT18i using xda app-developers app

theq86 said:
Neither the arc, nor the arc s is too weak.
Let's take my HTC Wildfire S as instance:
600 MHz SC CPU
512 MB RAM (400 useable, btw this is more than on arc (s))
CM9 runs perfectly smoothly. Also the new xperia lineup has 800 MHz phones which have the new timescape gui and ICS.
I think the problem are insufficient drivers or just a *****y programming with memleaks.
The amount of free RAM is also a reason.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was thinking about it and I think the problem is from Sony itself
maybe they give us a garbage update to feel that our phone is outdated to Chang it ..

UI Smoothness is more than acceptable on Arconium ICS but the phone is simply just too slow in the performance department, so it lags a lot - on both ICS and GB. Stock GB was just a small tad faster than Arconium ICS and significantly faster than stock ICS.
The biggest difference was the animation smoothness though, because the phone lacks performance under GB too - the processor runs at 100% for a few seconds until it launches some heavier apps, and with ICS even basic apps like youtube became heavy.

jtdc said:
everyone has their own definition of what is smooth. as for me, i define it as:
1. Fling of homescreens and applications on stock launcher is solid iPhone-like even with widgets on a non-live wallpaper. The smoothness that would not let you think of Jelly Bean at all.
2. Basic applications critical for phone use like Contacts, Messaging, Browser should also be as smooth as number 1 above.
3. Temple Run Brave while in the gameplay, no lost frames and instant response on swipes. Reason is not for gaming, but means the phone will behave smoothly on heavy processing.
Since everyone has different opinion on smoothness, nobody can tell that their phone is smoothest.
What I can say though is that on any ICS ROM I have tried, nothing meets my 3 criteria above. Hence I stick with Gingerbread.
I am critical and allergic to laggy interface / phone. Destroys the experience, makes you insecure of other phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so i think the problem is from ics

HTML5 performance of SGSIII stock browser

I found out the performance of HTML5 is quite impressive on SGSIII stock browser... not that I use it frequently or that HTML5 is that prevalent even now.. I am happy my flash is still supported across all browsers.
Dolphin does beat it (469) but at a score of 435 it beats Opera12.01 (406) and Chrome as well (390)..

anyone a idea why samsung s3 i9305 have problems playing html5 videos? When i launch a video i can't see any picture, only sound is played. Also tried another html5 player app, but same problem.
Rom: cyanogenmod 10.2
(i can't post to the special thread "cyaogenmod" becaus auf newbie restrictions)

docsaq said:
I found out the performance of HTML5 is quite impressive on SGSIII stock browser... not that I use it frequently or that HTML5 is that prevalent even now.. I am happy my flash is still supported across all browsers.
Dolphin does beat it (469) but at a score of 435 it beats Opera12.01 (406) and Chrome as well (390)..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You mention a couple of numbers, but what do they mean (e.g. loading time ) and how did you test the performance?

OP
16th November 2012

RMCA said:
You mention a couple of numbers, but what do they mean (e.g. loading time ) and how did you test the performance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The numbers I mentioned are from www.html5test.com score.
Now I am on Galaxy Note II and its stock browser does better than chrome, dolphin and Opera.

i got 434 with default browser and 419 with dolphin
Pardus rom Android 4.1.2

the html5test is just a stadard compliance test
it has nothing to do with performance and smoothness

[GENERAL] Browser Comparison - added beta browsers tests.

Hello All
In post #19 I have an update with tests of Beta versions of most popular browsers.
I've been reading yesterday a browser comparison between Chrome, Firefox, IE and Opera on both Windows and Linux platforms and I've decided to do something similar for Galaxy Note 2.
Now for some starting info:
Rom - Phoenix v13
Kernel - Perseus 36.3
OC - yes, 1.8Ghz, GPU untouched, a bit of undervolt also.
The system is fairly pure, default speedups as found in Phoenix installed. Rom is ODEXED
Not much apps installed.
Contenders: all currently downloaded from Playstore
- Samsung Browser
- Chrome 28.0.1500
- Firefox 22.0
- Opera 15.0.1162
- Maxthon 4.0.6.2000 B2844
They were all put under the following tests:
- HTML5 Test - Link
- HTML5 Benchmark - Link - Basically a 2D game benchmark.
- Octane - Link
- Browsermark 2.0 - Link
- Mazesolver (Microsoft) - Link
- Lawnmark (Microsoft) - Link
There is a story about that benchmark involving cheating as stated here but it does not affect my comparison.
- Peacekeeper - Link
- Sunspider 1.0 - Link
- V8 Benchmark (succeeded by Octane but still valid and does offer different results) - Link
- Dromaeo - Link - be carefull, it takes about 20 minutes or more to complete.
So off to results:
...........XXXXX................Stock browser.....Chrome (+%).........Firefox (+%).........Opera (+%)..........Maxthon (+%)......Dolphin (+%)........UC (+%)
HTML 5 Test.................434.....................410 (94%).............422 (97%).............428 (98.6%).........419 (96.5%).......419 (96%).............404 (93%)..........more is better
HTML Benchmark..........43......................1911 (4400%)........2731 (6351%).......2043 (4751%)......77 (179%).........107 (248%)............113 (263%)........more is better
Octane..........................2402...................2900 (120%)..........2622 (109%).........2783 (116%).......2375 (99%)........2451 (102%)..........2441 (101.6%).....more is better
Browsemark 2.0............2525...................2427 (96%)............2306 (91%)...........2897 (115%).......2123 (84%)........1956 (77%)............1963 (78%)..........more is better
Mazesolver (20)............1.9......................4.9 (257%)..............6 (315%)..............6.3 (331%)..........1.6 (84%)...........2 (105%).................1.9 (100%)........less is better
Mazesolver (30)............9.6......................20 (208%)..............91 (948%)............25 (260%)...........4.9 (51%)...........5,6 (58%).................5,9 (61%)..........less is better
Mazesolver (40)............30.......................101 (336%)............112 (373%)..........109 (363%).........28 (93%)............29 (97%)..................31 (103%)........less is better
Lawnmark.....................538......................873 (162%)............1071 (199%)........679 (126%).........515 (96%)...........not_finished *2............not_finished *3..........less is better
Peacekeeper ...............873......................891 (102%)............605 (69%) *1........891 (102%).........927 (106%).........929 (106%)............857 (98%)..........more is better
Sunspider.....................1041....................812 (78%)..............863 (83%)............806 (77%)...........1160 (111%)........1080 (103.7%).......1050 (101%)........less is better
V8 Benchmark..............2690....................3101 (115%)..........2677 (99.5%).......3191 (119%)........2546 (94.6%)......2597 (96%)............2553 (95%)..........more is better
Dromaeo.......................167.15.................179.92 (107.6%)....146.42 (87.6%)....186.03 (111%).....168.6 (100.8%)...161.94 (97%).........164,44 (98%)..........more is better
*1 - this result is a strange one since Firefox is the only browser that allowed almost all videos to play, there were some problems with buffering so the videos skipped some but they worked, not one other browser did. So I don't understand why the score is so low, maybe other parts were bad.
*2 and *3 - in both cases browsers simply closed without any error sometime after starting benchmark (less than 3 minutes), consecutive tries resulted in closing few seconds after starting benchmark. Both browsers had to be fully restarted (as in killed in apps manager or by phone restart)
HTML5 test is only a measure of how well browsers conform to HTML standard, somewhat like old ACID3 test.
Now, HTML5 Benchmark on stock and Maxthon were a slideshow, <2 fps and it took more than 30 minutes to complete. I have no idea why as it is a simple 2D platform game and other browsers run quite well even up to 60 fps in case of Firefox.
Mazesolver had to be run more than 10 times for every settings and median calculated because tests were prone to big variations. As such I would mark that test as unreliable. Lawnmark, despite being unfairly skewed for IE 10/11 is an equal oportunity test for other browsers, so the results "stay"
To compare browsers I will count Octane, Browsermark, Peacekeeper, Sunspider, V8 and Dromaeo benchmarks.
Results:
Chrome is on average 10,43% faster than Stock Browser
Firefox is on average 4.48% slower than Stock Browser
Opera is on average 14,33% faster than Stock Browser
Maxthon is on average 4.43% slower than Stock Browser
Dolphin is on average 4.23% slower than Stock Browser
UC Browser is on average 5.06% slower than Stock Browser
And the Winner is ....... Opera
Now all those results should also be counted against power consumption and here is where things change a lot. I started those test with full battery and all the browsers did the same amount of work actually doing those tests. The problem is that while Chrome, Stock, Maxthon and Firefox required roughly the same amount of power, Opera used more than twice that. I'm attaching screenshots of those results.
View attachment 2133846 View attachment 2133847 View attachment 2133848 View attachment 2133849View attachment 2133855 View attachment 2133856 View attachment 2133857 View attachment 2133858
On other topic, I think almost 6 hours of screen on time with almost all that time CPU was working full tilt and screen was @100% is a great result. There were only short times when I left the phone to cool off, mostly with screen on but not working hard
Any comments or questions, just ask
Update for Naked Browser - the scores were in order: 2470 (103%), 2019 (80%), 824 (94%), 1087 (104.5%), 2729 (101.4%) and 168.69 (101%)
Total score for it: Naked Browser is on average 4.18% slower than Stock Browser
Next Boat Browser - the scores were in order: 2483 (103%), 2109 (83%), 850 (97%), 909 (87%), 2479 (92%), 165.98 (99%)
Total score for it: Boat Browser is on average 2.16% slower than Stock Browser
ONE Browser - the scores were in order: 2342 (97.5%), 2097 (83%), 680 (78%),1801 (173%), 1280 (47.5%), 166.62 (99.7%)
Total score for it: ONE Browser is on average 27.88% slower than Stock Browser
From all those scores of different browsers it's apparent that some of the use a common rendering engine (Firefox, Maxthon, Dolphin, UC and Naked and probably Boat too) because their results are within 1% of each other while Samsung, Opera and Chrome are much different. So between those above you can choose based on features set that they have because performance is about equal.
If you are interested in modern games based on HTML5 code, Firefox and One browsers are the way to go with Chrome and Opera about 30% slower. HTML5 Benchmark which I did not include in final score (but tested all browsers with) shows great disparity between browsers.
The scores:
Stock : 43 points
Chrome : 1911 points
Firefox : 2622 points
Opera : 2043 points
Maxthon : 77 points
Dolphin : 107 points
Naked : 96 points
UC : 113 points
Boat : 78 points
ONE : 3041 points
I do not understand how it's possible to get a 30 times difference in modern times in a fairly important category but there you have it. I hope it's not similar to Microsoft's Lawnmark benchmark that before every iteration followed (as is standard for some reason) 4ms pause while IE 10 and 11 allowed for "no pause" policy. The results - IE 10/11 finished in 15 seconds, other browsers took upwards of 10 minutes. The funny thing is, some Chrome addicts took the benchmark code and set a level playing field by removing the wait time for every browser, and lo and behold, IE was 2 times slower than Firefox and 3 times slower than Opera with Chrome somewhere in the middle.
It gives some thoughts as in both cases (HTML5 benchmark and Lawnmark) after benchmark run, the phone / cpu is completely cool. I do not at the moment have any monitoring app installed, but CoolTool would be easy to use to verify that.
In light of recent "strange" benchmark results of newer Intel chips that happend to be Intel compiler using a flaw in Antutu benchmark code all benchmark results can be suspected.
You can argue that compiler optimisations are the lifeblood of fast computing, but when you optimize code by hand to get best score in a benchmark, it's not clean fight. Because no other app is going to have the same optimizations so the benchmark result is misleading to the real life performance of the hardware. All that on top of usefullness/uselessness of benchmarks in the whole

And yet non of these browsers run as smoothly as the stock samsung browser when scrolling and zooming on any web page...

Where is dolphin?

True, Stock is smooth as butter, but there are no benchmarks that test smoothness so that conclusion is up to the user. I may test dolphin but there will be no power use tests for it because I would not be able to get comparable data.
Any other requests for browsers?

Hell Guardian said:
Where is dolphin?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
2nd Dolphin and Naked Browser.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using xda app-developers app

I prefer the stock browser regardless of the statistics.

Nice comparison! I personally switch between Firefox and 'UC Browser'.
I find UC Browser really good for full screen/desktop content, but some websites don't display correctly.

I think I'm leaning towards boat - gestures are really helpful on Note 2 than it is on other phones. The only thing I miss is inverted browsing. There's a night mode which is in many ways better than inverted browsing, but in many sites it's not useable compared to the proper inverted browsing.
Also obviously much better control over flash plugins and everything. Seriously, give it a go.

dazza7111 said:
2nd Dolphin and Naked Browser.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can't test naked browser as it's not available for download in Poland (I mean free version). Paid is available but I won't buy it just to test it. (Or you can share .apk)
Dolphin is allready tested, I will update results later.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using xda premium

Naked browser is free on xda I think or The Dev website

Nice benchmarks!
I'd like to see Boat too.
Have been using it for some time and I really like it. It feels both fast and smooth!

Browser benchmarks give points for data preloading, using proxies, and other items like ability to load an HTML5 video placeholder.
Benchmarks do not evaluate browser integrity.
Naked Browser does not preload data, send your data through a proxy, or use resources on things like HTML5 video placeholders.
--Naked Browser developer

aminaked said:
Newer versions of Stock Browser (ICS+) preload web site data by default.
Naked Browser does not preload data. [As developer of Naked Browser I have scoured multiple versions of Stock Browser source code.]
The greater issue is Android web browser integrity. It turns out that even Firefox/Opera/Chrome are suspect.
Spying not only violates privacy but wastes battery, bandwidth, and CPU.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, I also do not like to waste bandwidth and battery. On the other hand I do like to quickly open subpages..... in the end I will go with saving money For now If I may ask, on what code is Your browser based (mostly?) and is there any hope of porting this great speed in HTML5 execution (like in Firefox or One browsers) ?

mat9v said:
I agree, I also do not like to waste bandwidth and battery. On the other hand I do like to quickly open subpages..... in the end I will go with saving money For now If I may ask, on what code is Your browser based (mostly?) and is there any hope of porting this great speed in HTML5 execution (like in Firefox or Safari - One browsers) ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wrote it from scratch but looked at stock, Zirco, Firefox, and all available code. It uses WebView on your device so HTML5 depends on how much capability Google WebView has on your device.
Almost every Android web browser including mainstream ones are spyware. This is why I made Naked Browser. Here is the XDA thread for it if you want to talk more about it: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1929663

Next to stock the only browser comes close to it for smoothness is Mozilla. But wish it had an exit option and full screen
Tried them all. Naked is alright, but the UI is awkward!
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

jujuburi said:
Next to stock the only browser comes close to it for smoothness is Mozilla. But wish it had an exit option and full screen
Tried them all. Naked is alright, but the UI is awkward!
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm testing now Beta versions of Mozilla, Opera, Chrome and Dolphin. Results will follow maybe tomorrow but it's apparent the differences are sometimes "game changing"

mat9v said:
I'm testing now Beta versions of Mozilla, Opera, Chrome and Dolphin. Results will follow maybe tomorrow but it's apparent the differences are sometimes "game changing"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't forget to enable chrome://flags features in chrome beta browser.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

Manjunath324 said:
Don't forget to enable chrome://flags features in chrome beta browser.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which futures should I enable? I never been in that happy chrommy place

OK, here be the Beta versions of Main Android Browsers benchmarks:
...........XXXXX..............Chrome standard(+%).....Chrome beta (+%)....Chrome beta exp. (+%)........Opera beta (+%).......Dolphin beta.(+%) .Firefox beta (+%)
HTML 5 Test.................410 (94%).....................429 (99%).................444 (102%).........................428 (99%)..................482 (111%) ...........426 (98%) ..........more is better
HTML5 Benchmark.......1911 .............................2462.........................2723....................................2248..........................3170.......................2674...................more is better
Octane..........................2900 (120%).................3040 (127%).............3064 (128%).......................2923 (122%)..............2304 (96%) ...........2893 (120%).......more is better
Browsemark 2.0............2427 (96%)...................2347 (93%)...............2694 (107%).......................2934 (116%)..............2659 (105%)..........2623 (104%).......more is better
Peacekeeper ...............891 (102%)...................881 (101%)...............872 (100%)..........................918 (105%)................Failed....................636 (73%)...........more is better
Sunspider.....................812 (78%).....................805 (77%).................780 (75%)............................790 (76%)..................935 (90%).............820 (79%)............less is better
V8 Benchmark..............310 1 (115%)................3119 (116%).............3255 (121%)........................3219 (120%)..............2734 (102%).........3114 (116%)........more is better
Dromaeo.......................179.92 (107.6%)...........179.81 (107.6%)......181.02 (108.3%)...................184.4 (110.3%)..........151.31 (90%)........142.92 (85%).......more is better
Some thoughts are neccessary here:
1. I am no fan of Firefox, but in both Browsermark and Peacekeeper benchmarks it was the only benchmark to actually display most of the tests correctly as in playing videos, displaying all 3D content or correctly resizing webpages during tests.
2. There is sometimes large difference in speed when requesting desktop versions of webpage ns mobile (even if on the first glance they look the same) and it can affect benchmark results. For example HTML5 benchmark on some browsers takes 1/2 screen, on others is resized to fit and then on others don't even fit the screen. I tried to keep things equal by manually resizing the "game window" to fit the screen but I do not know the impact of manual resize on the score. The other thing is benchmarks in portrait and landscape mode again differ, sometimes by 5-10%, as such all results are from benchmarks run in portrait mode.
3. Dromaeo benchmark is "made by Mozilla" and curiously it shows the worst scores on Firefox (both mobile and desktop versions as tested on my laptop PC). Results are displayed in "runs/s" so it should read that "the higher the better", my PC scores over 450 in Firefox and over 600 in Chrome so it should be ok. Still, why does Firefox score so low, when in other Java Script benchmarks it is one of the fastest, I have no idea.
To compare browsers I will count Octane, Browsermark, Peacekeeper, Sunspider, V8 and Dromaeo benchmarks.
Chrome is on average 10,43% faster than Stock Browser
Chrome beta is on average 11.27% faster than Stock Browser
Chrome beta with experimental options turned on is on average 14,88% faster than Stock Browser
Opera beta is on average 16.21% faster than Stock Browser
Dolphin beta is on average 0.5% faster than Stock Browser
Firefox beta is on average 3.17% faster than Stock Browser
Personally on my Note 2 I would leave 3 browsers - Stock (smooooth), Opera (faaaast) and Firefox (compatible!!), although I would miss great sync options offered by Chrome. Naked browser, while a great effort, has to be worked on some more to win, either of compatibility, interface or speed, because for now the only thing that speaks for it is that it does not spy on us (which I can not test anyway )
And the winner is........... still Opera but by much smaller margin

Excellent, thanks for testing them out for us.