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)
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).
Does anybody have MAMEreloaded 139 installed? If so, could you please test out Dead or Alive +? That game plays slow on Tegra 3, A6X, Snap 600 and every other chipset tested. Even with speed hacks activated. Basic laptops did not start playing that game smooth with MAME until about three years ago. 3D games with no gpu assist use the cpu for the work.
The roms needed to test are doapp.zip (the game) and tcs.zip (the bios). If this plays smooth, that would mean Soul Calibur has a shot too. I doubt it will play smooth, since extra cpu power means more heat and battery power. Perhaps we are at diminished returns until 20 nM chipsets are released to offset the heat issues for more cpu power for apps. Point being, the Snap 600 cpu benchmarks are double that of the Snap Pro dual, but the speed increase for Dead or Alive was about 10% at best (still far too slow).
rushless said:
Does anybody have MAMEreloaded 139 installed? If so, could you please test out Dead or Alive +? That game plays slow on Tegra 3, A6X, Snap 600 and every other chipset tested. Even with speed hacks activated. Basic laptops did not start playing that game smooth with MAME until about three years ago. 3D games with no gpu assist use the cpu for the work.
The roms needed to test are doapp.zip (the game) and tcs.zip (the bios). If this plays smooth, that would mean Soul Calibur has a shot too. I doubt it will play smooth, since extra cpu power means more heat and battery power. Perhaps we are at diminished returns until 20 nM chipsets are released to offset the heat issues for more cpu power for apps. Point being, the Snap 600 cpu benchmarks are double that of the Snap Pro dual, but the speed increase for Dead or Alive was about 10% at best (still far too slow).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You know: If you want people to help you then write more.
So, what is MAMEreloaded 139? A DreamCast emulator?!
sontin said:
You know: If you want people to help you then write more.
So, what is MAMEreloaded 139? A DreamCast emulator?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would have thought anybody that is a "true" gamer (typical Shield buyer) would know what it is
It is an arcade emulator that is free in then Play market. Android version of MAME.
I tried it with MAMEreloaded and a Dead or Alive ROM, but it looks like the emulator only uses one core, so it's wicked slow. More of a software issue than the Shield not having enough power.
I noticed that when I ran Antutu I got benchmarks that were 115,000 on average. When I placed the phone in ice water, the benchmark reached 170,000. I'm guessing that LG purposefully reduces the CPU throttle so as not to raise the temp too high but does that limit the phone in day-to-day use? That might defeat the purpose of getting a CPU like this.
My phone is an AS993
same here, can't play games like pubg in my city as it usually is 30°C... if i cool down the device it runs anything including antutu with extremelly great results. but in daily usage, games runs fine for 1-3 minutes then start lagging in a way to be unplayable... wish it were possible to unlock bootloader and change kernel settings, but unfortunately it's not available for my device =/
I'm not looking to game on it but I think you'd be better off looking into a Razer phone or equivalent. With that being said, I just need it for basic everyday use. It's passed for the time being, especially coming from a Moron ("Moto") G5 Plus.
s_leandro said:
same here, can't play games like pubg in my city as it usually is 30°C... if i cool down the device it runs anything including antutu with extremelly great results. but in daily usage, games runs fine for 1-3 minutes then start lagging in a way to be unplayable... wish it were possible to unlock bootloader and change kernel settings, but unfortunately it's not available for my device =/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which Version of android you're using? I'm playing pubg on HD and realistic with almost no lag