Database Users

Best Quadrant Score?

Hey guys I was just wondering what's your best Quadrant score you've had on your HD2? I got what I think is a fairly high quadrant score today and I was fairly impressed.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Sent from my HTC HD2 using XDA App

i think 2300 or 2700 somewhere in between

I don't know the reasoning behind it, but from what lots of others have said, Quadrant scores are totally irrelevant. I can only assume it's because we're using ported software, rather than something that was built specifically for our devices. That's my guess anyway.

You beat my score!

johncmolyneux said:
I don't know the reasoning behind it, but from what lots of others have said, Quadrant scores are totally irrelevant. I can only assume it's because we're using ported software, rather than something that was built specifically for our devices. That's my guess anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not totally irrelevant, but sometimes close to it. Quadrant standard is useless, pro is a little better.
The problem with Quadrant is:
1) Disk IO test, if you try some of the builds with very high score you'll see it's coming from IO, you can just mount that one part that Quadrant use in RAM, get crazy high score, but that won't speed up any other apps/system as you still use your NAND/SD card
2) Video speed, as on early Darkstone builds video score was very low as that build had something turned off (because with it's ON there were other bugs), but all apps were using some other API for video, so only Quadrant was slow on it
3) Quadrant tests doesn't show real system performance, so higher score might have no increase in speed in other apps. For example you can put newest CPU on your PC, but having only 256mb RAM would make everything slow, no matter how fast your CPU is, but CPU score would be higher
This doesn't mean that Quadrant is bad, in my opinion if you're using pro version and you get some component score (for example CPU score) higher on one build then on other - that's good. If you get total score higher, build might be actually slower then other build with low score.

this is the old 1.32... at 1200mhz cedes sd build.
with the new 1.72... dhd base i get max 5000 cpu points and approx 5000 I/O points with data on ext4 partition. that makes 2400 overall quadrant points. at 998 mhz. but if i put all data to nand the I/O points are 1250, but the device feels faster and boots faster. for now i only put app folder on the ext4 partition, dalvik and data remain on internal memory. i am still testing whats the best combo, it takes lot of time

johncmolyneux said:
I don't know the reasoning behind it, but from what lots of others have said, Quadrant scores are totally irrelevant. I can only assume it's because we're using ported software, rather than something that was built specifically for our devices. That's my guess anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think your right there.
I don't use Quadrant much but i got over 3000 before (using Darkstones SUPERAM)

Mine was when I didn't even overclock the CPU.
Thought that was pretty good, I usually get about 1600.
Sent from my HTC HD2 using XDA App

Skellyyy said:
Mine was when I didn't even overclock the CPU.
Thought that was pretty good, I usually get about 1600.
Sent from my HTC HD2 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thats not bad man what build do you have on your phone?

SuperNAND got about 4000.
Proof:
Someone beat this . Quadrant scores are garbage, it proves nothing.

jonny68 said:
thats not bad man what build do you have on your phone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I'm on my phone right now I can't get the link but its the DHD build by Andrew something. Should be on the first page in the NAND forum.
Sent from my HTC HD2 using XDA App

[Q] Low Quadrant Scores

I know that this tool isn't a good indicator of performance... but when I see other people with the EVO getting 1200+ and I am at 800-900, I am starting to wonder if there is a setting wrong. My phone occasionally feels sluggish. Any idea's what the cause could be? using an AOSP rom with Tiamat Kernel
- Just realized I wasn't in Q&A forums Sorry! - please delete if needed

Stuke00 said:
I know that this tool isn't a good indicator of performance... but when I see other people with the EVO getting 1200+ and I am at 800-900, I am starting to wonder if there is a setting wrong. My phone occasionally feels sluggish. Any idea's what the cause could be? using an AOSP rom with Tiamat Kernel
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good question!
Ive always wondered why some score so low on good combos.
I'm on CM nightly rc3 build 18 with savgzen 1.0.0 cfs-havs and scoring very well
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}

new quad you will get low scores
imho quad and all the other benchmark test mean nothing

CheesyNutz said:
new quad you will get low scores
imho quad and all the other benchmark test mean nothing
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree when comparing to other phones... but 2 phones of the same model should get similar scores right?

Stuke00 said:
I agree when comparing to other phones... but 2 phones of the same model should get similar scores right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have you ran it off of a fresh reboot?
I find my best scores were when I rebooted let it sit for 3-5 min after reboot, and then fire it up.

Mark_in_Tulsa said:
Have you ran it off of a fresh reboot?
I find my best scores were when I rebooted let it sit for 3-5 min after reboot, and then fire it up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Trying it again after the phones been on a few minutes.
I used to use SETCPU and I thought maybe that screwed things up

If you want to increase scores why don't you put your Max frequency at 1190 and min at 1190 with setcpu. High scores are a thing of the past.
~ d3rk

dirkyd3rk said:
If you want to increase scores why don't you put your Max frequency at 1190 and min at 1190 with setcpu. High scores are a thing of the past.
~ d3rk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is with my CPU at 1190. I am not trying to get a high score, but a score my phone should be able to get, you know? I see someone with an EVO get 1500 and then I am thinking something is wrong with my phone... I have the same phone..

Stuke00 said:
That is with my CPU at 1190. I am not trying to get a high score, but a score my phone should be able to get, you know? I see someone with an EVO get 1500 and then I am thinking something is wrong with my phone... I have the same phone..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Putting stock in scores is foolish though. 936 does seem a Tad bit low for sure. My set up is cm7 #36, tiamat kernel 3.3.5, JIT on, setcpu 1113 Max, 422 min smartass governor. I just ran a linpack and got 37mflops and 1200 in benchmark. This is the same set up I usually run on any rom or kernel. I try not to clock so high because it just drains battery. My evo actually can perform flawlessly clocked at even 998mhz. The only thing I notice different is that scores change and I don't really take a performance hit. Underclocking is the new overclocking lol. My last suggestion would be to play around with different kernels to achieve what you desire. Try savage zen!
Edit: just ran these 2 test just for you right now. Same results and I'm using same kernel you are.
~ d3rk

Run, it once, and then run it again right after w/out quitting. The if you run it multiple times (at least on my phone), all subsequent scores are on par with the second one which is usually 1-300 more than the first. Won't mean anything any different, but at least you might get some higher scores.
Also, you might need to try some different kernel combinations as well as different clock speeds. Mine usually does fine at 998 sometimes even at 921, but if I go too high it will start to slow things down. If you're not getting good results at 1190, try backing it off one setting at a time and see if you can get improved scores.
As far as comparing to other phones, even of the same make/model, you can't really do that. As long as they're in the same ball park, within a couple hundred, you're probably OK. Every phone reacts differently.
It also depends on the version of quadrant. You def can't compare diff phones running diff versions. I usually don't use it to compare to other phones, just diff setups on my phone. I know if I'm getting 1200 avg and then I all of the sudden flash a ROM and kernel and can't break 800 that something is probably wrong.
The most important thing is how the phone feels though. The fact that you say it feels sluggish leads me to believe you might need to try a diff kernel or see if something is eating up your CPU. Also, when you're over clocking, the min clock speed can effect your scores just as much as the max speed.

Ya give savage a go.
Kernel CPU setting:
Ondemand governor
Min 245
Max 998
My Device scores high runs smooth battery drain not a problem.

I just tested mine and got 1326. With these settings.. CM7 Nightly 36 with 2.6.37.6-Tiamat -v3.3.5 kernal.
Governor - Conservative
Min - 384
Max 1036

Highest Galaxy S benchmark ever.

Here, I prove that synthetic benchmarks fail.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}

My god.... How the heck did you do it?

Benchmarks are becoming less and less meaningful as people customize and mod their systems more and more.
If I could find a USB port on a cocker spaniel and install Android on it, I could tweak the poor little guy to get 2500 on Quadrant if I really wanted to (and if I didn't have to give the dog back afterwards).

The highest my SGS go is 1517 Quadrant. How you guys mannaged to get 2000 and above.
Using Darky 9.5, dark core 1.4

I got 3147 quadrant with miui rc4 and oc to 1300MHz.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

progene81 said:
The highest my SGS go is 1517 Quadrant. How you guys mannaged to get 2000 and above.
Using Darky 9.5, dark core 1.4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so called lag fix for start, and some other tweaks including OC.
But lag fix itself gives a huge boost in quadrant.
I do agree synthetic benchmarks suck especially concerning phones since there are many chips, and many other optimizations for particular CPUs, and they're not equal in either implementation or HW is so much different that comparisons are pointless.
For instance snapdragon might lack with raw power, and our hummingbird is better, but when it comes to SIMD instruction ALUs snapdragon wins + quadrant's optimization for snapdragon et viola...

rschenck said:
Benchmarks are becoming less and less meaningful as people customize and mod their systems more and more.
If I could find a USB port on a cocker spaniel and install Android on it, I could tweak the poor little guy to get 2500 on Quadrant if I really wanted to (and if I didn't have to give the dog back afterwards).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kinda like this?:

theduckking said:
Kinda like this?:
View attachment 565756
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly, but with a dorsal fin and ramjets.

rschenck said:
Exactly, but with a dorsal fin and ramjets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sorry, that's the turbo ARDog (Android Ready Dog) I got. If you want to customize it further you can have mine, PM me with your address if you're interested so I can organize the shipment (or well, fuell and program the GPS of the ARDog, it can fly so why not utilize it^^)

theduckking said:
sorry, that's the turbo ARDog (Android Ready Dog) I got. If you want to customize it further you can have mine, PM me with your address if you're interested so I can organize the shipment (or well, fuell and program the GPS of the ARDog, it can fly so why not utilize it^^)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Isn't there an App for that?

I made this score

Using GingerCriskelo V27 and CF-Root 3.0
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA Premium App

My score:
+ The feeling of a pretty darn fast ROM
Of course the usage was pretty low over the weekend but still^^

Pretty easy to get 4500-4600 scores on Quadrant with CM7 and a few kernel/system tweaks..

So which tweaks did u set?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA Premium App

Tk-Glitch said:
Pretty easy to get 4500-4600 scores on Quadrant with CM7 and a few kernel/system tweaks..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you 've overclocked to 1200 MHz or still Using 1000?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA Premium App

w7nt3rmut3 said:
So which tweaks did u set?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1 - Use a RAMdisk for Quadrant storage;
2 - Use old graphics driver from NS;
3 - Overclock.
Overclocking the bus will lead to faster RAM, so faster I/O score from the RAMdisk.
w7nt3rmut3 said:
So you 've overclocked to 1200 MHz or still Using 1000?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, 1.2GHz. Sorry^^.
At 1GHz, ~4000.
And with 1.4GHz, 4800-4900.
1.5GHz here :
Now 1.4GHz only, but with a faster bus speed, resulting in a boost on I/O and memory scores :
EDIT : Added *lololz* screenshot.
EDIT2 : Replaced *lololz* screenshot by a 1.5GHz one for even more LULZ.
EDIT3 : Added faster bus speed to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

edited
10 chars

coldflid said:
Photoshop...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Absolutely not. Quadrant is just very easy to fool on the I/O score, as I said : with a ramdisk.
The normal I/O score on CM7 is ~1300, resulting in about 3000 final score @ 1.5GHz. Everyone here with an i9000 can have ~4900 with a light CM7 and 1.4GHz OC using a RAMdisk. It's a dirty hack for sure.
If you take the I/O score away, all the others are genuine. In fact, except the CPU score, they are all higher @ 1.4GHz (because of a faster bus frequency).
If my phone was stable at a higher bus, 5200-5300 should be possible at 1.5GHz, and even more at 1.6GHz (unstable for now on my device until I find a way to stabilize it).

Tk-Glitch said:
Absolutely not. Quadrant is just very easy to fool on the I/O score, as I said : with a ramdisk.
The normal I/O score on CM7 is ~1300, resulting in about 3000 final score @ 1.5GHz. Everyone here with an i9000 can have ~4900 with a light CM7 and 1.4GHz OC using a RAMdisk. It's a dirty hack for sure.
If you take the I/O score away, all the others are genuine. In fact, except the CPU score, they are all higher @ 1.4GHz (because of a faster bus frequency).
If my phone was stable at a higher bus, 5200-5300 should be possible at 1.5GHz, and even more at 1.6GHz (unstable for now on my device until I find a way to stabilize it).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, i didn't mean yours, i totally believe yours, i meant the one on the first post, and now that i look it more closely it doesn't seem fake.
Sorry

Benchmarks results

Hi guys, I have an arc S from a few weeks, after several tests I found a rom that flies in quadrant, these are the results:
4030 pts without overclocking
4739 pts with overclocking @ 2000 (v15 doom-Kernel)
All the other roms, including Cyanogen v 7.2, have a maximum in 2200-2500 pts.
The rom is SE-tweaked.
How can this difference in performance?

i bet that the guy that made that rom included the quadrant hack, nothin special imo.

probable, because the result is very high, there is a way to verify this?
However, the rom runs pretty fast and without lag, much better than the original.

johnbarleycorn said:
probable, because the result is very high, there is a way to verify this?
However, the rom runs pretty fast and without lag, much better than the original.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
try antutu benchmark and nenamark 2.

antutu 3500-3600 pts
nenamark2 14.8.
The quandrant booster apk not change the results.

With what clockspeed?
Ran Antutu with dtock rom and SuperCharger V6 @ 1.4GHz and got 3781 as highest score.
Didn't try it in arconium 5.6 yet
Sent from my iPad 2 using Tapatalk

Flo95 said:
With what clockspeed?
Ran Antutu with dtock rom and SuperCharger V6 @ 1.4GHz and got 3781 as highest score.
Didn't try it in arconium 5.6 yet
Sent from my iPad 2 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@1.4 without Supercharger V6.

Antutu is normal then, but good improvement compared to fully stock
Arconium 5.6 scored 3622 in first run and now my phone does some hevay background tasks and I only get ~3400
EDIT:
Now it are 3757 @ 1.4GHz smartassV2
Sent from my iPad 2 using Tapatalk

Flo95 said:
Antutu is normal then, but good improvement compared to fully stock
Arconium 5.6 scored 3622 in first run and now my phone does some hevay background tasks and I only get ~3400
EDIT:
Now it are 3757 @ 1.4GHz smartassV2
Sent from my iPad 2 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've got 3924 @ 1.6 GHz smartassV2 on my Arc S.

Nice, what ROM do you use?
Even if Benchmarks say nothing about real use, it's nice to compare
Yesterday I made one test @ 1.8GHz and scored 4285 points
Sent from my iPad 2 using Tapatalk

Look in the signature, same ROM you're using.
I'll try 1,8 GHz too, but 2 GHz not any more, seems like my CPU can't handle it.
Sent from my LT18i using xda premium

Nice, sorry. Tapatalk doesn't display signature so I can't see them.
Sent from my iPad 2 using Tapatalk

When i do the Quadrant benchmark, my score is only like 2000...
I run Arconium 5.6, Supercharger v6, doomkernel v15 @ 1.4ghz?
Why is mine so damn low?
And can someone upload a screenshot of their benchmark with quadrant(A)?

arneh1992 said:
When i do the Quadrant benchmark, my score is only like 2000...
I run Arconium 5.6, Supercharger v6, doomkernel v15 @ 1.4ghz?
Why is mine so damn low?
And can someone upload a screenshot of their benchmark with quadrant(A)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's totally normal to have that score.
The guy just used the quadrant hack, if you run different benchmarks (e.g. AnTuTu, Vellamo, etc.) you'll notice that your device is nearly the same to other results.

Ok ok, i always thought it was still not as fast as it could be... So this is max?( i don't want to OC more)
Cause i use regina as launcher, and when i turn back to home it sometimes have to load it all again...

arneh1992 said:
Ok ok, i always thought it was still not as fast as it could be... So this is max?( i don't want to OC more)
Cause i use regina as launcher, and when i turn back to home it sometimes have to load it all again...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is maximum?
Quadrant scores between 1800 and 2400 are normal imo.

I mean like, cause i use arconium, doomkernel and supercharger i thought it would be faster... But getting scores around the 2000 is the maximum for me, or can i get it higher( without overclocking more )? I wanna play a lot of games with minimum lag

Quadrant scores say nothing!
Sent from my iPad 2 using Tapatalk

Well i dont really know why but my Arc with doomkernel v15 @1.6GHz hit the score of 3982 at Antutu benchmark.. Maybe is the sd booster i use..
Sent from my LT15i using XDA App

My V6 custom ROM - NOT released V6 yet.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}

ICS Roms Benchmarked

Used Quadrant Standard Edition 2.0
This was done on 3-28-2012. Pretty much all the ROMs have had new releases since then. So these benchmarks do not accurately reflect the current performance of the ROMs.
Full wipe procedure done before each flash.
Coldboot done for each ROM before running Quadrant. Not doing coldboot resulted in lower I/O score in some cases.
Testing was done using the default settings and kernel of the ROM. No kernels were flashed separately.
Overclock was tested only if the ROM and its default kernel supported it, using the maximum frequency allowed in the ROM's settings + force GPU rendering set to enable in developer settings.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Android 4.0.4 ROM

What the hell is going on with the 2D scores? Why is stock so far ahead of the others?

I dont have any fancy diagrams or tables like you but...
I ran quadrant on eos build 12 and got a total of 3.5k (average, 3 runs).
Settings: CPU at 1.4Ghz, no forced gpu rendering.
Breakdown:
cpu: 6200
memory: 3200
I/O: 6000
2D: 110
3D: 1800
Interesting though that stock ICS performs that well compared to the other roms.
So in raw performance there isnt much difference between custom and stock rom, until you start tuning the cpu.

cspiby said:
What the hell is going on with the 2D scores? Why is stock so far ahead of the others?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Enabling "force GPU rendering" on other ROMs increases the 2d scores to around 400.

horndroid said:
Enabling "force GPU rendering" on other ROMs increases the 2d scores to around 400.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So is that stock rom doing that by default or what?

cspiby said:
So is that stock rom doing that by default or what?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Probably.
I tested it again. Stock ROM is giving those scores without force gpu rendering

Funny thing, stock is way better with 2d rendering, EOS and CM9 are faster in I/O...

Yup, the reason EOS and CM9 have such high scores is because of the I/O. I wonder how perceivable the difference is to an average user.
Team EOS's has a tiny FPS lag when scrolling home screens despite its high score.

Just got a quadrant score of 4237 with CM9 lastest (28-03) and guevor test 4 kernel at 1640mhz.

Here's what I got. Pretty much same as yours.

horndroid said:
Here's what I got. Pretty much same as yours.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So there was a bump in performance indeed.
---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------
Now theres a build out with Android 4.0.4 (march 29) Maybe even more performance increases.
CM9 keeps getting better and better.

Looking forward to 4.0.4 benchmarks vs 4.0.3!

There wasn't really any performance increase in 4.0.4. The changes probably had to do with something else.
CM9 March 28 version + stock kernel
CM9 March 29 version(Android 4.0.4) + stock kernel

Looks like the forced GPU rendering didn't score as high this time though; do you know the explanation? Just curious, not particular adept at computer stuff so unnecessary to answer if you don't have time..

asdfuogh said:
Looks like the forced GPU rendering didn't score as high this time though; do you know the explanation? Just curious, not particular adept at computer stuff so unnecessary to answer if you don't have time..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think you should give much thought to those minor differences.
The scores fluctuate way too much. Honestly, only 3 attempts don't give accurate averages.

asdfuogh said:
Looks like the forced GPU rendering didn't score as high this time though; do you know the explanation? Just curious, not particular adept at computer stuff so unnecessary to answer if you don't have time..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looks to me like it scored 8 higher... or are you comparing to the score when overclocked to 1.64GHz?

Frozn. Full wipe and coldboot as usual.

include revolver

horndroid said:
Frozn. Full wipe and coldboot as usual.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was waiting to the Frozn release but comparing its benchamark with the CM9 ones I think that I am going to continue using CM9.

DammedKiller said:
I was waiting to the Frozn release but comparing its benchamark with the CM9 ones I think that I am going to continue using CM9.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yep. just checked on my cm9 with test8 kernel @ 1,7Ghz:
total: 4185, cpu: 8230, mem: 3274, io: 7466, 2d: 121, 3d: 1834
(2d is low, because 'force 2d' makes some apps flicker and also lowers all other stats in this bench )
so I think I'll stay on CM9