Related
Hi I've read some where in this forum that the galaxy S has some I/O problems which are leading to the frequent lags that the phone experiences
Frankly I do not know what I/O is but my question is whether I/O problem is a hardware or software problem. If it is software then fair and well, I'll wait for samsung to ooptimize the software
I have noticed that the benchmark software (Quadrant) runs relatively smoothly all the tests except the I/O test at which it stops for a while before moving to the next test. I dont know if this relates to the I/O problem.
Thanks for your answers
RADLOUNI said:
Hi I've read some where in this forum that the galaxy S has some I/O problems which are leading to the frequent lags that the phone experiences
Frankly I do not know what I/O is but my question is whether I/O problem is a hardware or software problem. If it is software then fair and well, I'll wait for samsung to ooptimize the software
I have noticed that the benchmark software (Quadrant) runs relatively smoothly all the tests except the I/O test at which it stops for a while before moving to the next test. I dont know if this relates to the I/O problem.
Thanks for your answers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Theres still no solid proof that its a software issue.
****
EarlZ said:
Theres still no solid proof that its a software issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
****...............then you're saying its hardware ??????
He is not saying its hardware, just that there is no solid proof that its software.
However, based on the amount of working fixes, and reports of great improvements using Froyo I would put money on it being software related.
In fact...I am!
I am ordering a SGS in 3 days when my contract is up for renewal.
Actually, I think everyone's overlooking another obvious possible source of lag: clock-scaling for power conservation. If a phone slows down to 200MHz when it thinks it's inactive, and won't speed up until it sees evidence of activity lasting for 400ms, well... that's 400ms of lag you wouldn't get if the phone were running full-bore 1GHz all the time.
There's even an easy way to test the theory (on a rooted phone, at least) -- take two otherwise-identical phones, fully-charged, root one (while keeping the same rom), then install SetCPU and lock it into 'performance' mode so the phone can't slow down.
If the one locked at 100% CPU speed doesn't lag, and the one that's allowed to slow down to prolong the battery life does... well... there's the answer.
I mention this because I just experienced the night-and-day difference between the CDMA Hero's default power/speed (528MHz max, going down to 250MHz or less when "inactive") and with it locked to 712MHz in performance mode. Pretty much all of my lag problems vanished instantly when I locked it to performance mode. I have a hunch right now that perceived lagginess is almost entirely due to cpu scaling (particularly the time it takes to scale back up, and the criteria used for doing it).
Makes Sense
bitbang3r said:
Actually, I think everyone's overlooking another obvious possible source of lag: clock-scaling for power conservation. If a phone slows down to 200MHz when it thinks it's inactive, and won't speed up until it sees evidence of activity lasting for 400ms, well... that's 400ms of lag you wouldn't get if the phone were running full-bore 1GHz all the time.
There's even an easy way to test the theory (on a rooted phone, at least) -- take two otherwise-identical phones, fully-charged, root one (while keeping the same rom), then install SetCPU and lock it into 'performance' mode so the phone can't slow down.
If the one locked at 100% CPU speed doesn't lag, and the one that's allowed to slow down to prolong the battery life does... well... there's the answer.
I mention this because I just experienced the night-and-day difference between the CDMA Hero's default power/speed (528MHz max, going down to 250MHz or less when "inactive") and with it locked to 712MHz in performance mode. Pretty much all of my lag problems vanished instantly when I locked it to performance mode. I have a hunch right now that perceived lagginess is almost entirely due to cpu scaling (particularly the time it takes to scale back up, and the criteria used for doing it).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very interesting theory, and it makes sense to be frank.
Are there any software out there that would enable me to lock the CPU speed to 1 GHz. I am willing to try this
RADLOUNI said:
Very interesting theory, and it makes sense to be frank.
Are there any software out there that would enable me to lock the CPU speed to 1 GHz. I am willing to try this
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The guy just told you, root phone and install "Setcpu". That's the only way.
Looking at the benchmarks and the various fixes implemented I tend to lean towards the opinion that it may be hardware related.
hxxp://twitter.com/koush/status/20321413798
I'm not familiar enough with the internals of the phone. If there is faster flash memory located on the phone, then a repartition may be enough to fix the device. If not, then I'm afraid we may be stuck with some lag.
Would anyone be so kind as to explain what I/O is and why the setup in the SGS causes lagging while other android phones with similar specs don't seem to suffer from the same problems?
Thanks in advance
RADLOUNI said:
Very interesting theory, and it makes sense to be frank.
Are there any software out there that would enable me to lock the CPU speed to 1 GHz. I am willing to try this
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not very interesting, as it's closer to the truth than you think.
think about it, Android OS is really Linux, the SGS is a miniature PC with phone capability.
everything else aside for the phone part, works just like a PC running Linux.
even on a Windows PC the Duo Core or Quad Core machines that has the Power Saving option enable behaves the same, when they are on iddle mode they run at 50% CPU power or less, and it takes them a fraction of a sec to speed back up, people that don't like that tiny lag, they always set the PC on performance mode, or always on, or simply not install the power saving software that comes with the PC.
we can do the same on the SGS phones, the only downside is that your battery will be out of juice faster than you think.
not to mention the Screen is the most power hungry part in the phone, just like most other phones with large LCD displays
did the install and...
Hi
I just did the install of setcpu and i will monitor the device for sometime before i give some feedback. My initiall impression is that the performance got better.
i set the software to performance mode and kept the limits between 100Mhz and 1000Mhz
i will also try to set the min limit to 800Mhz
Actually, that reminds me... the other thing I've seen cited a lot for causing lag is the way Android manages memory by terminating apps instead of using a swapfile. This can cause lag, because it simply takes time to call onPause()/onStop() and wait for it to finish, compared to unceremoniously just suspending the app and dumping a few megs to the microSD card.
Apparently, manufacturers don't use swapfile because most/all Android phones ship with class 2 microSD flash, in which case it would hurt performance more than it helped.
With that in mind, I'd say the following two things should be tried:
1) Buy a class 6 (or better) microSD card, format a swap partition, and use a rom on a rooted phone that supports it. For the record, swap with class 2 would be detrimental; swap with class 4 would be of minimal benefit; swap with class 6 is a big improvement; class 8 basically doesn't exist, and class 10 in real-world use -- with small, scattered files and random read-writes -- is only a little bit faster than class 6, because at that point the time it takes to deal with protocol matters becomes huge relative to the time it takes to actually DO the flash write (the SD card SPI and 4-bit protocols are *really* ugly, and overwhelmingly optimized for sequential reading and writing of bulk data. The moment you start doing random-access rewrites, their performance -- regardless of class -- goes to hell. That's part of the reason why pro gear still tends to use CompactFlash... it still has to deal with flash a page at a time, but it can access arbitrary tiny chunks of data scattered all over the place a lot faster and with a lot less ceremony than (micro)SD).
2) Install SetCPU and lock the CPU to max speed in "performance" mode.
SetCPU alone seemed to make the biggest difference with regard to keyboard input lag. My guess is that Android (or HTC's modifications for the Hero, Evo, etc... and quite possibly Samsung's too) slow the phone WAY down whenever an input area is displayed, on the theory that "most" apps at that point are just displaying the picture of a keyboard and waiting for the user to mash the screen with his finger. Without SetCPU, Graffiti is almost unusable and makes weird errors. With SetCPU locked to performance mode, Graffiti is almost flawless. It's literally a night-and-day difference.
Kpkpkpkp said:
Would anyone be so kind as to explain what I/O is and why the setup in the SGS causes lagging while other android phones with similar specs don't seem to suffer from the same problems?
Thanks in advance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Input/Output -data communication to/from the phone and other devices/networks
It's like when you are writing information to the system that comes from downloads, so whether you are syncing files, downloading from the marketplace or uploading...you are doing I/O....
"In computing, input/output, or I/O, refers to the communication between an information processing system (such as a computer), and the outside world possibly a human, or another information processing system. Inputs are the signals or data received by the system, and outputs are the signals or data sent from it. "
Wiki
bitbang3r said:
Actually, that reminds me... the other thing I've seen cited a lot for causing lag is the way Android manages memory by terminating apps instead of using a swapfile. This can cause lag, because it simply takes time to call onPause()/onStop() and wait for it to finish, compared to unceremoniously just suspending the app and dumping a few megs to the microSD card.
Apparently, manufacturers don't use swapfile because most/all Android phones ship with class 2 microSD flash, in which case it would hurt performance more than it helped.
With that in mind, I'd say the following two things should be tried:
1) Buy a class 6 (or better) microSD card, format a swap partition, and use a rom on a rooted phone that supports it. For the record, swap with class 2 would be detrimental; swap with class 4 would be of minimal benefit; swap with class 6 is a big improvement; class 8 basically doesn't exist, and class 10 in real-world use -- with small, scattered files and random read-writes -- is only a little bit faster than class 6, because at that point the time it takes to deal with protocol matters becomes huge relative to the time it takes to actually DO the flash write (the SD card SPI and 4-bit protocols are *really* ugly, and overwhelmingly optimized for sequential reading and writing of bulk data. The moment you start doing random-access rewrites, their performance -- regardless of class -- goes to hell. That's part of the reason why pro gear still tends to use CompactFlash... it still has to deal with flash a page at a time, but it can access arbitrary tiny chunks of data scattered all over the place a lot faster and with a lot less ceremony than (micro)SD).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To ask a question and summarize, if you were given a choice of any class card to put in your phone you'd chose a class 6 because of the performance benefit here? Or would you maybe go with a higher class because it'd get greater benefits in other areas? Thanks for the help, again, don't consider money as a factor for the main issue, just trying to learn a bit.
result
bitbang3r said:
Actually, that reminds me... the other thing I've seen cited a lot for causing lag is the way Android manages memory by terminating apps instead of using a swapfile. This can cause lag, because it simply takes time to call onPause()/onStop() and wait for it to finish, compared to unceremoniously just suspending the app and dumping a few megs to the microSD card.
Apparently, manufacturers don't use swapfile because most/all Android phones ship with class 2 microSD flash, in which case it would hurt performance more than it helped.
With that in mind, I'd say the following two things should be tried:
1) Buy a class 6 (or better) microSD card, format a swap partition, and use a rom on a rooted phone that supports it. For the record, swap with class 2 would be detrimental; swap with class 4 would be of minimal benefit; swap with class 6 is a big improvement; class 8 basically doesn't exist, and class 10 in real-world use -- with small, scattered files and random read-writes -- is only a little bit faster than class 6, because at that point the time it takes to deal with protocol matters becomes huge relative to the time it takes to actually DO the flash write (the SD card SPI and 4-bit protocols are *really* ugly, and overwhelmingly optimized for sequential reading and writing of bulk data. The moment you start doing random-access rewrites, their performance -- regardless of class -- goes to hell. That's part of the reason why pro gear still tends to use CompactFlash... it still has to deal with flash a page at a time, but it can access arbitrary tiny chunks of data scattered all over the place a lot faster and with a lot less ceremony than (micro)SD).
2) Install SetCPU and lock the CPU to max speed in "performance" mode.
SetCPU alone seemed to make the biggest difference with regard to keyboard input lag. My guess is that Android (or HTC's modifications for the Hero, Evo, etc... and quite possibly Samsung's too) slow the phone WAY down whenever an input area is displayed, on the theory that "most" apps at that point are just displaying the picture of a keyboard and waiting for the user to mash the screen with his finger. Without SetCPU, Graffiti is almost unusable and makes weird errors. With SetCPU locked to performance mode, Graffiti is almost flawless. It's literally a night-and-day difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HI I tried setCPU at performance mode , and i have to say that it improved the perofrmance A BIT. But i would not say that much has improved.
I guess that the class6 SD card option has more bearing on this issue than CPU speed scaling
RADLOUNI said:
HI I tried setCPU at performance mode , and i have to say that it improved the perofrmance A BIT. But i would not say that much has improved.
I guess that the class6 SD card option has more bearing on this issue than CPU speed scaling
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does the SD card lag fix option REQUIRE a class 6 card? That limits the size a bit, doesn't it? What is the biggest class 6 card available?
borchgrevink said:
Does the SD card lag fix option REQUIRE a class 6 card? That limits the size a bit, doesn't it? What is the biggest class 6 card available?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
16GB
no, it does not need to be Class 6, it depends on the SD card build quality, some Class 2 performs as good as a Class 6
but it's a luck of the draw, if you have a known good Class 2 or Class 4 microSD card, then use it, no need to buy a new one
i suggest you to test the speed of the SD card before you do the mimocan thing
use this app, it's pretty accurate
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=739083
The CPU theory doesn't really explain why symlinking the /dbdata/data folder to /data/data eliminates lag.
hxxp://android.modaco.com/content/samsung-galaxy-s-s-modaco-com/312298/got-the-stalling-problem-rooted-try-this/
It also seems that a 32gb class2 SanDisk card is OK.
http://android.modaco.com/content/s...rt-microsd-cards-that-work-with-mimocans-fix/
borchgrevink said:
It also seems that a 32gb class2 SanDisk card is OK.
http://android.modaco.com/content/s...rt-microsd-cards-that-work-with-mimocans-fix/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
kinda pricey at the moment, aprox $135 for real non fake ones
Take a look at this: http://www. laptopmag.com/review/cell-phones/samsung-epic-4g.aspx?mode=benchmarks&cids=2214,2290,pa
Go to that page and add the other Galaxy S variants to the comparison charts and check the FileSystem benchmarks. As you will see, The Epic 4G beats the other phones 5+ times over, and even destroys the EVO 4G's score by a little over 4 times. This is great news for those of us concerned about the lower ROM capacity!
They are missing a lot on those benchmarks. I can't find the nexus one at all, and the linpack benchmarks all seem to be testing android 2.1 phones. I think what people are afraid of with this phone is that the JIT compiler works amazingly for Snapdragon processors but not for TI OMAP processors or the Samsung Hummingbird cpu. People are claiming extremely high scores in Linpack with afaik is a cpu benchmark utility. Now All of the Cortex A8 1 ghz processors should have the same performance give or take 5-10% variance. However Snapdragon cpus seem to get 30-50 on linpack with 2.2 on the nexus one and evo 4g, but the droid 2 only gets 13-14, and what few beta or alpha builds of 2,2 have leaked for galaxy s phones they seem to get similar scores. This is what worries people. However I think we need to wait and see why the droid 2 is getting such low scores on 2.2 and see if the official smasung 2.2 build gets similar low scores.
Also that site says that the droid x/2 has the same gpu performance as the epic 4g and on top of that the evo 4g scores less than 10% below them. Last I checked the power vr 530 in the x/2 is half as powerful or less than the 540 in the galaxy s phones and the amd gpu in the snapdragon processors is supposed to be even weaker than the 530. Given this knowledge I have to say those benchmarks are fairly unprofessional.unscientific and useless as they are clearly biased.
There's no denying the inaccuracies in the majority of benchmark tests, but the only one I want you to see is the FileSystem benchmarks. Not the cpu or gpu ones. FileSystem measures how fast the storage/memory on the phone is writable and readable. The Galaxy S phones have an issue where out the box all the apps are stored on an internal class 2 SD card, instead of the faster internal NAND memory causing severe lag and even stalls when transitioning between screens. That has been fixed through a hack though, which requires reformatting the file system and 1.5 GB of internal memory which the Epic doesn't have, making a fix impossible for the time being if indeed there is a lag/stall issue on the Epic 4G.
The benchmark for FileSystem, if accuratee, is a sigh of relief, cause it seems like there will be no lagging or stalling between transitions out the box with the Epic 4G. Let's hope This is the case, otherwise it will be a huge deal breaker. The Vibrant can take up to 10 seconds to get back to the home screen from an app when the home icon is pressed. That would really kill the experience if it's present in the Epic 4G and unable to be fixed due to low ROM.
I don't put much stock in benchmarks, but I believe he was trying to point out just 1 benchmark in particular that shows that the Epic doesn't suffer from the flaw in the Captivate\Vibrant that causes the slowness. It's interesting that the benchmarks didn't include Quadrant... which the Captivate\Vibrant somehow destroy all over phones in without 2.2 post lag fix. I'd be interested to see how the Epic performs out of the box there... but I can wait.
My bad I was just tired and didn't realize it was the filesystem speeds that were being pointed out. Though I still question this sites benchmarks and would love to know what software they used for each one.
Does anyone find it odd that the droid 2 and droid x have different filesystem benchmark speeds? I would have assumed they had the same storage and file system. However the droid 2 on 2.2 is showing speeds considerably slower than the droid x in benchmarks for that. It just makes me wonder if it is 2.1 and 2.2 just being wonky, or do these benchmarks possibly have little to no meaning.
Nice find. This test has to be running from the internal memory since it scores the same as the droid x with 8 gig internal storage. The epic has less then 500 mb of internal storage so the sd card has to come into play after the internal storage is full. The issue with that is the sd card runs 2 to 3 times slower then the internal memory. My class 6 sd card with ext2 partition scores 1000 and my captivates internal storage with ext2 partition scores 2600. This may never be a issue if you only install limited amount of apps to internal storage and music, video, games and pics to sd card. This is the only thing holding me back from the epic right now since I have a lot of games that I want on the internal storage. I will have to test and see if it even makes a real world difference. If it doesnt make a real world difference then the epic will be my new phone for sure if the gps issue is really fixed.
My sources tell me, the quadrant score was 889 on the epic 4g
noobnl said:
My sources tell me, the quadrant score was 889 on the epic 4g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm thats weird. That means the ****ty partitioning that causes the lag is not gone. The captivate gets 900+ with no lag fix. It gets over 2500 with ext2 internal partition lag fix applied. It doesn't really matter for the captivate since there is internal storage ext2 lag fix but that wont work on the epic since it does not have enough internal storage. They will have to use the slower sd card lag fix. I really dont think they changed the way samsung partitions the storage just for the epic but we will see soon enough.
or maybe they are adding RFS R/W buffer in their 2.6.32 kernel for FroYo
So this means if there is a "lag" or whatever, for those unfamilar with all the tech stuff..I'll be stuck with a broken phone? That sucks..I'm really psyched but I don't want to be stuck with the epic if either the vibrant or captivate would be better because they have enough memory to fix the lag issue..or would just simply switching roms fix it?
tpma4life said:
So this means if there is a "lag" or whatever, for those unfamilar with all the tech stuff..I'll be stuck with a broken phone? That sucks..I'm really psyched but I don't want to be stuck with the epic if either the vibrant or captivate would be better because they have enough memory to fix the lag issue..or would just simply switching roms fix it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The whole point of this thread is to say that the Epic does not suffer from this problem. Go watch the myriad of videos showing the Epic which proves this.
hydralisk said:
The whole point of this thread is to say that the Epic does not suffer from this problem. Go watch the myriad of videos showing the Epic which proves this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly! Its the not the filesystem at all thats causing the lag, its the fact that the other galaxy s phones are using slow sd cards as their internal memory and the Epic is using much faster NAND memory. File system is irrelevant here....
http://briefmobile.com/samsung-epic-4g-benchmarked
"Conclusions
The Samsung Epic 4G is the fastest Galaxy S phone to hit the market. With Samsung’s latest optimizations, this phone flies. We’d venture to say it is faster than the Google Nexus One, Motorola Droid, Motorola Droid X, or any other competing Android 2.1-sporting device. With Android 2.2 Froyo coming soon this year, this phone will undoubtedly rock the mobile world.
While other Galaxy S phones have forced users to place custom launchers (namely LauncherPro) over TouchWiz, we can say without a doubt that the Epic 4G’s Touchwiz UI runs smooth as butter. So, if you like what Samsung’s done to the user experience, you’ll be able to keep the Touchwiz interface without losing any speed advantage.
This phone won’t need a custom Ext2, Ext3, or Ext4 lag fix come launch time, it is snappy and ready to go right out of the box. Overall, Samsung gets a 10/10 for getting it right with this one. Well done."
The Epic 4g was scoring in the 900's out of the box (picture shows 960) on quadrant. I don't think we'll have lag problems.
What do you think Androidcentral was talking about when they said "Quadrant benchmark (which is about useless on a Galaxy S phone -- blame the cheaters and developers lack of fixing the I/O scoring algorithm for that one)" Are they blaming EXT2 and EXT4 lagfix or the developers of the program? Just very curious.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Probably both. With a loopback filesystem, Quadrant is only reading and writing to a buffer instead of the actual disk. So the numbers are insanely high compared to true R/W scores. However lagfixes like Voodoo and Z4mod are not creating loopbacks and instead are converting the actual disks to another, faster, format. So Voodoo scores are real.
FWIW, I don't really think Quadrant as a whole is useless, just the overall score. I think Quadrant Advanced is actually a very good benchmarking program.
Not useless
Just not representing real life. They are good for setting a comparison, but in real life, the phone, computer or anything else with arbitrary measurement tools does not getting the whole story.
Case in point, my computer does not have have the fastest cpu but out performs my friends with the fastest components, Why, because there is more to a computer than just a fast cpu and vdo card. Same for the phones.
The real life tests i did with a G2 and Vibrant side by side did not make any of us go WOW about either phone, but on a whole All of us who were there left with " the Vibrant performs better overall.
Anyway, they are fun to use and do generate conversation.
The benchmark. The insane score of the I/O makes the score meaningless. You can have a phone with awesome I/O and a horrible cpu/gpu and itll score higher then a much faster phone (evo,vibrant, etc).
Thanks for the answers and your opinions, guys. All very good points.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
After using this Verizon S7 edge for over a week I concluded the following.
1. Cpu speed is limited to 1.6GHz - Maybe to keep heat issues down.
2. Apps. can not be moved to SD. Yes, it says it did but it's only moves cache.
3. Verizon has left off some of the software others have.
4. Ram is limited to 3.5G to start and after OS and Samsung and Verizon stuff, user has
maybe 1.6G to 1.8G to use.
5. Phone does stop and stutters at times.
6. Screen slow to respond on the edges at times.
Given all that, I do like this phone but I believe that work is need by Samsung and Verizon.
Some apps but not all can be moved to SD card. I have moved apps.
Download Samsung pay from app store. It works.
No stutters on my end so that is always phone specific: very fluid and fast for me. My iPhone 6s plus also stopped and lagged so that myth of fluidity was just that.
Edge works well for me but again maybe phone specific.
Yes, VZW did remove some things which is typical and this is not surprising or new.
Not bashing or defending Samsung, but I am impressed with this phone even owning a Nexus 6p. There, I said it. Let the bashing begin.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
mmariani said:
After using this Verizon S7 edge for over a week I concluded the following.
1. Cpu speed is limited to 1.6GHz - Maybe to keep heat issues down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I do agree that Verizon went overboard with its meddling on this device. My biggest complaints so far are
* the assinine removal of the Samsung internet browser app which offered, among other things, an optimized experience on the device's specific chipset, website authentication using fingerprint, and the optional ability to use an ad-blocking add-on
* a completely unnecessary Verizon tramp stamp on the back of this beautiful device
I am not seeing your claimed clock throttle on the CPU, however. If I keep a floating CPU usage monitor (I used the paid version of System Monitor from the Play store) on while running, for example, the Geekbench benchmark, I have seen both high speed cores ramp up to 2.2ghz, which is very close to the rated max of 2.3ghz, and that was after me using my phone almost continuously for the last several hours before running Geekbench, so a thermal throttle of 100mhz seems not all that unlikely.
Some of your other points are true for all carrier variants of the device, and possibly all devices running Android or Android Marshmallow (for example, moving apps to SD storage has never been all or nothing on Android - it is dependent on how each app is designed by its programmers as to what actually gets stored on the SD - the app may be hard coded to use primary storage for things like cache and even documents, and the reported memory on all my previous Android devices has always been less than what the manufacturer specifies as the hardware spec - I've read different explanations for this and I don't really understand why it's true, but the S7 is far from alone in this).
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
TJCacher said:
Well I do agree that Verizon went overboard with its meddling on this device. My biggest complaints so far are
* the assinine removal of the Samsung internet browser app which offered, among other things, an optimized experience on the device's specific chipset, website authentication using fingerprint, and the optional ability to use an ad-blocking add-on
* a completely unnecessary Verizon tramp stamp on the back of this beautiful device
I am not seeing your claimed clock throttle on the CPU, however. If I keep a floating CPU usage monitor (I used the paid version of System Monitor from the Play store) on while running, for example, the Geekbench benchmark, I have seen both high speed cores ramp up to 2.2ghz, which is very close to the rated max of 2.3ghz, and that was after me using my phone almost continuously for the last several hours before running Geekbench, so a thermal throttle of 100mhz seems not all that unlikely.
Some of your other points are true for all carrier variants of the device, and possibly all devices running Android or Android Marshmallow (for example, moving apps to SD storage has never been all or nothing on Android - it is dependent on how each app is designed by its programmers as to what actually gets stored on the SD - the app may be hard coded to use primary storage for things like cache and even documents, and the reported memory on all my previous Android devices has always been less than what the manufacturer specifies as the hardware spec - I've read different explanations for this and I don't really understand why it's true, but the S7 is far from alone in this).
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I was using System Monitor so I tried Geekbench 3 and they both report 1.6 GHz.
Geekbench also reports 2222 Single Core and 5227 Multi Core. Also I stand by my statement that Apps do not move to SD. I have moved more than 20 apps. and the SD shows them listed under Android/Data on the SD card but after moving over a gig of apps, the dir shows less than 20 megs of data. They are mostly empty program name folders. And yes I know how to move them. So either my phone is diff from yours or...... Thank you for your input.
markwebb said:
Some apps but not all can be moved to SD card. I have moved apps.
Download Samsung pay from app store. It works.
No stutters on my end so that is always phone specific: very fluid and fast for me. My iPhone 6s plus also stopped and lagged so that myth of fluidity was just that.
Edge works well for me but again maybe phone specific.
Yes, VZW did remove some things which is typical and this is not surprising or new.
Not bashing or defending Samsung, but I am impressed with this phone even owning a Nexus 6p. There, I said it. Let the bashing begin.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I want to know if anyone else is seeing these problems. As for the apps. they don't really move. Just a name dir. is created on the SD.
Ans to apps not moving to SD
Well folks I found the ans. on a diff. thread:
Samsung disabled the adaptive storage option. Here is the response I got from Samsung on the app data issue. I looks like they know the data isn't moving.
"I have checked our resources and found that whenever an app is moved to the SD card, only the app and the dependencies of the application for the Operating System to identify the app on the SD card are only moved. Data associated with the app is not moved to the SD card.
Let’s hope that our future updates should allow the user to move the apps data to the SD card along with the app.
I would have surely helped you if there was any other option to move the apps data to the SD card.
I appreciate your time in writing to us. "
So Samsung maybe aware and I hope they do fix this.
TJCacher said:
the assinine removal of the Samsung internet browser app which offered, among other things, an optimized experience on the device's specific chipset, website authentication using fingerprint, and the optional ability to use an ad-blocking add-on
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I love that browser so much I'm willing to pay someone to mod the app so that we Verizon users can sideload it onto our phones.
mmariani said:
Well I was using System Monitor so I tried Geekbench 3 and they both report 1.6 GHz.
Geekbench also reports 2222 Single Core and 5227 Multi Core. Also I stand by my statement that Apps do not move to SD. I have moved more than 20 apps. and the SD shows them listed under Android/Data on the SD card but after moving over a gig of apps, the dir shows less than 20 megs of data. They are mostly empty program name folders. And yes I know how to move them. So either my phone is diff from yours or...... Thank you for your input.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Geekbench reports, in its initial pre-test display, the max clock rate of cores 1 & 2, which are the cpu's 2 low power cores, and that is the correct clock rate as designed and specified by the manufacturer.
However when the benchmark is actually run, the system correctly detects the need for high power processing and the high power cores kick in, and can ramp all the way up to their maximum clock rating, assuming they do not thermally limit.
The scores you are reporting would not be obtained were all the cores being limited to 1.6ghz. You would probably be seeing well below 2000 in the single core benchmark if the high power cores were being limited to a maximum clock speed of 1.6ghz.
The score you are reporting definitely doesn't support an assertion that Verizon has set a more conservative limit to the max CPU clocks on this device, and, as I've said, if you use System Monitor's floating CPU window feature to watch the cpu clock speeds in real time as the test actually runs, you will see clock rates at or near the max speed of 2.3ghz on the two high power cores (nos. 3 & 4).
Your reply post seemed to indicate I thought you didn't know how to move apps correctly, and that I did. Not true. I haven't tried moving any apps on this phone actually, and expect I would see similar results to yours if I did so.
But as far as moving apps to SD goes, I also stand by my previous statements. Your app-moving issues have nothing to do specifically with the S7 models in any variant by any carrier including Verizon, nor for that matter, Samsung itself, but instead are due to a multitude of complicating factors, some because of Android itself, and some by the makers of the specific apps.
If you do a bit of searching on Google for discussions about having problems moving an app to SD storage, you will quickly see that it is a long-standing problem reported for many apps by many people on many different versions of Android running on many different brands and types of devices, and there are about as many reasons for it not working as there are instances of it not working right.
It's just that it seems to me like blaming app-moving problems on Verizon for mucking it up on the S7 is like blaming your vehicle's poor gas mileage on the owner of the dealership you bought your new car from. Verizon did plenty to be irritated about on this device, as well as others, but this particular issue isn't their fault. Android's app-moving feature has had problems since long before the S7 model was ever designed or built.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
TJCacher said:
Geekbench reports, in its initial pre-test display, the max clock rate of cores 1 & 2, which are the cpu's 2 low power cores, and that is the correct clock rate as designed and specified by the manufacturer.
However when the benchmark is actually run, the system correctly detects the need for high power processing and the high power cores kick in, and can ramp all the way up to their maximum clock rating, assuming they do not thermally limit.
The scores you are reporting would not be obtained were all the cores being limited to 1.6ghz. You would probably be seeing well below 2000 in the single core benchmark if the high power cores were being limited to a maximum clock speed of 1.6ghz.
The score you are reporting definitely doesn't support an assertion that Verizon has set a more conservative limit to the max CPU clocks on this device, and, as I've said, if you use System Monitor's floating CPU window feature to watch the cpu clock speeds in real time as the test actually runs, you will see clock rates at or near the max speed of 2.3ghz on the two high power cores (nos. 3 & 4).
Your reply post seemed to indicate I thought you didn't know how to move apps correctly, and that I did. Not true. I haven't tried moving any apps on this phone actually, and expect I would see similar results to yours if I did so.
But as far as moving apps to SD goes, I also stand by my previous statements. Your app-moving issues have nothing to do specifically with the S7 models in any variant by any carrier including Verizon, nor for that matter, Samsung itself, but instead are due to a multitude of complicating factors, some because of Android itself, and some by the makers of the specific apps.
If you do a bit of searching on Google for discussions about having problems moving an app to SD storage, you will quickly see that it is a long-standing problem reported for many apps by many people on many different versions of Android running on many different brands and types of devices, and there are about as many reasons for it not working as there are instances of it not working right.
It's just that it seems to me like blaming app-moving problems on Verizon for mucking it up on the S7 is like blaming your vehicle's poor gas mileage on the owner of the dealership you bought your new car from. Verizon did plenty to be irritated about on this device, as well as others, but this particular issue isn't their fault. Android's app-moving feature has had problems since long before the S7 model was ever designed or built.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry friend, I was not trying to blame anyone, just pointing out problems I found to see if it was my phone or if others noted the same. Apps don't move to me is a problem with a phone limited to 32Gigs. On my Note 3 I could move apps. to the SD but that may have been because I rooted it and mod it.
Now as for speed I agree I was wrong because the apps I used to check was not reading the correct speed.
Today I got an update to the AIDA64 app and it now notes the correct upper cpu speeds.
As I said before I do like this phone but then nothing is perfect and I want to make the best use of it.
Again just trying to get a handle on a new phone and seeing what others may have tried or worked out.
mmariani said:
Sorry friend, I was not trying to blame anyone...
...Apps don't move to me is a problem with a phone limited to 32Gigs.
...
As I said before I do like this phone but then nothing is perfect and I want to make the best use of it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry if I came off as confrontational - wasn't intended.
And we are certainly in agreement that there are some issues with this otherwise very fine phone. Like you, I hope to see at least some of these issues fixed or get decent work arounds for them.
App moving is a can of worms and without root privileges there is only so much Google can do with Android to fix it (adoptable storage probably being the most thorough approach, although I would argue that it's just substituting one can of worms for another [emoji1]).
There are a *lot* of apps that refuse to be moved without elevated permissions to do it. Other apps may allow you to move the executable image and related runtime files, but stubbornly don't allow you to pick where they store data and/or other types of resources, so the paltry savings on moving the runtime stuff doesn't help all that much.
And on a related note, I would certainly add to your observation about 32gigs that it was a mistake for Samsung not to offer carrier-branded phones in a larger memory size. I'm sure most if not all of the s7 owners who participate on XDA would have really appreciated at least a 64gig option.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Have you tried this for adoptable storage?
http://www.modaco.com/news/android/...e-adoptable-storage-on-your-s7-s7-edge-r1632/
There's a thread all about this mod right here in the Verizon S7E forum.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
mwshows said:
Have you tried this for adoptable storage?
http://www.modaco.com/news/android/...e-adoptable-storage-on-your-s7-s7-edge-r1632/
There's a thread all about this mod right here in the Verizon S7E forum.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm thinking about doing it. But I'm still checking out the phone and what others are noting. Thanks for the tip.
I'm using the Samsung browser on mine. Just downloaded it from the Play Store. I linked to it through a Chrome search and it worked.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Since android 13 upgrade (wasn't amazing before but certainly was much worse since 13) i've been getting really inconsistent gaming performance.
But not in a way that dipped the FPS -- as system status in games was showing good fps but the game felt jittery / laggy and overall very inconsistent.
Been driving me nuts to the point where i'd almost stopped gaming on it because it was so disappointing. Was going to send my phone into Oppo for warranty claim it was that bad.
Decided to try and be a little more analytical about it and look at the individual element scores on antutu and i saw my RAM performance was pretty bad.
Played with a few settings but nothing seemed to do much until i remember about Ram expansion (using storage as back-fill ram) and tried turning that off (reboot after).
Well, my antutu score has gone from 720k to 806k in normal mode and ~830k in performance mode (since antutu isn't recognised as a game to automatically do that)
Games are now totally smooth again, no lag. It's almost like a new phone.
My thoughts are that the android implementation of this either doesn't properly keep active high-demand stuff from swapping into this expanded ram or that android just doesn't handle the scheduling of this properly.
Either way -- for me its way more valuable turned off for overall performance and stability.
Did the same already some time ago, can not understand why in the first place. that a phone with this huge amount of ram already factory installed, would need another 3 GB of ram.
Mr.Anderson01 said:
Did the same already some time ago, can not understand why in the first place. that a phone with this huge amount of ram already factory installed, would need another 3 GB of ram.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Technically it doesn't i guess... maybe for a ram constrained phone ... but then if it's costing performance cos of a bad implementation then it's a lose-lose position.
My phone is noticeably more consistent on performance with this feature disabled.