Related
Hi all guys! I have a couple of questions and would like to hear some experiences and thoughts in general about overclocking in Android.
First a couple of more specific questions which I would like to have answered, if possible. If it's not possible, please give me your general thoughts anyway about overclock instead of moving to the next thread, please.
- Are there any kernels which allow overclocking beyond 1536 MHz?
- If so, did anybody try those frequencies? What was the result?
- Are there any people who for some reasons did NOT manage to have stable 1536 MHz?
- Are there any reliable reports of people frying their phones due to overclocking?
- Are there any easy ways to undervolt the CPU (at standard frequencies, not overclocked) in order to save some battery charge?
My very little OC experience is based on this: I have been running for some days a ROM based on a kernel which allowed OC up to 1536 MHz. I installed CPU Master Free, did some tests and found out, to my surprise, that the phone will run @1536 MHz without any noticeable issues. I never kept it at that frequency for more than 5 minutes I think, because I was afraid of excessive heat, but the phone never got really hot, just a bit warm. I ran some system benchmarks (Quadrant and another one which I can't recall right now) which stressed a bit the CPU and did not encounter any crashes. I also did this with performance governor which keeps the CPU constantly to the max frequency I think, and still no probs. Since everything works so fine and was that easy, I was wondering why don't everybody always run with the HD2 @1536 MHz. Is it only for battery issues? Please share your ideas about this and OC on the HD2 under Android in general.
Thanks.
The problem with overclocking isn't just overheating or too much power. With overclocking you are also increasing the say, amount of data being passed through the cpu. If the cpu's bus size isn't fast or big enough to handle it, it will ultimately slow down or malfunction.
So you should get the picture of overclocking now. Note however there are some safe speeds for overclocking.
Onto your next question as to why everyone doesn't overclock to the max speed. The reasons are: paranoia and safety of device
You have to know that not every chip is made exactly the same, they are modeled after the same design but are never made the same. So that mean whilst some people's phones may be able to handle extreme overclocking, like yours, others may not be able to, and malfunction/overheat. Malfunctioning like, cannot make phone calls, wifi/GPS doesn't work, etc.
So I hope this was informative.
Not everything you have said was new to me, but you were informative.
...although I would really be surprised to have issues with phone calls for instance caused by excessive overclocking...
Do you personally keep the HD2 overclocked?
Anybody else?
When I had my HD2, I rarely did so. Reason being is that I found no need to. The only times I did do so was to see if the phone actually was faster. In my results however I found no big difference so I didn't bother.
Well, the phone is indeed fast without OC, but you can feel the difference if you are performing some CPU intensive tasks. For example, unzipping a 200 MB ROM archive, or importing 1300 SMS from a backup. A temporary OC can save you maybe 1 minute or 30 secs, which aren't absolutely worth the time you spend learning to overclock the device, but never mind, even if you only saved 5 secs it's worth it for the satisfaction.
Ah I see your point. I was only looking in the perspective of simply tasks such as browsing internet/market, games, gallery.
Figure it this way. When you overclock a pc, (and if you're doing it safely/correctly) you have usually spent extra money on liquid cooling systems. Or at the very least, bigger fans, bigger heatsyncs, etc. Even with all that, you could very easily blow out a cpu or other component when you overclock.
Now, on a cell phone, you're running a MUCH higher risk. First off, there is NO extra cooling, and considering the size of our phones, and how thing they are, there's really no room for airflow. So while yes, it may work for you, in general I always say getting those couple extra frames per second out of your game are not worth the potential damage to the device.
Overclocking on actual computers has gotten much safer in the last few years, because the chip designers are putting more effort into keeping the chip cooler under load. Cell phones are not designed to overclock (even one as sweet as the hd2.)
Lastly, when overclocking a system (desktop), you usually change more than just the cpu clock speed. You'll usually have to adjust the voltage to compensate, and in some cases adjust memory timing as well as bus speed. None of this happens when you overclock on the hd2, all you do is change the clock speed.
It's not set in stone, but there's a very real possibility that you can do permanent damage to your device when overclocking. And, you may not notice the damage right away. Also keep in mind, these are mass produced cpu's, and there are slight variations in each chip. (Hence why some people can overclock higher and keep stability, while some phones with the same chip get picky if you even overclock 10mhz )
I've never seen the point in overclocking the hd2, you really don't get any real world speed out of it, it's a placebo at best. (And please don't start showing me or quoting benchmarks, they're useless, and extremely easy to make little changes in the roms to artificially boost benchmark scores.)
Edit: For more info, because I'm tired of typing, check these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overclocking
http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Computer_Science/2005/overclocking.asp
Great info mstrk242,
Thank you!
All benchmark info is skewed. Tried 1500mhz and the only app I noticed a difference on was gun bros. A new more efficient version of rom made it run fine at 998mhz. Not worth the extra wear and tear on your device. Simply changing things like your launcher can have larger effects.
Sent from my HyperDroid powered HD2!
so now that the latest beta of siyah kernel supports enabling/disabling of the 2nd core, and tegrak already released an app for it, i just want to know the possible effects in performance/battery if you use the different options of the 2nd core app.. especially when we use the single core option.. so what will happen to our phone when we run HD games, and im sure that it will extend the battery life, just not sure how the phone will behave with only 1 core running.. and will it be bad for our phone to only run at a single core..
and also, am i right to assume that our phone has the option "dynamic hotplug" by default?
Shouldn't see much of a decrease in the performance. The sgs has a single core yet the cpu can still handle anything thrown against it. Point being there is nothing out that demands dual core performance. On another note note, hd games are not actually gd. It is just advertising point for game developers.
$1 gets you a reply
Using one core instead won't break your cpu. It gonna make your phone cooler ( ! core is running producing less heat and the heat dissipator is made for the dual core ) and have a better battery life obviously. It will, obviously too, slow down your phone, but the speed lost is to be determined. You might want to test it out to see if it's getting laggy or simply suck. As already said, the SGS I has a 1Ghz proc and can handle most of the top recent content available so with a 1.2 Ghz single core, you should be able to handle everything available, specially with an optimized kernel like siyah. And you are right, the default mode is dynamic hotplug, which use both core when needed and turn the core 1 ( 2nd core ) off when not needed.
I tried playing a little with it. The overall smootness doesn't change and i get about the same fps in nenamark2. The only game i saw stuttering a little more in single mode was Shadowgun, the others are just the same. I also have the feeling that cpu noise is reduced while playing music through headsets when you run on single.
I like the idea of switching off one core. But while using only one core this leads to a higher load on that corse. This will result in higher frequencies an thus higher battery consumption?
So might using only one core even be worse for battery life?
I mean isn't that the reason why you use multiple cores? That one does not have to produce cpu with high frequencies? I think I once read that the energy a cpu uses it proportional to the frequency squared. So it is not a linear relation. That means two cores on 500 MHz are using less power than one cpu on 1000 Mhz. Can someone confirm that? So if th os is optimized for multiple cores the energy consumptions will be less.
What do you think or know about Android. Is it managing two cores intelligently an thus reducing energy consumption or are we doing better with switching off one core?
Hi,
is anybody out there who can share any experiences with this 2nd Core app?
It would be very interesting whether it really saves battery(and if yes, is it noticeably or is it a huge difference)? Are there any negative effects in speed oder stability?
Rgds
I don't particularly care about potential battery saving, but I use it to manually disable one core while playing games which have problems with SoundPool ( see http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=17623 ), such as Galcon, as this mitigates the problems.
Schindler33 said:
I like the idea of switching off one core. But while using only one core this leads to a higher load on that corse. This will result in higher frequencies an thus higher battery consumption?
So might using only one core even be worse for battery life?
I mean isn't that the reason why you use multiple cores? That one does not have to produce cpu with high frequencies? I think I once read that the energy a cpu uses it proportional to the frequency squared. So it is not a linear relation. That means two cores on 500 MHz are using less power than one cpu on 1000 Mhz. Can someone confirm that? So if th os is optimized for multiple cores the energy consumptions will be less.
What do you think or know about Android. Is it managing two cores intelligently an thus reducing energy consumption or are we doing better with switching off one core?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
totlly agree
For ALL devs.
I remember an old post of our belove Blades (Kernel's Dev), that talked about the possibility to push up RAM frequency, not only timings. Today can we reach this goal on our TF101?
"Testing out memory timings that may bite you.. If anyone can help cut through the bull**** that is MC/EMC clocks... just chime in here.. Originally I increased (slowed down) the timings and bumped up the clock by 33mhz.. and got fail. So... advancing the timings it is.. They are pretty pitiful stock.. What really pisses me off is the missing 33mhz (and thus 66mhz from emc).. we could use that... Well.. lets see if waking up the wimpy timings helps".
So, a new challange on the road!
Original Thread:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1226717&highlight=blades
I remember that! That would bem a great improvement :good:
General rule of thumb: If you didn't create 'it', it doesn't belong in the Development subforums
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
..
I would like to see this continued but I remember running some beta tests for blades with different timings and we found that the quality of the RAM in our TF101's was not that great.
If I remember correctly blades said because of the RAM it was not viable to do it and also that the way the timings had to be done was warped to say the least.
I think he had one or two updates with it but then stopped.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using XDA Premium HD app
Really dangerous. I've been messing around with it a bit and it looks like the RAM chips in most devices can't handle higher clocks properly.
Also, not all batches of RAM chips are the same quality, just like with Intel and AMD CPUs.
Some may clock a lot better than others. It would be almost impossible to find clocks that work fully stable for everyone and really actually speed.
and finally,if someone do this change in ram's freq. sure there will be the need of many types of configurations,becuase our ram is ****ty,and not the same like you have sad.then a dev have to do many types of kernel with different ram's bumping,to accomodate all the users out there.my tab has an "elite" tegra2,never had poblems with blades kernels with tweaked timing and ram,and never had problems also oc to 1.7\1.8 like first elite kenels made by clemsyns
in the 2 type of ram packaged with tegra2,Ventana type,we have the lpddr2 at 300 mhz..i'd preferred to have the others one,ddr2 at 333 with a little more speed (2.66 compared to 2.4)
in the total of types of ram in the market,2.4 gb\sec is very very poor...i don't think that upping the freq. can apport so much performance's gain in this Soc..
from 2008 here on xda,and you don't know that non development things goes in others section?there is nothing related to something you have made OP and this 3ad is not in the right section.
Do you?
Do you keep it overckocked for a longer period, permanently, or just when/while you need it? How much (exact frequencies would be cool) I'm thinking of OCing mine (both CPU and GPU) since some games like NOVA 3 lag on occasions but not sure how safe/advisable it is.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
I don't think it's needed. I've heard that OC won't help much with gaming, but you can definitely try
I don't yet - I might later. My N7 is still less than a month old.
The device manufacturers (e.g. Asus in this case) have motivations to "not leave anything on the table" when it comes to performance. So, you have to ask yourself - why would they purposely configure things to go slowly?
After all, they need to compete with other handset/tablet manufacturers, who are each in turn free to go out and buy the exact same Tegra SoC (processor) from Nvidia.
At the same time, they know that they will manufacture millions of units, and they want to hold down their product outgoing defect levels and in-the-field product reliability problems to an acceptable level. If they don't keep malfunctions and product infant mortality down to a fraction of a percent, they will suffer huge brand name erosion problems. And that will affect not only sales of the current product, but future products too.
That means that they have to choose a conservative set of operating points which will work for 99+ % of all customer units manufactured across all temperature, voltage, and clock speed ranges. (BTW, Note that Asus didn't write the kernel EDP & thermal protection code - Nvidia did; that suggests that all the device manufacturers take their operating envelope from Nvidia; they really don't even want to know where Nvidia got their numbers)
Some folks take this to mean that the vast majority of units sold can operate safely at higher speeds, higher temperatures, or lower voltages, given that the "as shipped" configuration will allow "weak" or "slow" units to operate correctly.
But look, it's not as if amateurs - hacking kernels in their spare time - have better informed opinions or data about what will work or won't work well across all units. Simply put, they don't know what the statistical test properties of processors coming from the foundry are - and certainly can't tell you what the results will be for an individual unit. They are usually smart folks - but operating completely in the dark in regards to those matters.
About the only thing which can be said in a general way is that as you progressively increase the clock speed, or progressively weaken the thermal regulation, or progressively decrease the cpu core voltage stepping, your chances of having a problem with any given unit (yours) increase. A "problem" might be (1) logic errors which lead to immediate system crashes or hangs, (2) logic errors (in data paths) that lead to data corruption without a crash or (3) permanent hardware failure (usually because of thermal excursions).
Is that "safe"?
Depends on your definition of "safe". If you only use the device for entertainment purposes, "safe" might mean "the hardware won't burn up in the next 2-3 years". Look over in any of the kernel threads - you'll see folks who are not too alarmed about their device freezing or spontaneously rebooting. (They don't like it, but it doesn't stop them from flashing dev kernels).
If you are using the device for work or professional purposes - for instance generating or editing work product - then "safe" might mean "my files on the device or files transiting to and from the cloud won't get corrupted", or "I don't want a spontaneous kernel crash of the device to cascade into a bricked device and unrecoverable files". For this person, the risks are quite a bit higher.
No doubt some tool will come in here and say "I've been overclocking to X Ghz for months now without a problem!" - as if that were somehow a proof of how somebody else's device will behave. It may well be completely true - but a demonstration on a single device says absolutely nothing about how someone else's device will behave. Even Nvidia can't do that.
There's a lot of pretty wild stuff going on in some of the dev kernels. The data that exists as a form of positive validation for these kernels is a handful of people saying "my device didn't crash". That's pretty far removed from the rigorous testing performed by Nvidia (98+% fault path coverage on statistically significant samples of devices over temperature, voltage, and frequency on multi-million dollar test equipment.)
good luck!
PS My phone has it's Fmax OC'ed by 40% from the factory value for more than 2 years. That's not a proof of anything really - just to point out that I'm not anti-OC'ing. Just trying to say - nobody can provide you any assurances that things will go swimmingly on your device at a given operating point. It's up to you to decide whether you should regard it as "risky".
Wow thanks for your educational response, I learned something. Great post! I will see if I will over clock it or not since I can play with no problems at all, it is just that it hics up when there is too much stuff around. Thanks again!
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
With the proper kernel its really not needed. Havent really seen any difference,aside from benchmark scores(which can be achieved without oc'ing)
Sent from my Nexus 7 using XDA Premium HD app
Yes, I run mine at 1.6 peak.
I've come to the Android world from the iOS world - the world of the iPhone, the iPad, etc.
One thing they're all brilliant at is responsive UI. The UI, when you tap it, responds. Android, prior to 4.1, didn't.
Android, with 4.1 and 4.2, does. Mostly.
You can still do better. I'm running an undervolted, overclocked M-Kernel, with TouchDemand governor, pushing to 2 G-cores on touch events.
It's nice and buttery, and renders complex PDF files far faster than stock when the cores peak at 1.6.
I can't run sustained at 1.6 under full load - it thermal throttles with 4 cores at 100% load. But I can get the peak performance for burst demands like page rendering, and I'm still quite efficient on battery.
There's no downside to running at higher frequencies as long as you're below stock voltages. Less heat, more performance.
If you start pushing the voltages past spec, yeah, you're likely into "shortening the lifespan." But if you can clock it up, and keep the voltages less than the stock kernel, there's really not much downside. And the upside is improved page rendering, improved PDF rendering, etc.
Gaming performance isn't boosted that much as most games aren't CPU bound. That said, I don't game. So... *shrug*.
Bitweasil said:
I can't run sustained at 1.6 under full load - it thermal throttles with 4 cores at 100% load.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@Bitweasil
Kinda curious about something (OP, allow me a slight thread-jack!).
in an adb shell, run this loop:
# cd /sys/kernel/debug/tegra_thermal
# while [ 1 ] ; do
> sleep 1
> cat temp_tj
> done
and then run your "full load".
What temperature rise and peak temperature do you see? Are you really hitting the 95C throttle, or are you using a kernel where that is altered?
I can generate (w/ a mutli-threaded native proggy, 6 threads running tight integer loops) only about a 25C rise, and since the "TJ" in mine idles around 40C, I get nowhere near the default throttle temp. But I am using a stock kernel, so it immediately backs off to 1.2 Ghz when multicore comes on line.
Same sort of thing with Antutu or OpenGL benchmark suites (the latter of which runs for 12 minutes) - I barely crack 60C with the stock kernel.
?
bftb0
The kernel I'm using throttles around 70C.
I can't hit that at 1200 or 1300 - just above that I can exceed the temps.
I certainly haven't seen 95C.
M-Kernel throttles down to 1400 above 70C, which will occasionally get above 70C at 1400, but not by much.
Bitweasil said:
The kernel I'm using throttles around 70C.
I can't hit that at 1200 or 1300 - just above that I can exceed the temps.
I certainly haven't seen 95C.
M-Kernel throttles down to 1400 above 70C, which will occasionally get above 70C at 1400, but not by much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks. Any particular workload that does this, or is the throttle pretty easy to hit with arbitrary long-running loads?
Odp: Do you overclock your N7?
I'll never OC a quadcore phone/tablet, I'm not stupid. This is enough for me.
Sent from my BMW E32 using XDA App
I've over clocked my phone, but not my N7. I've got a Galaxy Ace with a single core 800MHz processor OC'd to 900+. The N7 with its quad core 1.3GHz is more than enough for doing what I need it to do. Using franco.Kernel and everything is smooth and lag-free. No need for me to overclock
Sent From My Awesome AOSPA3.+/franco.Kernel Powered Nexus 7 With XDA Premium
Impossible to do so can't even get root but did manage to unlock the bootloader
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
CuttyCZ said:
I don't think it's needed. I've heard that OC won't help much with gaming, but you can definitely try
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not a big OC'er, but I do see a difference in some games when I OC the GPU. It really depends on the game and what is the performance bottleneck. If the app is not Kernel bound than an OC won't make much difference. Must games are I/O and GPU bound.
Sent from my N7 using XDA Premium
Dirty AOKP 3.5 <&> m-kernel+ a34(t.10)
I've overclocked all of my devices since my first HTC hero. I really don't see a big deal with hardware life.
I know that this n7 runs games better at 1.6ghz than at 1.3ghz.
First thing I do when I get a new device is swap recovery and install aokp with the latest and greatest development kernel. Isn't that why all this great development exists? For us to make our devices better and faster? I think so. I'd recommend aokp and m-kernel to every nexus 7 owner. I wish more people would try non-stock.
scottx . said:
I've overclocked all of my devices since my first HTC hero. I really don't see a big deal with hardware life.
I know that this n7 runs games better at 1.6ghz than at 1.3ghz.
First thing I do when I get a new device is swap recovery and install aokp with the latest and greatest development kernel. Isn't that why all this great development exists? For us to make our devices better and faster? I think so. I'd recommend aokp and m-kernel to every nexus 7 owner. I wish more people would try non-stock.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you mean the pub builds of AOKP? Or Dirty AOKP
Ty
bftb0 said:
Thanks. Any particular workload that does this, or is the throttle pretty easy to hit with arbitrary long-running loads?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Stability Test will do it reliably. Other workloads don't tend to run long enough to trigger it that I've seen.
And why is a quadcore magically "not to be overclocked"? Single threaded performance is still a major bottleneck.
Bitweasil said:
Stability Test will do it reliably. Other workloads don't tend to run long enough to trigger it that I've seen.
And why is a quadcore magically "not to be overclocked"? Single threaded performance is still a major bottleneck.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi Bitweasil,
I fooled around a little more with my horrid little threaded cpu-blaster code. Combined simultaneously with something gpu-intensive such as the OpenGL ES benchmark (which runs for 10-12 minutes), I observed peak temps (Tj) of about 83C with the stock kernel. That's a ridiculous load, though. I can go back and repeat the test, but from 40C it probably takes several minutes to get there. No complaints about anything in the kernel logs other than the EDP down-clocking, but that happens just as soon as the second cpu comes on line, irrespective of temperature. With either of the CPU-only or GPU-only stressors, the highest I saw was a little over 70C. (But, I don't live in the tropics!)
To your question - I don't think there is much risk of immediate hardware damage, so long as bugs don't creep into throttling code, or kernel bugs don't cause a flaw that prevents the throttling or down-clocking code from being serviced while the device is running in a "performance" condition. And long-term reliability problems will be no worse if the cumulative temperature excursions of the device are not higher than what than what they would be using stock configurations.
The reason that core voltages are stepped up at higher clock rates (& more cores online) is to preserve both logic and timing closure margins across *all possible paths* in the processor. More cores running means that the power rails inside the SoC package are noisier - so logic levels are a bit more uncertain, and faster clocking means there is less time available per clock for logic levels to stabilize before data gets latched.
Well, Nvidia has reasons for setting their envelope the way they do - not because of device damage considerations, but because they expect to have a pretty small fraction of devices that will experience timing faults *anywhere along millions of logic paths* under all reasonable operating conditions. Reducing the margin, whether by undervolting at high frequencies, or increasing max frequencies, or allowing more cores to run at peak frequencies will certainly increase the fraction of devices that experience logic failures along at least one path (out of millions!). Whether or not OC'ing will work correctly on an individual device can not be predicted in advance; the only thing that Nvidia can estimate is a statistical quantity - about what percent of devices will experience logic faults under a given operating conditon.
Different users will have different tolerance for faults. A gamer might have very high tolerance for random reboots, lockups, file system corruption, et cetera. Different story if you are composing a long email to your boss under deadline and your unit suddenly turns upside down.
No doubt there (theoretically) exists an overclocking implementation where 50% of all devices would have a logic failure within (say) 1 day of operation. That kind of situation would be readily detected in a small number of forum reports. But what about if it were a 95%/5% situation? One out of twenty dudes report a problem, and it is dismissed with some crazy recommendation such as "have you tried re-flashing your ROM?". And fault probability accumulates with time, especially when the testing loads have very poor path coverage. 5% failure over one day will be higher over a 30 day period - potentially much higher.
That's the crux of the matter. Processor companies spend as much as 50% of their per-device engineering budgets on test development. In some cases they actually design & build a second companion processor (that rivals the complexity of the first!) whose only function is to act as a test engine for the processor that will be shipped. Achieving decent test coverage is a non-trivial problem, and it is generally attacked with extremely disciplined testing over temperature/voltage/frequency with statistically significant numbers of devices - using test-vector sets (& internal test generators) that are known to provide a high level of path coverage. The data that comes from random ad-hoc reports on forums from dudes running random applications in an undisciplined way on their OC'ed units is simply not comparable. (Even "stressor" apps have very poor path coverage).
But, as I said, different folks have different tolerance for risk. Random data corruption is acceptable if the unit in question has nothing on it of value.
I poked my head in the M-kernel thread the other day; I thought I saw a reference to "two units fried" (possibly even one belonging to the dev?). I assume you are following that thread ... did I misinterpret that?
cheers
I don't disagree.
But, I'd argue that the stock speeds/voltages/etc are designed for the 120% case - they're supposed to work for about 120% of shipped chips. In other words, regardless of conditions, the stock clocks/voltages need to be reliable, with a nice margin on top.
Statistically, most of the chips will be much better than this, and that's the headroom overclocking plays in.
I totally agree that you eventually will get some logic errors, somewhere, at some point. But there's a lot of headroom in most devices/chips before you get to that point.
My use cases are heavily bursty. I'll do complex PDF rendering on the CPU for a second or two, then it goes back to sleep while I read the page. For this type of use, I'm quite comfortable with having pushed clocks hard. For sustained gaming, I'd run it lower, though I don't really game.
I want to raise question is it possible to overclock the CPU, or GPU or memory speed. We all know that ze550kl / z00l performance with msm8916. Is almost in the limit to run apps and games, wanted to know if possible or not, and if there is any development has this respect. I like the device and it is great but it is clear that it is getting weak in the matter of hardware, if someone can work in this respect to give a breath / power to our device
Ermes.mt/brasil said:
I want to raise question is it possible to overclock the CPU, or GPU or memory speed. We all know that ze550kl / z00l performance with msm8916. Is almost in the limit to run apps and games, wanted to know if possible or not, and if there is any development has this respect. I like the device and it is great but it is clear that it is getting weak in the matter of hardware, if someone can work in this respect to give a breath / power to our device
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i don't think so , if its possible to overclock the processor to its frequency,
you can costumize it too max frequency of it or to lower , as u need
But if is then i would love like to know too
I am already extracting the maximum, from him that I can of him, already put using ex kernel, with governor ordenad, frequency of 200mhz @ 12000mhz, and simple GPU ordered frequency of 200mhz to 400mhz, active zram of 512mb, and entropy of 128/256, then Of course, here with standard frequency of the paddle extracting nothing more than that, the problem and that we have a large bottleneck in memory lpddr3 of 533mhz, that opera and 32bit, there is a single channel giving bandwidth of 4.2gb / s that It has to be split between CPU and GPU. What is clearly one of the pro soc power limiter, I do not know much about the arm architecture, but I can not do over clock in lpddr3 memory, since I did not see any software or tutoring Citing this. Although this would be a solution, if you do over clock in the CPU or ns GPU will force the clock controller up what will increase the memory performance consequently, something else, not good will lock the clock at maximum in 1200mhz and GPU at 400mhz, as there will be a large power consumption and the performance will be limited by the cords of the tempering control and the low frequency of the RAM, # excuse me to have been so far more enthusiastic about hardware,
even with my old htc explorer i could increase cpu clocsk from 600mhz to 900mhz why we cant do it on zenfone 2 just we need good developer and kernel
it's up to the hardware
If you look at the specs from qualcom it has a max speed and not every device is possible to reach the max, but if you have the proper kernel you can reach that speed and "overclock"