Related
Look at this (from 1:44 on):
It's a quadrant benchmark run on a android port on the HD2. Graphics are really bad, but in the end it has approximately the same score as the benchmarking score of the Galaxy with the original firmware. I mean what is in a score? If I look at the beginning of the movie, the UI is very slow and not as responsive as the Galaxy
(BTW i got 55.7 FPS with the neocore benchmark on JM2)
This is not to say that I don't have deep respect for what the HD2-android development team is doing. Really amazing job. I just can't wait to get my HD2 back from repair.
appelflap said:
Look at this (from 1:44 on):
It's a quadrant benchmark run on a android port on the HD2. Graphics are really bad, but in the end it has approximately the same score as the benchmarking score of the Galaxy with the original firmware. I mean what is in a score? If I look at the beginning of the movie, the UI is very slow and not as responsive as the Galaxy
(BTW i got 55.7 FPS with the neocore benchmark on JM2)
This is not to say that I don't have deep respect for what the HD2-android development team is doing. Really amazing job. I just can't wait to get my HD2 back from repair.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant scores have been criticized for their non-descript breakdowns, at least on their free suite. Also, the fact that they chose the weighting of the scores, so should they chose 2D is equal to 3D weight, I don't know their formula (and for all I know, they give equal weighting to all or they give equal weighting to all test where the CPU has 12 tests and the 3D graphics has 4), but the fact that we, as users don't have access to their formula on their website is a bit unnerving.
Add to that the fact that many reviews and videos rely on it so heavily leaves users a bit misinformed. In reality, and thorough review should definitely run a custom test suite to give individual scores to:
CPU
Memory
I/O
2D graphics
3D graphics
That way users can compare what's important to them. The Galaxy S suffers from terrible I/O and the hacks that have given the fixes typically boost Galaxy scores to nearly double their rates, and it's majorly attributed to improving a bunk I/O score.
Totally agree. In addition, it would be really nice to know which benchmarked factors are responsible for which functions. For example it is really interesting to see how the hd2 performs before the user is running the tests. When the user is scrolling through the setting menu there is a very noticible lag. Given the fact that the total score is nearly the same as the scrore for the SGS, and thar the graphic score of the hd2 is bad in comparisson to the SGS, I would conclude that graphic performance is very important for the way the ui responds.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
appelflap said:
Totally agree. In addition, it would be really nice to know which benchmarked factors are responsible for which functions. For example it is really interesting to see how the hd2 performs before the user is running the tests. When the user is scrolling through the setting menu there is a very noticible lag. Given the fact that the total score is nearly the same as the scrore for the SGS, and thar the graphic score of the hd2 is bad in comparisson to the SGS, I would conclude that graphic performance is very important for the way the ui responds.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I can tell, the HD2 got a decent score 'cos it was running Froyo. When we get bumped up to an official froyo build with JIT fully optimized, We should be top of the pile.
don't forget, android isn't working 100% on the HD2.
I personally think it's pointless comparing to a not complete port.
woops dbl post
alovell83 said:
Quadrant scores have been criticized for their non-descript breakdowns, at least on their free suite. Also, the fact that they chose the weighting of the scores, so should they chose 2D is equal to 3D weight, I don't know their formula (and for all I know, they give equal weighting to all or they give equal weighting to all test where the CPU has 12 tests and the 3D graphics has 4), but the fact that we, as users don't have access to their formula on their website is a bit unnerving.
Add to that the fact that many reviews and videos rely on it so heavily leaves users a bit misinformed. In reality, and thorough review should definitely run a custom test suite to give individual scores to:
CPU
Memory
I/O
2D graphics
3D graphics
That way users can compare what's important to them. The Galaxy S suffers from terrible I/O and the hacks that have given the fixes typically boost Galaxy scores to nearly double their rates, and it's majorly attributed to improving a bunk I/O score.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even then though, it's possible to write a benchmark which wins constantly for any phone.
In regards to "terrible I/O", that might even be due to a bug in the FAT32 drivers. Yes you can benchmark it, but it wont mean much. The best way is to actually TEST the applications you need, rather than select a phone based on benchmarks. However, you are possibly best off looking at the component specs, because they ignore software bugs.
scrizz said:
don't forget, android isn't working 100% on the HD2.
I personally think it's pointless comparing to a not complete port.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But the topic is about "what's in a score". Maybe one can generally say that is pointless to compare devices this way. I think that such benchmark scores are only (a bit) relevant at the two poles of the benchmark score spectrum. Everything in between can be neglected due to the uninformed way sub-scores are evaluated.
You got 55.7 FPS on Neocore as the sgs has vertical sync enabled, the refresh rate on the sgs'es screen is 56 fps and thus you can only go up to 56 fps as the v-sync is on. This proves that the sgs is indeed a much more powerful device that is actually being held back. If you can disable the v-sync then you can get a higher fps score
appelflap said:
But the topic is about "what's in a score". Maybe one can generally say that is pointless to compare devices this way. I think that such benchmark scores are only (a bit) relevant at the two poles of the benchmark score spectrum. Everything in between can be neglected due to the uninformed way sub-scores are evaluated.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just read in a post that the Galaxy S gets a 0 on the 2D score:
"JIT isn't fully enabled in the current froyo versions, and quadrant, frankly, is bull**** (for exmple, 2d acceleration gets the same weight in the final result as 3D. Due to the fact that the SGS doesn't have a dedicated 2D accelerator, quadrant doesn't try to use the cpu- it just gives a round zero in that part)"
I can't confirm this, but that definitely seems like a terrible set-up, seeing as how I'm pretty sure I have games run in 2D, so to say that it can't do it just seems wrong regardless of if the SGS has a dedicated 2D accelerator or not (so if you aren't testing the way it performs in real-world, why are you testing?)
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=737787&page=3
Qazz~ said:
You got 55.7 FPS on Neocore as the sgs has vertical sync enabled, the refresh rate on the sgs'es screen is 56 fps and thus you can only go up to 56 fps as the v-sync is on. This proves that the sgs is indeed a much more powerful device that is actually being held back. If you can disable the v-sync then you can get a higher fps score
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It isn't really being held back - the screen can't display more than 56 fps as you say, and it wouldn't really be visible even if it could. Disabling v-sync isn't really that important, we need a benchmark that can actually use the advanced features in the SGS GPU (Neocore just pushes a fairly small amount of polygons with no real extras.) Using current 3D benchmarks to benchmark the SGS is like using quake 1 to benchmark the brand new ATI/nVidia cards.
The benchmark is what is at fault here, not the device
RyanZA said:
It isn't really being held back - the screen can't display more than 56 fps as you say, and it wouldn't really be visible even if it could. Disabling v-sync isn't really that important, we need a benchmark that can actually use the advanced features in the SGS GPU (Neocore just pushes a fairly small amount of polygons with no real extras.) Using current 3D benchmarks to benchmark the SGS is like using quake 1 to benchmark the brand new ATI/nVidia cards.
The benchmark is what is at fault here, not the device
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't want to speak for the other poster, and I agree with your premise, however, it isn't actually solving the issue at hand. Better FPS wouldn't be noticed, however, it would give a better score and, more importantly, indicate it's potential. So, getting 56FPS isn't doing the phone any justice within the score, which is what reviews are using, giving it an artificially low score, and putting it more in line with units that can't compete on higher end games. So, when a site like anand pushes 150FPS on a game, I know that means that their rig is entirely too powerful for the game in question, but it still means something when you compare it to the lower end graphics card that only gets 90...then when they run Crisis you see these results play out more with differences that we can notice with the eye.
I think the HD2 gets that score because, as I can see in the video, the CPU tests run faster compared to my SGS, probably because of Froyo, and I know, from the time I had the Diamond and the HD2, that the internal memory and RAM are very fast. Sadly SGS has a slow internal memory, atleast when used by the phone`s software, when copying from PC is faster than my class 6 microSD. Luckily, we have mimocan`s fix. Hope this will be fixed in future FW`s.
NexusHD2 with-FRG83D V1.7 with hastarin r8.5.1 On my HD2 got 1920 in quadrant,31.5 on neocore, and 37 on linmark.
The lag might be because you are using launcher pro, I use launcher pro and sometimes it makes the the lock lag on my phone but it doesn't happen when I use the default lock also if you have alot of Widgets on your screen it will cause lag also
appelflap said:
Look at this (from 1:44 on):
It's a quadrant benchmark run on a android port on the HD2. Graphics are really bad, but in the end it has approximately the same score as the benchmarking score of the Galaxy with the original firmware. I mean what is in a score? If I look at the beginning of the movie, the UI is very slow and not as responsive as the Galaxy
(BTW i got 55.7 FPS with the neocore benchmark on JM2)
This is not to say that I don't have deep respect for what the HD2-android development team is doing. Really amazing job. I just can't wait to get my HD2 back from repair.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
same galaxy s scores 6000+ in quadrant with custem roms
The HD 2 is a better fit for quadrent then the sgs as quadrent was made for the snapdragon processor which the hd2 has and the sgs does not. Comparing apples to orenges in an apple juice contest doesn't really prove much. Use real life feel. If you care about the scores a rom can be made to get you over 3000 quad score but is laggy as hell. Don't believe me? Look at my sig
interesting... I was using quadrant to see how a stock xxjvo and gingerreal compared. Surely that would indicate a real speed difference and not just be some kind of "hack" ?
zelendel said:
The HD 2 is a better fit for quadrent then the sgs as quadrent was made for the snapdragon processor which the hd2 has and the sgs does not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's right.
HD2 uses two android OS :
- Cyanogenmod, that is faster than our samsung os..
- Nexus one's port to HD2, greatly optimized by google...
It's really fast. I upgraded my father's HD2 last month, replacing windows in the NAND with CM7. It really makes a big change, the phone is like brand new ^^
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1012556
Quadrant is pretty flawed. And I say that being someone who had a phone (before modifications) that was mid-range in Quadrant (Galaxy S), and having a phone that's right top of the heap (Galaxy S II)
The purpose of this post is to inform people of all the major benchmarks, pros/cons or each and what each of them do.
Quadrant Standard/Advanced - This benchmark is made for phones using the Snapdragon proccessor such as the g2/droids/evo etc. Please do not rely on this benchmark for the Epic as the Epic has a Hummingbird.
SmartBench - This benchmark was made to show fair scores for the actual speed of the phone. The developer of this app works very hard to work out "cheats" and bugs. This benchmark seperates the speed in games from the speed in doing other, non-game, tasks.
Linpack - This benchmark, like Quadrant, is mainly for Snapdragon. It shows floating point speed that does not really determine real life performance. Phones like the Evo and G2 get scores way higher than the Epic even though the proccessor on the Epic is faster.
0xBench - This benchmark is a combonation of different benchmarks. The purpose of this benchmark is to find out how fast your phone is for many different things.
Total Benchmark - This benchmark is a FULL benchmark. It not only measures speed but it measures many other things such as accelerometer, display, multitouch, etc.
An3dBench - This benchmark does a wide variety of tests to determine 3d speed
SQLight - This benchmark measures the time it takes to complete a series of non-gaming/non-media tasks.
SetCpu - If you didn't know, SetCpu has 3 different benchmarks included in it. These benchmarks show proccessor speed improvements from your overclock/kernal or rom change.
Nenamark - A GPU benchmark
Neocore - Another GPU benchmark. Made by Qualcomm to showcase their GPU. Since our GPU isnt Qualcomm, you cant fully trust it, but it seems pretty legit.
Did I miss any? Please send me a PM telling me. I know there are alot more but I think I got all of the major ones.
It would be great if this could be stickied.
Reserved for later use
A few others I've got on my phone:
Benchmark Pi: I don't recommend, since all it really does is test one function of the CPU, hardly a comprehensive benchmark.
GLBenchmark: Pretty decent benchmark, all things considered. Lots of options.
NenaMark1: Primarily a GPU benchmark, provides FPS (frames per second) score.
Neocore: Same as the above, mostly tests GPU performance. Created by Qualcomm to showcase their Adreno GPU, so take the FPS scores with a grain of salt.
Another I've heard of, BaseMark. AFAIK its currently only available to software developers. Looking to get my hands on it... looks to be pretty full-featured.
I still recommend SmartBench2010 over anything else right now, mostly because it seems to be accurate and the developer has shown himself to be very dedicated.
Also note AnTuTu. It's comprehensive, and gives a very good breakdown of what goes into its scores.
Added Nenamark and Neocore
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA Premium App
GLbenchmarks
Its one of the best. I personally only really care about benchmarks that Anandtech uses since they give the most detailed and comprehensive reviews and testing of new phones and devices. I would check out there site to make sure you got what they use. I know for a fact that GLbenchmarks is one of them. Its a graphical benchmark that tests the GPU. There are also a benchmark to test browser performance, java and i think one other one that they use.
You can get all these on the market?
No, some of these you have to get outside of the market. GLbenchmarks for example is downloaded from their website.
Can anyone report on some benchmark scores for the Xoom?
I found this one that Anandtech uses:
http://www.glbenchmark.com/download.jsp
That is a good benchmark for general openGL performance testing. Others are:
Linpack to measure floating-point rate of execution = generally useless score.
Quadrant measures overall system performance
Smartbench 2011 measures general system performance
The xoom scores very well. The scores in GLBenchmarks will seem low, because all tests are run at the native resolution on each device. So a phone with a 480x800 resolution and a tegra 2 will get a much higher score than the xoom with the same processor and a 1280x800 resolution.
Linpack is useless for dual-core devices, it only tests one core.
muyoso said:
The xoom scores very well. The scores in GLBenchmarks will seem low, because all tests are run at the native resolution on each device. So a phone with a 480x800 resolution and a tegra 2 will get a much higher score than the xoom with the same processor and a 1280x800 resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good to know! Hopefully, there will be some dual core benchmarks coming out soon.
Smartbench 2011 just added dual core support! I haven't tried it yet, only quadrant, but am anxious to see the differences.
Sent from the most 'Epic' phone in the world! ...Using XDA Premium app
js042507 said:
Smartbench 2011 just added dual core support! I haven't tried it yet, only quadrant, but am anxious to see the differences.
Sent from the most 'Epic' phone in the world! ...Using XDA Premium app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It runs in a tiny little window on the Xoom. Don't think this is a worthy benchmark for tablets.
Wow!
in SmartBench 2011 I got highest score there - 3895/2466. Some game scores were higher on other devices, but they were overclocked to hell.
I'm impressed.
My results are posted here (benchmark and quadrant) http://4pda.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=173393&st=320#entry6752974
keitht said:
It runs in a tiny little window on the Xoom. Don't think this is a worthy benchmark for tablets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi guys,
I am the developer of Smartbench 2010/2011.
Basically, I use device independent pixel system for rendering those bitmaps. For some reason, Honeycomb doesn't work so well with DIP. I need to look into why.
On the other hand, I don't believe there's any other benchmarks that spawn multiple symmetric threads for performing multi-core benchmark tests. All CPU tests are absolutely not affected by the screen size/resolution at all, so it shouldn't matter. IMO, I think its a bit premature to deduce that it is not a worthy benchmark from this observation.
And as usual, I am open to suggestions!
(Oh and Hi Arcadia, long time no see! )
and every other Tablet for good measure... so much for an additional $100
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-101-Review-Android-31-Tablet/?page=4
To be fair, they did mention the fact that the Galaxy Tab is running HC 3.0
Real World Performance is What Really Matters But This is Still Surprising. Asus just needs to fix typing and browser lags and all is gravy for me. Oh Also Samsung 10.1 Doesn't have 3.1 yet so that might boost its quadrant scores.
HorsexD said:
Real World Performance is What Really Matters But This is Still Surprising. Asus just needs to fix typing and browser lags and all is gravy for me. Oh Also Samsung 10.1 Doesn't have 3.1 yet so that might boost its quadrant scores.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pretty sure the 10.1 is now shipping with (or being upgraded to) 3.1
http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/internet-tablets/samsung-galaxy-tab-10.1-review/12086.html
Nice results for the G-Tablet. Not bad for a $250 tablet.
S4F4M said:
To be fair, they did mention the fact that the Galaxy Tab is running HC 3.0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not fair to mention at all, since TF101 ALL benchmarks went down not up after 3.1 update.
I hope someone can figure out why it's getting such poor performance results. What makes this really odd is that most reviews site its snappy performance when web browsing and its ability to play back 1080p movies very well.
nothing odd about it - simulated benchmarks are useless because they can never properly simulate real world usage or properly simulate the differences in hardware and software on the devices being benchmarked.
For instance 1080p video playback has absolutely nothing todo with the instructions being simulated in benchmarks like these, videoplayback are handled by a hardware codec and the abilities of this codec has nothing todo with the rest of the cpu, or weather the cpu are 600mhz or 1.2ghz, single core or dual core etc.
Quadrant scores etc. tells nothing about how optimized the software on the device is - like how smooth the device feels in normal operations. Example, the same device will score the same quadrant score no matter which launcher is used, and no matter how smooth or how laggy this launcher operates when swiping homescreens. It will score the same result no matter how laggy a device may feel because of wrong memory management configuration and so on, it will score the same result no matter if the device has 512mb or 1gb ram, despite the device with 1gb will feel smoother in operations because it can store more open applications in ram. Etc. etc.
Quadrant score shows nothing except how good a device can run Quadrant, and this may differ depending on how Quadrant are optimised for the specific chipset/cpu.
It wont show anything else, it wont show how good the device can run specific games because this depends on the individual game and how this is optimised for the specific cpu/gpu, it wont show how smooth the device feels in general operation handling the gui or different applications because this depends on so many other things which cant be simulated, it wont show how good it can handle different video because this also depends on other things which cant be simulated.
Quadrant scores and other test scores like it are good for only one thing
They are tools for "big boys" that needs to compare "**** sizes"
- but since you cant go around showing pictures of your ****, you can allways show a screenshot of a quadrant score and go "mines bigger than yours"
spawndk said:
Quadrant scores and other test scores like it are good for only one thing
They are tools for "big boys" that needs to compare "**** sizes"
- but since you cant go around showing pictures of your ****, you can allways show a screenshot of a quadrant score and go "mines bigger than yours"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great description of Quadrant. There's a t-shirt in there somewhere
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using XDA Premium App
spawndk said:
nothing odd about it - simulated benchmarks are useless because they can never properly simulate real world usage or properly simulate the differences in hardware and software on the devices being benchmarked.
For instance 1080p video playback has absolutely nothing todo with the instructions being simulated in benchmarks like these, videoplayback are handled by a hardware codec and the abilities of this codec has nothing todo with the rest of the cpu, or weather the cpu are 600mhz or 1.2ghz, single core or dual core etc.
Quadrant scores etc. tells nothing about how optimized the software on the device is - like how smooth the device feels in normal operations. Example, the same device will score the same quadrant score no matter which launcher is used, and no matter how smooth or how laggy this launcher operates when swiping homescreens. It will score the same result no matter how laggy a device may feel because of wrong memory management configuration and so on, it will score the same result no matter if the device has 512mb or 1gb ram, despite the device with 1gb will feel smoother in operations because it can store more open applications in ram. Etc. etc.
Quadrant score shows nothing except how good a device can run Quadrant, and this may differ depending on how Quadrant are optimised for the specific chipset/cpu.
It wont show anything else, it wont show how good the device can run specific games because this depends on the individual game and how this is optimised for the specific cpu/gpu, it wont show how smooth the device feels in general operation handling the gui or different applications because this depends on so many other things which cant be simulated, it wont show how good it can handle different video because this also depends on other things which cant be simulated.
Quadrant scores and other test scores like it are good for only one thing
They are tools for "big boys" that needs to compare "**** sizes"
- but since you cant go around showing pictures of your ****, you can allways show a screenshot of a quadrant score and go "mines bigger than yours"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant Envy?
Honestly the benchmarks results are the more relevant part of that review. Obviously that review was either paid for or the writer is devout samsung fanboy. I'm not going to to defend the benchmarks(which do have value), however to write a review where the reviewed device loses is almost every category and then summarize that the benchamrks you yourself chose to run are meaningless and that the reviewed device is obviously superior to the other devices is amazing. Rings of many ipad reviews.
Hi, first of all let me say that I'm not a benchmark fan boy... but for curiosity I just did it in all my devices (Galaxy Tab 7.7, Transform Ultra Cell phone and Galaxy player 4.0).
I did it using Quadrant Standard and surprisingly the Tab is the only one that doesn't support cube maps and crossbar combiner which I don't have a clue what they are. I'm assuming they are graphics related.
Now... I don't know if that's obsolete and the Tab uses some newer technology?... and that's why it doesn't support those two? (I don't think so)
If anyone has the knowledge about this matter and has the time to drop a line that would be really appreciated!
Thanks in advance!
...Another thing that I noticed in the benchmark (now using AnTuTu Benchmark) is that in the 2D test marks from 149 to 297 in several tests, a lot lower than my cell phone that marks 393!!! WTH???
Dusko75 said:
...Another thing that I noticed in the benchmark (now using AnTuTu Benchmark) is that in the 2D test marks from 149 to 297 in several tests, a lot lower than my cell phone that marks 393!!! WTH???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Higher screen resolution than your phone most likely the culprit for the lower benchmarks. If your phone is 800x480, well, 1280x800 is 2.667 times more pixels to render. Assuming your phone has the same GPU (Mali-400), you're asking the same hardware to do almost 3x the work.
Mmmm I see your point but that can't be the case here. My cell isn't the best out there and has a single core 1Ghz and the tab (7.7) has a 1.4Ghs dual core... Its just faster, dual core and newer...
All that assuming that the actual core is the one processing the video....? And if not... The samsung Transform Ultra just can't compete with a tablet that new and fancy in the market...
Sent from my SPH-M930BST using xda premium
Maybe I'm wrong in what is processing the video but this cell phone just can't be better in any performance...
My cell shows a GPU Qualcom Adreno 205. I'll check tonight what my tab has, don't have it here right now...
Sent from my SPH-M930BST using xda premium
Don't get me wrong, I love this tab but those numbers in the benchmark and the "unsupported" things really surprised me and I just want to find out what's all that about, that's all.
Thanks for your comment.
Sent from my SPH-M930BST using xda premium
Not sure why you're benchmarking so low vs an Adreno 205... The Mali 400 should spank the 205 all kinds of silly.
The number of CPU cores in these kinds of graphical benchmarks isn't as important as the type of GPU being used.
Let's not also forget that benchmarks are almost never a decent indication of how fast the device feels.
---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 PM ----------
Out of curiosity, how does your 7.7 stack up against your cell phone in the 3D test score, not the 2D?
Jade Eyed Wolf said:
Not sure why you're benchmarking so low vs an Adreno 205... The Mali 400 should spank the 205 all kinds of silly.
The number of CPU cores in these kinds of graphical benchmarks isn't as important as the type of GPU being used.
Let's not also forget that benchmarks are almost never a decent indication of how fast the device feels.
---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 PM ----------
Out of curiosity, how does your 7.7 stack up against your cell phone in the 3D test score, not the 2D?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I totally agree with you... and yes the tab has a Mali 400...
(AnTuTu benchmark)
In the 3D marks 1225 and my cellphone 1324
2D (again) Tab: 297 Cell:399
Amazing.... unless the benchmark apps are junk...
The other thing that still concerns me is the unsupported Cube maps and the Crossbar combiner that the Quadrant Standard benchmark app is showing me....
Dusko75 said:
I totally agree with you... and yes the tab has a Mali 400...
(AnTuTu benchmark)
In the 3D marks 1225 and my cellphone 1324
2D (again) Tab: 297 Cell:399
Amazing.... unless the benchmark apps are junk...
The other thing that still concerns me is the unsupported Cube maps and the Crossbar combiner that the Quadrant Standard benchmark app is showing me....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, benchmarks aren't the be-all-end-all indicator of a device's real-world performance. If the device does what you need it to within acceptable and expected ways, then I would just leave it at that and be happy with it!
Hehehe I know, I know... I'm just extremely curious about the whole thing... And as I said I'm not a fan of benchmarking everything... Even if I did it a couple of days ago for curiosity...
Nice talking to you
Sent from my SPH-M930BST using xda premium