Hi,
I own the ASUS Transformer PAD TF300 and I find it very slow with applications force closing all the time, especially when downloading or updating apps from the play store.
I did a little research online and it seems that this is a problem with the hardware and more specific the Tegra3 CPU.
Since Nexus 7 has the same CPU, did anyone notice anything like this?
Nope, Nexus 7 seems to be the best performing tegra3 device to date. everything is superfast. nexus 7 also has ddr3 RAM, like in 300, but the one in Nexus 7 is a much faster version. likely the same exact one/speed used in the new infinity pad. or slightly slower than it. But I haven't experienced any performance issues. this device has exceeded all my expectations. you know how prime, 300, and other tegra3 devices like to crash while doing intense gaming, well nexus 7 handles it with ease. I have dead trigger, sonic episode 2 THD, & Nova3 installed on my nexus 7.the device plays all of them flawlessly without crashing.
The tegra3, plus this faster ddr3 ram, & jelly bean 4.1.1 equates to an excellent performing device. even beating out higher priced/higher spec/higher clocked devices. Oh and the nexus 7 installs apps from playstore very fast and I don't experience any lag while doing other things while that process is going on.
Google/Asus really did well on Nexus 7. you will not be disappointed on the performance side of things. battery life and the display is great also. Highly recommend getting this device ASAP.
Its all about the butter.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
Gracias
I Love Carmen De Mairena
My nexus 7 seems to not be performing very well, I am having lots of problems
Sent from my Lumia 900 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
Looks like the Asus MemoPad Smart 10 fixes the crappy NAND issues.
http://cdn.androidpolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/nexusae0_Screenshot_2013-03-04-15-57-55.jpg
Of course, the real issue with all ASUS tablets up to this point has been the storage read/write speed. Everything may seem to be fine, but when it comes to any write-intensive task – like installing apps, for example – the device slows to a crawl. While I haven't experienced that issue on the MeMO in the same magnitude that I have with other ASUS tablets (most Androbench scores nearly doubled that of the TF300), there was a hint of slowdown while updating apps. It's hard to say whether or not that issue will worsen with time, but it's definitely something to consider.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source (Android Police)
And there's storage speed, the bane of Asus' existence. Asus Transformer Android tablets have notoriously slow internal storage. We'd hoped that Asus had improved this, since they generally respond quickly to customer feedback. The good news is that its internal storage is twice as fast as the Asus Transformer Pad TF300. The bad news is that the MeMO Pad Smart 10 benchmarks at less than half the speed of the competing Google Nexus 10 in the AndroBench benchmark that measures storage performance. We no longer see the "wait or force close" dialogs as we did with prior Asus Transformer tablets, but apps like Real Racing 3 that load a significant amount of data from internal storage do take noticeably longer to load when compared to the speedy Nexus 10.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
(Source - MobileTechReview)
Heya folks....i read from many sources on the web saying that internal memory on android device will give better performance versus the external one. Some say that even the best class 10 micro sd will perform not as good as built in memory especially when loading HD games.
So I'm planning to buy android phone which has large built in memory, in this case i pick sony xperia TX, but now sony has launched a new device which is xperia SP. It has the qualcomm S4 pro and adreno 320 which is better compared to TX's S4 plus and adreno 225. But the problem is it has a small ammount of built in memory (about 5gb user available). Which one should i take?
Xperia TX!
recca666 said:
Heya folks....i read from many sources on the web saying that internal memory on android device will give better performance versus the external one. Some say that even the best class 10 micro sd will perform not as good as built in memory especially when loading HD games.
So I'm planning to buy android phone which has large built in memory, in this case i pick sony xperia TX, but now sony has launched a new device which is xperia SP. It has the qualcomm S4 pro and adreno 320 which is better compared to TX's S4 plus and adreno 225. But the problem is it has a small ammount of built in memory (about 5gb user available). Which one should i take?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In my view you should take the Xperia TX with the higher amount of builtin memory.
I'm shure that you won't need a high-end processor for your daily usage. It has also enough power for the most games available in google play.
And I can say that you don't hav a much fun if the internal memory is to low, especially if you're planning to play hd-games wich will probably need about one or two gig of memory
So in my view you really don't need the SXSp...
I hope this helpes you a bit,
icebeanpie
And sorry for my bad english - I'm from germany
You could also just get a HTC One or a Samsung GS4 wich hav both, big storage and a nice processor...
Bigger internal memory ruless...
I usually put huge data game on internal memory, it reduce lag n rendering time (trust me, I done compared it)... But I still have 32gb class 10sdcard to keep media like video,music n stored picture..
It suck to have generated 10 post just to tell how happy n thankfull iam for using a rom they make.
Sent from my LT26w using xda premium
Hello my Nephew received a Tab 4 7.0 as a gift and I'm just curious if there's any tricks for squeezing more performance out of it, Most of the games he plays run decent but a few run pretty choppy, in comparison these games run noticeably smoother on my 1st gen Moto G phone (Plants vs Zombies 2 & Minecraft).
I ran the 3dmark benchmark on both devices to get some numbers for comparison: http://i.imgur.com/QWRnclj.jpg & http://i.imgur.com/LZUGmn8.jpg
I know the Moto G isn't a "top performer" anymore these days either so I was surprised with the mediocre performance of this Samsung tablet.
Personally I would've went with a Nexus 7 just trying to get the most performance out of this Tab 4, If possible.
Thanks.
turn on developer options then turn off window animations. Also, check your power saving options.
Thanks we ended up ordering a 32GB Nexus 7 2013 and will be selling the Samsung, the Tab 4 7.0 is just to weak for today's games, at least the Tab 4 8.0 and 10.0 models use a more respectable Adreno GPU. (vs. the no name Vivante GPU in the 7.0).
mathesar said:
Thanks we ended up ordering a 32GB Nexus 7 2013 and will be selling the Samsung, the Tab 4 7.0 is just to weak for today's games, at least the Tab 4 8.0 and 10.0 models use a more respectable Adreno GPU. (vs. the no name Vivante GPU in the 7.0).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Going with Nexus. Always a Good Idea. The Marvell SoC with the Vivante GPU dishes out mediocre performance at best - Utterly useless for gaming but decent enough for web browsing and media consumption.
Best of Luck.
Received the Nexus 7 yesterday and Wow what a difference, everything not only runs much better but it loads all apps noticeably faster, especially the larger games such as Real Racing 3.
Overall just a very snappy / responsive device.
Ran 3dmark on both: http://i.imgur.com/rhUaf9J.jpg
Hi all, so I've purchased the Nvidia Shield Pro (500GB) model the other day and noticed the device made some slight disk spinning noise, only to realize that this console comes with an HDD rather than flash memory. I also noticed that even thought this device is still running lollipop, I'm still able to utilize any one of the external ports as the default memory.
This question is mainly for those of you who had the opportunity to try both models. I'm not a fan of HDDs much, but the voluminous internal storage is convenient in a way, although I could easily do without it, if the 16gb is the more stable model. From my experience NAND flash based devices seem to run fast, but are they noticeably faster than their hybrid HDD counterparts? Is there any difference in speed and performance between the 16gb and the 500gb Shield TV devices? I'm asking because I noticed the Shield controller's home and back buttons don't always respond, and my device is running build v2.1 which supposedly fixed any known controller bugs. I'm tempted to return the 500gb and grab a 16gb just for the sole fact that the Pro model runs on dated hard disk technology, not to mention the faulty HDD units in some of these models. Let's hear some opinions on this, I've not found any comparison on these from a performance perspective. Every comparison I found so far brags about how advantageous 500gb is over 16gb, but no one seems to compare their performance side by side. So if you've tried out both variants, do you find the standard 16gb edition to process data quicker than the Pro model, and are you experiencing any unresponsiveness with the back and home buttons on shield's controller?
***edit***
Just ordered a 16gb Shield TV Console from GameStop. Since no one's chiming in on the topic, I'll have both versions in a few days and will post my findings after testing them side by side.
I did a little research and from what I understand the only real difference between them is the internal storage. Performance speeds are the same and it support external hard drives and SD cards. I know music, pictures, games, ect. can be stored on the SD card but can apps be stored to or is a root required. Either way I plan on getting the 16GB version and using this 128GB SD I have and rooting it and seeing how it goes. If it's what I think it's like, then this may be one of the greatest things to run the Android OS.
Hello some news ?
To me I went for 16gb version as it would be flash memory so much quicker and no mechanical drives which equal less heat and less fan spooling.
Also the fact that they recalled the 500gb version and we're withdrawn from nvidia site.
Let us know your findings.
TalkDubby2Me said:
I did a little research and from what I understand the only real difference between them is the internal storage. Performance speeds are the same and it support external hard drives and SD cards. I know music, pictures, games, ect. can be stored on the SD card but can apps be stored to or is a root required. Either way I plan on getting the 16GB version and using this 128GB SD I have and rooting it and seeing how it goes. If it's what I think it's like, then this may be one of the greatest things to run the Android OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apps can be stored on the SD card without root access. Keep in mind that the developer of the app must allow for this so there a few apps out there that will only install on internal storage, though I have yet to come across one.
Hey everyone, sorry it took me a month to post back, now that I've owned a 500gb for two weeks and a 16gb for a month, I've noticed a few slight differences. The 500gb was a tiny bit noisier as it utilizes an HDD alongside a nandflash for its internal storage. The HDD disk spins even while the device is in sleep mode, which is normal behavior with HDDs from what I gather. I'm just not a fan of having more moving parts in a device than necessary. Also, software updates and initial installation takes much longer on the 500gb model, probably due to slower write speeds on HDD. WiFi disconnecting bug after waking up from sleep mode on lollipop 5.1.1 seemed more persistent on the 500gb model as well. The only other difference I noticed was with fluidity, the 16gb doesn't seem to have much hiccups/stutters, where as on the 500gb (maybe mine was one of the defective units) it wouldn't respond right away after returning to home screen or in some apps the back and home buttons wouldn't register on first press more often then not (dolphin emulator being one of them). Once I set up the 16gb model, I haven't experienced any such issues, the back and home functions work every time in any app perfectly fine.
From what I can tell, the 500gb model was somewhat of a last minute decision as it feels less refined than the 16gb model. It's also not as great for modding as there seems to be less dev support for it. 500gb model may be a good choice for someone not looking to tweak this device, but rather for simple plug and play without much thinking involved. For all the mods and tweaks, custom ROMs, the 16gb seems to be the more popular choice. It's also the more refined and tested variant in my opinion.
Syndrome666 said:
Hey everyone, sorry it took me a month to post back, now that I've owned a 500gb for two weeks and a 16gb for a month, I've noticed a few slight differences. The 500gb was a tiny bit noisier as it utilizes an HDD alongside a nandflash for its internal storage. The HDD disk spins even while the device is in sleep mode, which is normal behavior with HDDs from what I gather. I'm just not a fan of having more moving parts in a device than necessary. Also, software updates and initial installation takes much longer on the 500gb model, probably due to slower write speeds on HDD. WiFi disconnecting bug after waking up from sleep mode on lollipop 5.1.1 seemed more persistent on the 500gb model as well. The only other difference I noticed was with fluidity, the 16gb doesn't seem to have much hiccups/stutters, where as on the 500gb (maybe mine was one of the defective units) it wouldn't respond right away after returning to home screen or in some apps the back and home buttons wouldn't register on first press more often then not (dolphin emulator being one of them). Once I set up the 16gb model, I haven't experienced any such issues, the back and home functions work every time in any app perfectly fine.
From what I can tell, the 500gb model was somewhat of a last minute decision as it feels less refined than the 16gb model. It's also not as great for modding as there seems to be less dev support for it. 500gb model may be a good choice for someone not looking to tweak this device, but rather for simple plug and play without much thinking involved. For all the mods and tweaks, custom ROMs, the 16gb seems to be the more popular choice. It's also the more refined and tested variant in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I am kinda thinking I would've been better off grabbing the 16 gig model and adding a 128GB sd card. Does anyone know what kind of HD they use on it?
I bought both - one for general living room tv use (16gb) and the 500gb for myself to put in my man cave and play games on. I couldn't wait to set the 500gb up for myself as I had already got the living room one working and I was absolutely gob smacked at what it could do - however - upon setting it up and filling it full of emulation stuff, I found it to be really disappointing. HOWEVER, upon further investigation, I discovered that if you have an external HD attatched to it - in my case a USB 3 2tb one - it dragged like hell, probably due to the fact that the HD is full of emulation artwork etc. Unplugging it seemed to solve the problem and now i'm back up to full speed (more or less) again.
Anyone else think its strange that Nvidia chose to go with completely different designs for both types? Surely it would have been easier, and more cost effective, to just leave the hdd port unoccupied on the 16gb version, so a hdd/ssd could be added at a later date. And £70 just for a 500gb hybrid drive? It certainly seems a bit on the steep side.
I would like to know how much of a difference a SSD would bring to the Pro version compared to the SSHD it has inside, if it's worth it when using it for Plex only
The SATV and the SATV Pro boards are the same with the Pro version having connectors added for the SSHD. The SSHD can be replaced with an SSD, but in my experiences I do not recommend the swap. The SSHD draws .74ma and a 500GB Samsung evo SSD draws 1.5A. I noticed strange behavior of the USB ports (perhaps from current starvation). I guess if one wanted to dive into the power circuit to see if the balance of the components would handle replacing the voltage regulator with a high output current replacement, then with a beefer regulator I would be on board with the ssd swap.
If you are after what the box is meant for the buy a SATV. If you are after dev, then buy a SATV PRO.
The SSHD can be added to the SATV buy soldering on a SATA connector and modifying the device tree....
From what I've read, the Pro model just isn't worth it. Everything runs off the hard drive, including the system ROM, so it is definitely slower. For the $100 difference you could buy a 2 TB external HDD instead and still keep your apps on the internal flash.
Mogster2K said:
From what I've read, the Pro model just isn't worth it. Everything runs off the hard drive, including the system ROM, so it is definitely slower. For the $100 difference you could buy a 2 TB external HDD instead and still keep your apps on the internal flash.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With Plex Server, is the 16GB version still worth it? I indirectly heard that the Plex Server quickly fills up the 16GB data of onboard memory, and cannot be used on an external USB 3.0 drive. Is this correct?
Can we also plug in a USB 3.0 SSD drive to the Shield, and have the system ROM and all apps run from the USB 3.0 SSD drive, leaving the 16GB onboard memory empty? If the answer is yes, then it's a nobrainer to use a regular Shield rather than a Shield Pro.
I can't answer the first question (I run Plex on a PC, not the Shield) but for the second: there is a method but it's a little tricky. I'm using it now with an old SSD.
http://www.videomap.it/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1580&start=410#p3628
Be sure to format the SSD on your PC and not the Shield or it won't work.