I've been reading a lot of discussion on this and would love to hear some opinions and see some benchmarks.
I currently own a Nexus One & where I live they are priced about $150 dollars more for a Nexus than a Galaxy S (It's my understanding Nexus are regarded as cheaper phones in America?) So basically I can sell my 4 month old Nexus One & buy a brand new 16GB Galaxy S for no extra cost. Here is what I am wondering...
I know the Galaxy S has an amazing GPU, it facerolls the Nexus One & even seems to stomp the Droid X with its improved GPU so that is great.
The CPU however seems to under perform in every benchmark I can find versus the Nexus/Droid2 & many more current high end Androids.
I realise these devices are running Android 2.2 with JIT. I've seen Linpacks of 2.2 running Galaxy S devices and JIT enabled ROMs that still don't compare with these other devices.
Question 1
What I'm wondering is the difference we can see in CPU benchmarks going to be surpassed with the addition of a proper 2.2 JIT rom on our devices or is simply that the Snapdragons & other Qualcomm CPU are actually better than our Hummingbird.
Question 2
My Nexus One is Linkpacking 30 MFlops atm, I think with OC etc I can get it higher too. Does anyone have any evidence of a Galaxy S phone (running 2.2, JIT, lagfix or anything) that competes (or even comes close to competing) with this? I have been unable to find anything.
Question 3
Is the current Quadrant scores that I'm seeing people reporting in the Lag Fix threads (2000+) actually representative of speed or are these (as Cyanogen & others seem to be claiming) distorted?
(I realise a lot of people are reporting lag fixed.. what I'm asking is the number represented there (x2 N1 Froyo's score) actually accurate. I don't understand the mechanics behind the I/O benchmark so I don't understand if the lagfix is distoring the reported results from it.)
1. Hummingbird is apparently faster.
2. We don't have JIT yet.. Compare Nexus One 2.1/Eclair with Galaxy S 2.1, and I remember seeing we are faster.. JIT has a massive impact on mflops (because the benchmark uses bytecode, not compiled code).
3. No benchmark is really representative of speeds (no matter what people tell you). Because different apps have different workloads. You might get 50mflops in a CPU test, but for 3D games, the number of triangles matters more. It has recently been shown the I/O test for quadrant can be tricked too.
Benchmarks aren't really comprehensive enough for anything more than getting an idea of the performance.. But don't rely on them.
The reason why we get crappy benchmarks is due to having ****ty filesystem (rfs) which don't let us have multi writes. That's what lag fixes help. Cpu wise we eat snapdragons for breakfast, lunch and tea.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
andrewluecke said:
1. Hummingbird is apparently faster.
2. We don't have JIT yet.. Compare Nexus One 2.1/Eclair with Galaxy S 2.1, and I remember seeing we are faster.. JIT has a massive impact on mflops (because the benchmark uses bytecode, not compiled code).
3. No benchmark is really representative of speeds (no matter what people tell you). Because different apps have different workloads. You might get 50mflops in a CPU test, but for 3D games, the number of triangles matters more. It has recently been shown the I/O test for quadrant can be tricked too.
Benchmarks aren't really comprehensive enough for anything more than getting an idea of the performance.. But don't rely on them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what he said ^^^
regards
ickyboo said:
The reason why we get crappy benchmarks is due to having ****ty filesystem (rfs) which don't let us have multi writes.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source please.. I never have actually seen anyone prove this here, but I hear it being thrown around increasingly. How was this proven? I'm becoming increasingly concerned that this conclusion was made by playing chinese whispers
andrewluecke said:
Source please.. I never have actually seen anyone prove this here, but I hear it being thrown around increasingly. How was this proven? I'm becoming increasingly concerned that this conclusion was made by playing chinese whispers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, if you look at pre-Froyo benchmarks of Snapdragon devices, they generally get around 6.1 in Linpack, vs ~8.4 for a Galaxy S. That's a pretty big delta, and carriers through most other synthetic and real world benchmarks, roughly 20% faster at the same clock speed. Same thing can be seen with the TI processors in the Droid line, at 1Ghz, they score in the 8's with 2.1.
Froyo benchmarks are suspect for a number of reasons, mainly because most of the benchmarks were designed with 1.6-2.1 in mind, and partly because Google spent a lot of time optimizing the base Froyo build for a Snapdragon processor. HTC, Sony, Dell, etc can piggyback off this work with their version, whereas Samsung and Motorola have to start much closer to scratch. Which is also why the HTC devices got Froyo sooner.
Believe it or not (and despite the marketing hype) the Snapdragon chipset is a budget solution, with less complex/expensive memory subsystem, and a far less costly integrated graphics solution than what is found on the Galaxy S.
It's cheap to produce, it has almost everything in a nice tidy package that makes it cheaper to engineer handsets (when I say everything, I mean CPU/GPU/Radio/WiFi/GPS/USB).
It's a pretty good package for companies like HTC, who don't do any real hardware engineering, and try to keep costs low. They do software (very very well, I should add), industrial design, and mass manufacturing, but they've NEVER designed a chipset (or display), they always source those from a third party, in this case Qualcom for the chipset, Samsung/Sony for the displays, etc.
However, they were the first to market with 1Ghz speed and it's a solid and stable hardware setup. Just keep in mind that clock speeds don't tell the whole tale.
The Galaxy S, (and to a lesser extent the Droid series) use a better stand-alone CPU solution and a far superior non-integrated (has its own chip) GPU. Samsung does do their own in-house chipset engineering, and they didn't cut corners on the CPU design, and they learned a lot about how to squeeze a lot of performance out of the ARM instruction set from their own products and the work they did for the iPhone processors. In brute-force, they smack the Snapdragon chipset around like a *****, but they get slapped around in turn by HTC's superior software engineering.
HTC has a real advantage in lots and lots of PDA/Smartphone software experience. They know how to make the most of the hardware they purchase, and seem to spend a great deal of time optimizing the software, be it Windows Mobile or Android, and lessons learned from a decade of making PDAs, under their name and for others.
If HTC used a Hummingbird or TI OMAP chipset with PowerVR GPU, I have no doubt they'd be able to more quickly wring more performance and stability out of it than Samsung or Motorola can.
Croak said:
Well, if you look at pre-Froyo benchmarks of Snapdragon devices, they generally get around 6.1 in Linpack, vs ~8.4 for a Galaxy S. That's a pretty big delta, and carriers through most other synthetic and real world benchmarks, roughly 20% faster at the same clock speed. Same thing can be seen with the TI processors in the Droid line, at 1Ghz, they score in the 8's with 2.1.
Froyo benchmarks are suspect for a number of reasons, mainly because most of the benchmarks were designed with 1.6-2.1 in mind, and partly because Google spent a lot of time optimizing the base Froyo build for a Snapdragon processor. HTC, Sony, Dell, etc can piggyback off this work with their version, whereas Samsung and Motorola have to start much closer to scratch. Which is also why the HTC devices got Froyo sooner.
Believe it or not (and despite the marketing hype) the Snapdragon chipset is a budget solution, with less complex/expensive memory subsystem, and a far less costly integrated graphics solution than what is found on the Galaxy S.
It's cheap to produce, it has almost everything in a nice tidy package that makes it cheaper to engineer handsets (when I say everything, I mean CPU/GPU/Radio/WiFi/GPS/USB).
It's a pretty good package for companies like HTC, who don't do any real hardware engineering, and try to keep costs low. They do software (very very well, I should add), industrial design, and mass manufacturing, but they've NEVER designed a chipset (or display), they always source those from a third party, in this case Qualcom for the chipset, Samsung/Sony for the displays, etc.
However, they were the first to market with 1Ghz speed and it's a solid and stable hardware setup. Just keep in mind that clock speeds don't tell the whole tale.
The Galaxy S, (and to a lesser extent the Droid series) use a better stand-alone CPU solution and a far superior non-integrated (has its own chip) GPU. Samsung does do their own in-house chipset engineering, and they didn't cut corners on the CPU design, and they learned a lot about how to squeeze a lot of performance out of the ARM instruction set from their own products and the work they did for the iPhone processors. In brute-force, they smack the Snapdragon chipset around like a *****, but they get slapped around in turn by HTC's superior software engineering.
HTC has a real advantage in lots and lots of PDA/Smartphone software experience. They know how to make the most of the hardware they purchase, and seem to spend a great deal of time optimizing the software, be it Windows Mobile or Android, and lessons learned from a decade of making PDAs, under their name and for others.
If HTC used a Hummingbird or TI OMAP chipset with PowerVR GPU, I have no doubt they'd be able to more quickly wring more performance and stability out of it than Samsung or Motorola can.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, that was a really insightful post.
So basically even though our processor should outperform or ATLEAST match the snapdragons. Due to the mass optimization of 2.2 JIT for Snapdragon devices it's likely we'll never see the same performance. Unless Samsung gets really keen to do some optimization themselves.
I searched all over the internet to see why the CPU scores in Quadrant and other benchmarks are waaaay lower then the Nexus ones, but still I can't find anything.
Does Samsung disable the JIT in their Froyo ROMs? Because both Snapdragon and Hummingbird are still based on the same Cortex A8 cores
"It's clear that FroYo's JIT compiler currently only delivers significant performance gains for Snapdragon CPUs with the Scorpion core. This in turn explains why, so far, only a beta version of Android 2.2 is available for the Cortex-A8-based Samsung Galaxy S — the JIT compiler is the outstanding feature of FroYo. For the widespread Cortex-A8 cores, used in many high-end Android smartphones, the JIT compiler needs to be optimised. A Cortex-A8 core will still be slower than a Scorpion core at the same clock speed, but the Scorpion's advantage may not be as much 260 percent."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://androidforums.com/samsung-ca...ant-scores-why-humming-bird-doing-so-bad.html
There are multiple reasons, not optimised jit, slow memory for caching and more. Most of them are solved in the CM roms (it performs on par with the N1), and i can tell you that when Gingerbread comes it will blow the snapdragons away.
Which custom ROM provides CPU performance close to Snapdragon?
[ignore this post please]
Still the 1Ghz humming bird out performs the 1Ghz snap in real world performance
Even the LG Optimus One ARM11 600MHz Core scores better than Galaxy S. I still believe it's a software problem.
http://lgoptimusonep500.blogspot.com/2011/01/custom-rom-for-lg-optimus-one-p500.html#more
Another benchmark:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4126/nokia-http://www.anandtech.com/show/4126/nokia-n8-review-/7
...where the Nexus S proves that the Hummingbird can do more than it currrently does in Galaxy S.
I had a Samsung Moment and most of the rom descriptions included the Mflop scores. I sold it and got a Hero and I've noticed pretty much no one lists or talks about Mflop scores? Is there a reason for this, is it not important since the Hero is so slow anyways?
The fastest score I've seen was with the new AospMod rom 5.6. Do any of the 2.1 roms compare?
reckoner13 said:
I had a Samsung Moment and most of the rom descriptions included the Mflop scores. I sold it and got a Hero and I've noticed pretty much no one lists or talks about Mflop scores? Is there a reason for this, is it not important since the Hero is so slow anyways?
The fastest score I've seen was with the new AospMod rom 5.6. Do any of the 2.1 roms compare?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it's because no one here really cares about it. Mostly because it doesn't matter. Most of us on the hero boards are more concerned with important stuff like stability, and coming from a moment and calling the hero slow is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. ;-)
reckoner13 said:
I had a Samsung Moment and most of the rom descriptions included the Mflop scores. I sold it and got a Hero and I've noticed pretty much no one lists or talks about Mflop scores? Is there a reason for this, is it not important since the Hero is so slow anyways?
The fastest score I've seen was with the new AospMod rom 5.6. Do any of the 2.1 roms compare?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MFlops is an arbitrary cpu scoring system much like Bogomips for Linux and you see it posted on almost every roms OP. The problem is that its affected by tons of stuff and just because aospbot posts a 5.6 doesn't mean thats what you'll get, you might be running a ton of widgets and facebook sync and other stuff.
CM6 also got a 5.6 or so and I've seen 2.1 sense rom also post a high scores like this. You should use it yourself and determine what is a good score on your phone under normal conditions and then use that as a bases for scoring other roms on YOUR phone.
Mflops are usually calculated by how many Floating Point operations it can calculate per second (usually pi to some exponent), while Mips is how many Fixed point operations it can calculate a second.
So pretty much ignore it unless your running it on your phone.
user7618 said:
I think it's because no one here really cares about it. Mostly because it doesn't matter. Most of us on the hero boards are more concerned with important stuff like stability, and coming from a moment and calling the hero slow is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. ;-)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Come on the moment has an 800mhz processor that can be overclocked and the same amount of RAM as the Hero (288). It's faster, but that doesn't mean it's better. I prefer the Hero.
reckoner13 said:
I had a Samsung Moment and most of the rom descriptions included the Mflop scores. I sold it and got a Hero and I've noticed pretty much no one lists or talks about Mflop scores? Is there a reason for this, is it not important since the Hero is so slow anyways?
The fastest score I've seen was with the new AospMod rom 5.6. Do any of the 2.1 roms compare?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mflops is still used, but it is no longer a primary measure of a phone's capabilities. Most people use Quadrant to determine a phone's performance, as that incorporates 2D and 3D graphic performance in addition to calculations. But I've heard people use BenchmarkPi, CPU Benchmark, etc. It all is really quite irrelevant if your phone is fast enough and performs well enough for you; posting scores of any type is really just a digital pissing contest.
Before you make comments I already searches.
Ok...so the other night I'm all bragging about my phone with some friends and had the idea that we should all run benchmarks to see who came up with the best score.
An EVO 4G running cyanogen, Nexus One on 2.2, and a stock T-Mobile G2 all scored in the 30s. My Captivate on Phoenix 2.5 scored 14...wtf? Why are our scores so low?
Posted from a phone
nooomoto said:
Before you make comments I already searches.
Ok...so the other night I'm all bragging about my phone with some friends and had the idea that we should all run benchmarks to see who came up with the best score.
An EVO 4G running cyanogen, Nexus One on 2.2, and a stock T-Mobile G2 all scored in the 30s. My Captivate on Phoenix 2.5 scored 14...wtf? Why are our scores so low?
Posted from a phone
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
These benchmark tools are not optimized for our chipset. The score in the end doesn't matter except for each person to see if they have any increases. When comparing with other phones the true test would be speed of the phone which you would probably see the Captivate would perform very well.
Agreed about benchmarking...but if you need to feel better about it test them with neocore or nenamark, the graphics cripple the evo.
I have had both phones and gps aside, the sgs is far better imo.
Linpack performs better on Scorpion CPU's (Snapdragon) due to full JIT optimization. It is not a measure of actual performance.
Tell your friends exactly what GGX said, word for word.
Then have them test just as newter said.
Then tell them to shut up.
Sent from under your bed.
Will do. Thanks guys.
Posted from a phone
Now that we have a couple rom choices...I thought I would start a thread about raw speed.
I'M running the 0.6.8 1100 rom
with the update
Emmc
Quadrant scores...1567, 1792, 1963, 1983
I never thought we would see 1900's from this device.
This sucker flies.....I'm loving my NC again
sudermatt said:
Now that we have a couple rom choices...I thought I would start a thread about raw speed.
I'M running the 0.6.8 1100 rom
with the update
Emmc
Quadrant scores...1567, 1792, 1963, 1983
I never thought we would see 1900's from this device.
This sucker flies.....I'm loving my NC again
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant score doesn't mean much. Compare real world usage and you'll see that stock rooted performs much better than 0.6.8 at this time. It's especially evident when scrolling through rich websites which will stutter badly on 0.6.8. The same sites are smooth on stock. Eventually froyo will get there, but not yet.
Quadrant is meaningless for comparing one device to another, across different Android Builds. It is somewhat meaningful as a gauge on the same device for comparing between builds, in the same sense that you can gauge a car's speed by knowing it's horsepower - more is better.
That said, CyanogenMod-7.0.0-RC1-encore-KANG, which is currently running on my nook, errors out on Quadrant. General usability is on par with my G2, so take from that what you will.
nswenson said:
Quadrant score doesn't mean much. Compare real world usage and you'll see that stock rooted performs much better than 0.6.8 at this time. It's especially evident when scrolling through rich websites which will stutter badly on 0.6.8. The same sites are smooth on stock. Eventually froyo will get there, but not yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this is true, even though i love honeycomb as much as i do the best rom to run is stock
@OP
im running honeycomb and i am getting about 1600's-1700's when i run but as nswenson said quadrant scores dont matter to much
Hi, i went down quite a lot of pages and did not find any antutu score tests on galaxy s.
I was just wondering whats the best ones in what rom's and what kernels. I tried to google i9000 antutu best scores but seems there was not really that many hits and best scores i found was like 4k what sound quite a lot but not sure how legit those are when there was no pics.
I mean my friend got a galaxy note and it get a bit over 7k point and then reading more the damn old sucker galaxy s2 best with pic proof is like 8k.
Was just wondering how my fine old faithful galaxy s can do. I got a decent gingerbread rom and i get a bit over 3k without OC. Can't remember how much more i got with ICS OC'd to 1,4ghz. it was over 3k too tough but not remembering how much above.
Would be nice if you can post your roms that score over 3k and what roms + kernels you are using and how much OC you done. I mean the i9000 is not the fastest phone by far at this point but would be intressed to see if people got how high antutu scores.
Nowadays benchmark doesnt mean anything. There's many ways to cheat, and even if those score were honest it doesn't matter much. What does matter is real life performance
Oh antutu score can be fixed too these days? I mean i now the quadrant score has been always a bit question mark and i heard lots of cheating in it. Well i was just wondering the honest score. I'm trying to find a decent fast rom and the better score in benchmarks the less processor power it uses on stuff and that means a bit better battery life too.. well not always.
I'm just trying to get all out of my sgs before sgs3 comes out.. i must say i just love t his phone.. when i had a fast rom where it worked stable at 1.4ghz it was as fast as iphone 4s in same internet pages on stock browser.
But if people could post the LEGIT non cheated scores it would be better than the cheating ones lol
an0nym0us_ said:
Nowadays benchmark doesnt mean anything. There's many ways to cheat, and even if those score were honest it doesn't matter much. What does matter is real life performance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1. SGS with Froyo and EXT2 lagfix got a much higher score in Quadrant, but with ICS the experience is much better.
So the real question is what ROMs have given the best real life performance for you?
For me, it's 3827( on Antutu ) ;D with TiramiSlim RC2.0