Database Develop

Is the captivate as awesome as it appears in quadrant after the lag fix?

I have the captivate with bloatware removed, unhelpful's overclock kernel, and the lag fix, I get quadrant scores as high as 2505. I was wondering if the phone its just that awesome or if there were similar mods to snapdragon phones that give them similar performance. i know they can be overclocked.
I guess what I'm getting at is that my phone would hang on the file system tests in quadrant until the lag fix where the score nearly tripled! Is this something unique to the galaxy s do to a flaw or are there similar problems on other phones that could be fixed and yield similar performance to my phone? Or is the galaxy s cpu, gpu and ram and other components just that much better?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897

My $0.02 says the galaxy s as a processing unit is slightly better than the older snapdragon. Better optimised, newer (45nm > 60nm) etc. There could very well be processing issues on other chips too. We wont know until someone finds them. Bear in mind however, the Snapdragon chips are likely to be much better optimised for android operating systems - as android is developed on that reference hardware - e.g. nexus one uses a quallcomm snapdragon and gets a massive jump with JIT, froyo. However, droid X, Droid 2 with froyo dont see nearly as high increases in performance.
The GPU is known to be significantly better on the Galaxy S phones. However, its only a matter of time before the next gen snapdragons take the lead again (or at least play catch up)....and somehow I wont be surprised if the subsequent Galaxy S 2 devices retake the lead

Pretty much what I was thinking, from what I understand the snapdragon has up to 20% greater throughput than a standard arm v7 processor but the hummingbird needs 15-25% fewer instructions to do the same task. I wish I could remember the reference for that. In other words, snapdragon works harder and hummingbird works smarter.
I knew as far a shear performance it would come down to the gpu but didn't know any details on that.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897

The issue that slows the Galaxy models is Samsung's proprietary file system. The lagfix improves performance by wedging in between the filesystem and providing a buffer built with a modern filesystem.

The massive score increase in Quadrant is due to the file IO being MUCH MUCH faster when the lag fix is applied. If you were to look at the professional version of Quadrant (which breaks down the scores into their categories) the File I/O portion would be in the mid to high 6000's, which really unbalances the score..

[Q] Galaxy S and HTC Desire HD Linpack

Even though the HTC desire HD and Galaxy s have the processor with 1Ghz clock speed their linpack scores vary. SGS has about 12-14 and HTC Desire HD has 35-38. Also the same case with Nexus One. Can someone help me with this dilema?

vivekrk44 said:
Even though the HTC desire HD and Galaxy s have the processor with 1Ghz clock speed their linpack scores vary. SGS has about 12-14 and HTC Desire HD has 35-38. Also the same case with Nexus One. Can someone help me with this dilema?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Simple. Linpack is optimised for snapdragon processors. I'm sure if you searched you could have solved this by yourself.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

And it's a synthetic benchmark anyway. Benchmarks are only useful if you know what exactly they are testing, they produce verbose outputs and if they test similar workloads to what you normally perform. Linpack is only somewhat useful if you only care about the speed floating point operations.
By the way, please stop saying it's optimised for snapdragon! To the best of what I've heard, that isn't the case. Snapdragons simply handle floating points better apparently. So yes, it might run better on snapdragon, but the developer probably didn't shift through the Dalvik code finding ways to speed it up on snapdragon.
We still don't really have enough information to understand if Snapdragon or hummingbird are faster in most applications, because we don't have an application similar to PCmark

Auzy said:
We still don't really have enough information to understand if Snapdragon or hummingbird are faster in most applications, because we don't have an application similar to PCmark
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know for a fact that in the "real world" the Desire HD $hits all over the SGS... I have both devices, and its very clear that the lag kills the SGS experience.
Its also worth noting, the Desire HD has the more optimised rev II Snapdragon processor. Clock for clock vs original Snapdragon, rev II is about 25% quicker...
PS - It is a shame tho, the Desire HD does not have native DIVX player support. You have to download Rockplayer for $10 to get that..

cheetah2k said:
I know for a fact that in the "real world" the Desire HD $hits all over the SGS... I have both devices, and its very clear that the lag kills the SGS experience.:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The lag is caused by the internal memory and file system though, not the Hummingbird.

cheetah2k said:
You have to download Rockplayer for $10 to get that..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
eum. Rockplayer is free.

cheetah2k said:
I know for a fact that in the "real world" the Desire HD $hits all over the SGS... I have both devices, and its very clear that the lag kills the SGS experience.
Its also worth noting, the Desire HD has the more optimised rev II Snapdragon processor. Clock for clock vs original Snapdragon, rev II is about 25% quicker...
PS - It is a shame tho, the Desire HD does not have native DIVX player support. You have to download Rockplayer for $10 to get that..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How does the desire HD handle 3D games? When i went to the HTC event in London, it wasnt really very impressive when it came to the 3D games, the SGS was clearly superior thanks to its PowerVR 540 GPU.

cheetah2k said:
I know for a fact that in the "real world" the Desire HD $hits all over the SGS... I have both devices, and its very clear that the lag kills the SGS experience.
Its also worth noting, the Desire HD has the more optimised rev II Snapdragon processor. Clock for clock vs original Snapdragon, rev II is about 25% quicker...
PS - It is a shame tho, the Desire HD does not have native DIVX player support. You have to download Rockplayer for $10 to get that..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For starters, the question was based on linpack, but you are comparing the overall device. The software has already been shown to have a large impact on the devices. Furthermore, it's running bytecode, so it depends on the dalvik implementation.Your "facts" are actually non-conclusive, and seem to be based on observations.
Secondly, 25% faster isn't enough info when you don't know how hummingbird is in comparison. And even that is total crock, because 25% under which workload? It's like saying that a mechanical harddisk is half as fast as an SSD. However, under which conditions? We KNOW that mechanical HDD's operate horribly with random access. Well, what conditions have been improved on the scorpion CPU?
The harsh reality is, we don't know how exactly they compare, and benchmarks like Linpack or Quadrant only provide a tiny picture. It's more important to identify what kind of operations you need, and test those operations specifically. What we should ask is why you care about linpack?
I'm interested in finding out how the CPU's perform exactly though honestly (even against snapdragon).

What I've seen on quadrant is that it tests all aspects of a cpu. Arithmetic of int, short, long, xml parsing, audio and video decoding and the nexus one still has a better score only in cpu. Nexus one has about 4500 and my sgs has a max of 1992. Dosent this provide the big picture?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

get CyanogenMod in SGS and try again

vivekrk44 said:
What I've seen on quadrant is that it tests all aspects of a cpu. Arithmetic of int, short, long, xml parsing, audio and video decoding and the nexus one still has a better score only in cpu. Nexus one has about 4500 and my sgs has a max of 1992. Dosent this provide the big picture?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The big picture of what exactly? That quadrant doesn't give accurate results when comparing phones? This thread is a waste of time

There's been a topic about this before. To get a proper comparison of actual MFLOPS performance of both devices, we'd need to make a comparison that is not hampered by different versions of Android software, different Linux kernels or different levels of JIT optimization.
To properly compare them, you could load Ubuntu (same version) on both devices, and have them run a properly optimized version of native UNIX Linpack. That'd actually be testing the hardware capabilities. Native UNIX Linpack runs 62+ on the iPad's 1 GHz Apple A4 (of which the execution core is said to be identical to the Hummingbird) which is over four times as much as we're getting on Android Linpack on the Hummingbird.
I'd be happy to volunteer my Galaxy S, but we'd need someone with a Snapdragon phone to do the same.

vivekrk44 said:
What I've seen on quadrant is that it tests all aspects of a cpu. Arithmetic of int, short, long, xml parsing, audio and video decoding and the nexus one still has a better score only in cpu. Nexus one has about 4500 and my sgs has a max of 1992. Dosent this provide the big picture?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope.. Because as mentioned, it still goes through the VM, and you are looking at a weighted score or does it show every component individually? Also, when you say "all aspects of the CPU", how do you know it's all aspects. The fact you mention XML parsing as a proper test is silly, because it's basic string operations (array of numbers generally).
You also forget that Android is a timesharing OS, so background processes can have an effect. When I say the overall view, I mean a total breakdown of the CPU, cache, average cycles taken for specific instructions, etc.
You can't test the CPU with Dalvik, or even the NDK. And in the case of Linpack as mentioned, it's a very specific workload. There might be CPU specific workloads which hummingbird performs significantly faster than the other processors (we don't know). All that should matter to you, is how well your apps run.

As all the smart people have said, don't trust benchmarks and also Froyo's JIT compiler isn't yet optimized for hummingbird, That will change once google plays around with the nexus s.

[Q] READ! Low FPS in Quadrant? Poor drivers the cause?

Let me start off by saying that I know that all benchmarks should be taken with a grain of salt, and that Quadrant is a poor and outdated benchmark. But, that does not matter. I'm sure we've all ran at least one Quadrant before. Well, there is an issue with the planets test. The D3 only gets 12fps on it, and there is artifacting throughout the test.
It has been this way for every OMAP based Moto phone. The OG Droid, Droid 2, Droid 2 Global, Droid X, and so on. They ALL run the planets test at 12fps with the same exact artifacts. No matter the GPU or clock speed. I feel like I'm the only one who has noticed this. Go and perform a Quadrant on your D3 and observe the planet test. If you have any other phones, benchmark them too. Compare a D3, D2, and Inc.
The OMAP 4430 has the PowerVR SGX 540 gpu. This was the GPU in the previous gen Hummingbird. On the planets test, it would constantly be at the framerate cap of 56 with no artifacts. The Droid Incredible, even with the pathetic Adreno 200 GPU, would run the planets test well above 30fps. It is not an intense graphics test and nearly any mobile GPU can run it above 30fps.
The only Moto phones that run the planet test without issue are those with the Tegra 2. Keep in mind that Tegra 2 based devices all use nvidia's own proprietary drivers. Sure, the Droid 3 is qHD, and it won't score as well as a Galaxy s or Optimus 3D with the same GPU pushing less pixels. The X2 is also qHD and the Droid 3 typically gets a higher framerate on other GPU benchmarks-except for the planets test. In theory, the Droid 3 should score the same, if not, slightly better, on the planets test.
All of the evidence leads me to believe that it is an issue with Moto's drivers. It isn't TI, since the Optimus 3D has the exact same CPU, but runs the test without a hitch. Is anyone able to provide any insight on this, perhaps someone who can speak with someone at Moto that would know? Will this affect games, or other benchmarks? Can it be fixed in an update? Something is obviously not right here, and I'd like to find out why.
EDIT: I'm on my phone and I was in general when I hit new thread. I don't know how this ended up in development, but I apologize. Will a mod please move this?

Games and emulators on the Droid 3 don't have the FPS problem as compared to other devices. I think it's a coding issue in Quadrant, not a problem in the drivers. It would be like running 3DMark 2000 on today's hardware and having it crash out or run slower than a P3 with a 3DFX card (which it actually does in many cases).

elkay said:
Games and emulators on the Droid 3 don't have the FPS problem as compared to other devices. I think it's a coding issue in Quadrant, not a problem in the drivers. It would be like running 3DMark 2000 on today's hardware and having it crash out or run slower than a P3 with a 3DFX card (which it actually does in many cases).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A coding issue IS possible, but if it was a coding issue, then how is it that only specific phones from one manufacturer with CPU's and GPU's from the same manufacturers are the only ones with issues? The only Moto phones that don't have the issue are those with the Tegra 2, which uses proprietary coding and drivers from NVIDIA. There are phones from other manufacturers with the same SoC, and very similar hardware otherwise, that don't have the issue. It seems extremely likely that it is an issue with Motorola's software and coding.

GoogleAndroid said:
A coding issue IS possible, but if it was a coding issue, then how is it that only specific phones from one manufacturer with CPU's and GPU's from the same manufacturers are the only ones with issues? The only Moto phones that don't have the issue are those with the Tegra 2, which uses proprietary coding and drivers from NVIDIA. There are phones from other manufacturers with the same SoC, and very similar hardware otherwise, that don't have the issue. It seems extremely likely that it is an issue with Motorola's software and coding.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll respectfully disagree. If the same FPS problem exhibited itself in any games on the market, then I would lean toward agreeing with you. However, I have pretty much every emulator on the market and about 75-80 games on my phone, and not one has shown any performance problems and all outperform my original Droid X by a very noticeable margin.

Or perhaps it's both? Quadrant could use something in OpenGL that isn't supported very well by Motorola's drivers, and it could be a feature that isn't widely used in other apps, so it's why you're not seeing any issues in them.

Pokelover980 said:
Or perhaps it's both? Quadrant could use something in OpenGL that isn't supported very well by Motorola's drivers, and it could be a feature that isn't widely used in other apps, so it's why you're not seeing any issues in them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
By all means, continue to investigate. I think the problem will end up lying in how Quadrant makes its OGL ES calls. The only one that would help right now is the developer of Quadrant, which if you can get to answer the question, would be great. Not stone hard fact, but a step toward solving this.

Quadrant is not optimised for dual core processors let alone any device that has recently come out in the last year including Tegra devices, the tests are not that complicated in the bench mark yet devices are scoring sub 30 fps values.
Use a different bench mark as Quad is old hat and in need of an update or 3.
-smc

I thought I should note that the PowerVR SGX 540 in our Droid 3's are not the same as the SGX 540 in Samsung's Hummingbird SOC. It's quite a bit faster!
The SGX 540 in the OMAP 4430 is clocked 100MHz higher and gets 4.8GFLOPS vs the Hummingbird's 3.2GFLOPS.

snowblind64 said:
I thought I should note that the PowerVR SGX 540 in our Droid 3's are not the same as the SGX 540 in Samsung's Hummingbird SOC. It's quite a bit faster!
The SGX 540 in the OMAP 4430 is clocked 100MHz higher and gets 4.8GFLOPS vs the Hummingbird's 3.2GFLOPS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but the higher resolution screen counterbalances that.

GoogleAndroid said:
Yes, but the higher resolution screen counterbalances that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, not quite. The screen resolution only increased by 35% while the GPU is 50% more powerful than the SGX 540 in the Hummingbird SOC. In theory the OMAP4 should still perform better than the Hummingbird even at the higher resolution.
I would have to say that Quadrant is at least partly responsible for the low FPS. It seems likely that Quadrant is using an odd method of method of rendering for the planets test that in combination with Motorola/OMAP drivers causes a massive performance drop. Fortunately this performance issue has not been seen in other apps/games.
My main reason for posting was just to point out that the SGX 540 in our D3's is much faster. I would hate to think our GPU is no better than the Galaxy S'

this is a problem with quadrant, all motorola devices(since the mb200 aka dext/cliq we have this issue, always got the same results in 2d test and the planet) give the same score in the tests. but the new sgx 540 for dual core have a dedicated gpu for 2d graphics, i spent 3 days searching about that. so, the problem is with the app, not the phone.
can somebody send me a benchmark from D3 of smartbench, Mandrobench, linpack, antutu and cfbench. im thinkin in getting one =p

Too many variables in synthetic tests to come to a conclusion with Quadrant. One parameter can be off and that will bias the weighted result. Speaking of weight, the dev still has yet to quantify the weighting in the app for each parameter.
D3 plays N64 and PSX games equal for most and better for some (if already 60fps, will inherently be equal) than the Tegra 2 devices I had or have now. In a way, the D3 is the device the Sony Play should have been (except the control pad is better than the keyboard, of course).

guidoido004 said:
can somebody send me a benchmark from D3 of smartbench, Mandrobench, linpack, antutu and cfbench. im thinkin in getting one =p
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On stock I got ~70mflops on average on multi-threaded Linpack test. With some of the modifications I can do with root, Antutu gets me 5112, and on stock I got somewhere around 4700 I believe. I don't have any of the other benchmarks you listed, so I couldn't tell you for them.

guidoido004 said:
this is a problem with quadrant, all motorola devices(since the mb200 aka dext/cliq we have this issue, always got the same results in 2d test and the planet) give the same score in the tests. but the new sgx 540 for dual core have a dedicated gpu for 2d graphics, i spent 3 days searching about that. so, the problem is with the app, not the phone.
can somebody send me a benchmark from D3 of smartbench, Mandrobench, linpack, antutu and cfbench. im thinkin in getting one =p
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Antutu- 4967
Smartbench 2010-1263, 2849
Smartbench 2011- 3612, 2586
Linpack- 42, 66
CF-Bench-9397, 2636, 5340
Quadrant- 2000-2500
I couldn't find Mandrobench.

Overclock and OMAP vs Tegra?

So, I went to the store and just now realized it has an OMAP dual core. I know the Tegra2 can reach 1.5 easily enough....do we know anything about how well this OMAP can overclock?
I ran a quick quadrant for the Bionic in store and honestly wasn't too happy with the graphics side of the benchmark. It was running on the same level as my wife's Galaxy 1

shadowclock said:
So, I went to the store and just now realized it has an OMAP dual core. I know the Tegra2 can reach 1.5 easily enough....do we know anything about how well this OMAP can overclock?
I ran a quick quadrant and honestly wasn't too happy with the graphics side of the benchmark. It was running on the same level as my wife's Galaxy 1
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's because they're the same graphics chip.
I'm guessing the OMAP can hit 1.5 or higher, similar to the Tegra. The old OMAP3430s in the OG Droid were stable at 1-1.1GHz, so I'd say a 4-500GHz overclock is easily achievable, but no one has tested it yet on the new OMAP4s, so who knows for now.

Berzerker7 said:
That's because they're the same graphics chip.
I'm guessing the OMAP can hit 1.5 or higher, similar to the Tegra. The old OMAP3430s in the OG Droid were stable at 1-1.1GHz, so I'd say a 4-500GHz overclock is easily achievable, but no one has tested it yet on the new OMAP4s, so who knows for now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the OMAP just killed it for me....I want a better graphics processor....I may upgrade to DX2 now and the rumored Droid Prime (Nexus) later.

shadowclock said:
I think the OMAP just killed it for me....I want a better graphics processor....I may upgrade to DX2 now and the rumored Droid Prime (Nexus) later.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is ironic - part of the reason they went with OMAP instead of tegra was due to performance (do a quick google search for some tegra bionic vs. omap bionic bench marks)

*All-Around* the OMAP4430 is a better chip than the Tegra 2. The GeForce in the Tegra doesn't perform as well in real-world scenarios compared to an SGX540 on an OMAP4. You'll still get higher real-world performance on an OMAP4430 compared to both the Hummingbird in the GSI and the Tegra 2.

Its a shame they are not using gpus similar in power to those in the galaxy s 2.

shadowclock said:
So, I went to the store and just now realized it has an OMAP dual core. I know the Tegra2 can reach 1.5 easily enough....do we know anything about how well this OMAP can overclock?
I ran a quick quadrant for the Bionic in store and honestly wasn't too happy with the graphics side of the benchmark. It was running on the same level as my wife's Galaxy 1
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Remember the Bionic is pushing quite a few more pixels in the benchmark than the Galaxy. 960x540 vs 800x480
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using xda premium

shadowclock said:
So, I went to the store and just now realized it has an OMAP dual core. I know the Tegra2 can reach 1.5 easily enough....do we know anything about how well this OMAP can overclock?
I ran a quick quadrant for the Bionic in store and honestly wasn't too happy with the graphics side of the benchmark. It was running on the same level as my wife's Galaxy 1
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Galaxy S's SGX540 is clocked at 200mhz. In the OMAP4, it is clocked at 304mhz. In theory, even though it has to push more pixels, it will outperform it. And if you run a real GPU benchmark, like An3Dbench XL, the OMAP4 performs far better than the Tegra 2. The planets test in Quadrant glitch because of Moto's drivers-the Tegra 2 in the DX2 uses proprietary drivers from NVIDIA. And in terms of CPU performance, the OMAP4 performs considerably better. The OMAP4 has NEON instruction sets that the Tegra 2 lacks. And the Tegra 2 has trouble playing certain types of video files(it can't decode/encode h.264 videos or something), while the OMAP is able to.

nrage23 said:
Remember the Bionic is pushing quite a few more pixels in the benchmark than the Galaxy. 960x540 vs 800x480
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't look like much of a difference, but QHD is 35% more pixels to keep up with. That's significant.

Galaxy Note Using Mali-400MP GPU (Outdated GPU)?

hello guys..i heard that galaxy note and other samsung device are using an outdated GPU (Mali-400MP GPU)...so is it a little "fail" for our note to have an outdated GPU?plss give ur opinion.. thanks guys
..u can read the review about the GPU--> Here

It's so much faster than the sgx540 in the nexus it's ridiculous and since my choice was between those two I'm very happy with it.
Sent from my superior GT-N7000 using Tapatalk

Check out the real world performances. Mali 400 outclasses Adreno 220 easily.
The weakpoint of Mali is geometry performance, but it does not matter much with mobiles until now as mobile games are not geometry heavy.
On the other hand, the OpenGL ES 2.x performance and real world performance of Mali is excellent.
With the clock speed of exynos in Note which actually gives much better real world performance with Mali 400 than even SGS2, it runs circles around Adreno 220 powered devices like sensation and even SGX540 powered devices.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4686/samsung-galaxy-s-2-international-review-the-best-redefined/17
The above review is of SGS2. And mind you the performance of note is much better than SGS2. It is one of the most balanced GPUs on market with great gaming as well as multimedia performance (which actually matters more to someone like me.)

Funkym0nkey said:
Check out the real world performances. Mali 400 outclasses Adreno 220 easily.
The weakpoint of Mali is geometry performance, but it does not matter much with mobiles until now as mobile games are not geometry heavy.
On the other hand, the OpenGL ES 2.x performance and real world performance of Mali is excellent.
With the clock speed of exynos in Note which actually gives much better real world performance with Mali 400 than even SGS2, it runs circles around Adreno 220 powered devices like sensation and even SGX540 powered devices.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4686/samsung-galaxy-s-2-international-review-the-best-redefined/17
The above review is of SGS2. And mind you the performance of note is much better than SGS2. It is one of the most balanced GPUs on market with great gaming as well as multimedia performance (which actually matters more to someone like me.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks for this info sir

although mali has been here for a very long time, it was well ahead of its time. and it still is i guess

anjath said:
although mali has been here for a very long time, it was well ahead of its time. and it still is i guess
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah well Scott Adams is wayyyyyyy past his heyday (heck, even being relevant).... haven't read him since 2007 or so, when he started dabbling in intelligent design woo and sexist claptrap...

for being a heavy mobile gamer
i can assure you that the mali 400 on the note does very well with the latest games (asphalt7, dead trigger to name a few) despite having to compute for a much higher resolution display than other phones...
and with a little overclocking (tegrak app or gl notecore kernel) gpu performance can get sky high.
best phone i ever got :victory:

GAME ON said:
hello guys..i heard that galaxy note and other samsung device are using an outdated GPU (Mali-400MP GPU)...so is it a little "fail" for our note to have an outdated GPU?plss give ur opinion.. thanks guys
..u can read the review about the GPU--> Here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The note was released ten months ago but still its gpu is better than all the others except sgs3 and and maybe one x..
Btw do you even own a note?? Did you every notice any lag in any game??

Whiskeyjack4855 said:
The note was released ten months ago but still its gpu is better than all the others except sgs3 and and maybe one x..
Btw do you even own a note?? Did you every notice any lag in any game??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The NOTE's and SGS3's GPU are the same.
However, the S3 is built on a smaller 32nm die-size, so it means it uses less space and less power for same performance. Samsung uses this advantage to clock the frequency much higher than the NOTE (which is built on a 45nm die).
Also, the S3 implements a new, updated driver for the gpu and squeezes more performance out. This was a same move Samsung made with the SGX540, which is also a very fast gpu. The original SGS was clocked real-low and had outdated drivers... after stealing the driver sources from the LG with OMAP 4440 SoC, the SGS (with 4.0.3) was performing in the same league as the 2011/2012 devices.

Kangal said:
The NOTE's and SGS3's GPU are the same.
However, the S3 is built on a smaller 32nm die-size, so it means it uses less space and less power for same performance. Samsung uses this advantage to clock the frequency much higher than the NOTE (which is built on a 45nm die).
Also, the S3 implements a new, updated driver for the gpu and squeezes more performance out. This was a same move Samsung made with the SGX540, which is also a very fast gpu. The original SGS was clocked real-low and had outdated drivers... after stealing the driver sources from the LG with OMAP 4440 SoC, the SGS (with 4.0.3) was performing in the same league as the 2011/2012 devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know that that both the note and sgs3 has same gpu.. But the one in sgs3 its more powerful cause you said it's overclocked and has better drivers..
Btw do you know why the mali in sgs3 gets so high benchmark scores even wih the 720p screen? I mean is it all due to oc and better drivers?

Whiskeyjack4855 said:
I know that that both the note and sgs3 has same gpu.. But the one in sgs3 its more powerful cause you said it's overclocked and has better drivers..
Btw do you know why the mali in sgs3 gets so high benchmark scores even wih the 720p screen? I mean is it all due to oc and better drivers?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Better drivers + a little O'C makes the overwhelming difference.
I mean the NOTE comes with *only* 2 cores and *slow* gpu... after I customized it, its running toe-to-toe with the HTC One X (Tegra3).
An easier way to understand is to look at the new RIM PlayBook.
It's got the same processor as the Gnex (Galaxy Nexus) however its much much faster, especially in browsing. It decimates it. It even decimates the ASUS Transformer Prime Infinity (O'C Tegra3 + ICS).... or the Nexus7 (U'C Tegra3 + JBean).
You are only as fast as your slowest component. In the case of Android, its the high-level (slow) implemented software.
= Getting a faster soc with more cores and more ram doesn't really increase performance that much.

Some serious thread necromancy going on here!
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

Kangal said:
Better drivers + a little O'C makes the overwhelming difference.
I mean the NOTE comes with *only* 2 cores and *slow* gpu... after I customized it, its running toe-to-toe with the HTC One X (Tegra3).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
By toe to toe with the one x do you mean benchmarks or real life perfomance..
Hey one thing more..aren't you a engadget reader?

Whiskeyjack4855 said:
By toe to toe with the one x do you mean benchmarks or real life perfomance..
Hey one thing more..aren't you a engadget reader?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Both.
But I don't live by the benchmarks. I mean have you tried some of the HD Apps from TegraZone. On stock TouchWizz, the NOTE really struggles. With a custom setup, I don't get much/any problems.
Yeah, I do frequent engadget... also on heaps of other sites.

Kangal said:
Both.
But I don't live by the benchmarks. I mean have you tried some of the HD Apps from TegraZone. On stock TouchWizz, the NOTE really struggles. With a custom setup, I don't get much/any problems.
Yeah, I do frequent engadget... also on heaps of other sites.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Would you be kind enough to educate me about your setup?

Kangal said:
Better drivers + a little O'C makes the overwhelming difference.
I mean the NOTE comes with *only* 2 cores and *slow* gpu... after I customized it, its running toe-to-toe with the HTC One X (Tegra3).
An easier way to understand is to look at the new RIM PlayBook.
It's got the same processor as the Gnex (Galaxy Nexus) however its much much faster, especially in browsing. It decimates it. It even decimates the ASUS Transformer Prime Infinity (O'C Tegra3 + ICS).... or the Nexus7 (U'C Tegra3 + JBean).
You are only as fast as your slowest component. In the case of Android, its the high-level (slow) implemented software.
= Getting a faster soc with more cores and more ram doesn't really increase performance that much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. Even though the Playbook has its many flaws (owned two both with screen/USB issues) it was a powerhouse. Multimedia was outstanding and web surfing was by far the fastest.
But the OS, QNX, is to thank for that. If the Playbook was running android it would be nothing out of the ordinary. As much as I love Android it really is not as efficiant as QNX
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda app-developers app

anything on market today is outdated tommorow
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

Recently I had a doubt about if it's possible to unlock the 2 locked remaining cores in the Galaxy Note N7000? Because I realize that the Note only uses 2 of the 4 GPU cores... It's there a possibility to do this? How?

i think mali 400 is a good GPU because Note1 and Note2 using it. and really nice GPU for gaming