Related
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 currently have a HTC Desire which I have had since it first come out and am in line for a new handset... I always get mine sim free or pay as you go.
Been looking a lot a lately of the Optimus 2x or Galaxy S2 in regards to gaming. Now, I know there are threads about both GPU's but.... which one is more powerful and will be best "future proofed"?.
Heard a lot of things on both handset forums saying that Tegra 2 is a year old, has 8 cores and the Galazy S2 is newer and only 4 cores.
So, as a potential buyer of either handset... am looking at the best gaming platform based on games.
At the moment, its a hard choice because I want to purchase the best fone I can at the moment...
Any thoughts on which platform will be better?, or.... get the support from developers?. At the moment NVIDIA have got the marketing right imho, but could the Galazy S2 overtake that and make "it" the most optimized platform for games on a Android device?.
A lot of questions, which I am unsure of the answers?.
Any thoughts?.
While i can't tell you which is the future proof, i think its worth remembering that nvidia is very old school in gaming and i am sure they are doing what they can to promote tegra as the ultimate mobile gaming platform and i am sure they know a few in the business.
Can non tegra phone play tegra games ?
Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA App
@iceman92
Yes.
But still i'd say tegra is more furute-proof cause the developers will focus on the more mainstream processor which will be tegra... only a suggestion.
With the future-proof part, I would say Tegra is the best to go with. Nvidia have alot of plans for releasing smartphone CPU's in the future, I mean, they are due to release a quad core CPU this summer. I've had my O2x for about 2 weeks now and I've had no problems gaming with it, smooth as silk. As long as you use Launcher Pro then you're fine
The Mali-400 in the SGS2 SoC is older than the Geforce ULP in the Tegra 2 I believe but the Mali should outperform Tegra 2 on paper. Currently, gaming on "superphones" is still murky. You have different approaches to how you make (e.g. Adreno and PowerVR parts are "tile-based") the chips work. Therefore some games will play better on some chips because they are optimized for a certain kind of graphics design which is good on certain kinds of GPU hardware.
So here's what you do. Focus on good "Families" of GPU. First we have Adreno found in Qualcomm Chips (Adreno 220 in the HTC Sensation slaps Geforce ULP hard). The Adreno 200 is in the Nexus One and several Android phones. It's a well known and widely used GPU in Android.
Next you have PowerVR by Imagination, a very proven family. The PowerVR SGX540 is found in the Nexus S and the Galaxy S i9000 class of phones (Very popular phone). So expect a lot of marketshare in that. PowerVR is also used in iPhones and iPads. So expect some advantages when an iPhone released game reaches an Android platform.
Next you have Geforce ULP in the Tegra 2 by NVidia. Geforce ULP has not had much time to shine HOWEVER Tegra Zone has demonstrated NVidia has been encouraging developers on the platform. NVidia has a good history with developer support on their desktop chips and it is quite evident that they are doing the same with their smartphones. However, Tegra 2 is only in two (three if you count g2x as separate from o2x) smartphones in the market so far.
From what I can see so far, the Adreno, PowerVR, and Geforce ULP are very relevant in the future of mobile gaming and will be for a long time. There's no chance in hell you can futureproof with any phone you buy now. On average, smartphone GPU performance appears to be breaking Moore's Law and is becoming well over 2x the performance year over year with no sign of slowing down. What you want is something that's on the market which you will be satisfied with now. That's all you can count on.
Thanks guys.. in the end i went for the 2X as i paid £278 for the handset with a trade in for my desire.
Am very happy with the fone at the moment but having a issue with the free Shrek Kart voucher as it seems the voucher may have been used with someone else, not too worry.
Haven't had chance with gaming on it but just hope that we get games that are optimised for tegra 2, rather than ports from another more powerful GPU?!.
Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA Premium App
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.
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
During the keynote of the new iPhone in 07 days, Phil Schiller, Apple's VP of markting, showed a mysterious plot that claimed the new processor A5X tablet offering up to four times more graphics performance than the quad-core NVidia Tegra 3 .
Nvidia did not like this chart.
Ken Brown, a spokesman for the company, told ZDNet that he was "flattered" to have been compared by Apple, but that tests performnace require more information.
"We have no information on this benchmark," said Brown. "We need to understand what application was used. Was only one or several applications? What drivers did they use? There are many issues in benchmark tests."
Ken is right to argue that Apple simply hid that information. Nowhere in the Cupertino company shows how he got those numbers, and probably will not even explain.
Nvidia promised to do their own benchmark tests so the new iPhone is released, March 16. Of course, these new tests Tegra 3 will do better on tests than Apple, as happened so many years (and still does) in disputes between NVidia and AMD, where each of the companies showed different benchmark tests where their chipsets fared better.
At least we know that once the new iPhone is released, numerous comparative tests and the Internet began to emerge, and we have more solid information about who gets the better of the fray.
jeiih said:
Ken is right to argue that Apple simply hid that information. Nowhere in the Cupertino company shows how he got those numbers, and probably will not even explain.
Nvidia promised to do their own benchmark tests so the new iPhone is released, March 16. Of course, these new tests Tegra 3 will do better on tests than Apple, as happened so many years (and still does) in disputes between NVidia and AMD, where each of the companies showed different benchmark tests where their chipsets fared better.
At least we know that once the new iPhone is released, numerous comparative tests and the Internet began to emerge, and we have more solid information about who gets the better of the fray.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Should be iPad I think.
lamborg said:
Should be iPad I think.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed.
Sent from my MB860 using XDA
i cant imagine the A5x being anywhere close to the speed of the Tegra 3.
its basically an incremental upgrade to the A5, and the Tegra 3 is in a league of its own.
This kind of seems more as bs than actual truth. I agree with what emjlr3 said, the Tegra 3 by far sets the standard for high end tablet hardware in my opinion.. The A5X is merely an incrementally improved A5. Not to mention the Tegra 3 has a Quad Core.. While the A5X is only a dual core at most but the specs of the Tegra 3 are 12 Graphics Processing Cores, while the A5X has 4.
i've seen the "RESOLUTIONARY" iPad video its complete bull****. Everything on there is definitely untrue with no evidence. for example they claimed that their so awesome s(*it)Pad has a better display than any HDTV.. seriously my 30" Sony Monitor with which i am typing now manages 2048x1536 with ease.. and its much more sharp than what ive seen on the ipad.. and since years nvidia is miles ahead with its gpus and the A5X(which isnt even their own creation or how they would call it "groundbreaking innovation" (its made by Samsung)) isnt even near the performance of the tegra 3 or even the Adreno 225 ..
Hmm..
Well, i would like to see proof instead of just bold claims. I've seen the tegra 3..and its pretty darn impressive. Let's see how the A5x stack up ay?
realfelix said:
i've seen the "RESOLUTIONARY" iPad video its complete bull****. Everything on there is definitely untrue with no evidence. for example they claimed that their so awesome s(*it)Pad has a better display than any HDTV.. seriously my 30" Sony Monitor with which i am typing now manages 2048x1536 with ease.. and its much more sharp than what ive seen on the ipad.. and since years nvidia is miles ahead with its gpus and the A5X(which isnt even their own creation or how they would call it "groundbreaking innovation" (its made by Samsung)) isnt even near the performance of the tegra 3 or even the Adreno 225 ..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude, you yourself said, that you are using a monitor for Hi Res display. Apple never claimed that the new iPad's display is better than any "monitor's" display. It only claimed it has better resolution than any HDTV because the highest resolution for any HDTV right now is 1920 x1080. So in that point, apple did not lie.
In my opinion if the new iPad can display graphics that is more crisp but at the same speed as the current iPad, then it at least doubled it's own speed from the last iPad. If it renders graphics faster, then the 4x faster claim need to be proven by benchmarking.
I've had both an iPad and a Tegra tablet. Depending on configurations, the Android tablets can match the iPad when it comes to graphics, but I noticed there are some programs which are not written well and graphics stutter. This happens more for the Android, I guess it could be because Apple has strict coding regulations as compared to the Android which is more open.
Either way, I think it's more what you prefer to use. I have a Galaxy Nexus for my phone but I have the 1st gen iPad for my tablet.
Let's do the logic here, ipad 2 with sgx 543mp2> Tegra 3. Therefore ipad 3 with sgx 544 that is twice the sgx 543 is also greater than the Tegra 3.
Just search for off screen 720p benchmarks and you'll seen the proof.
Now cpu wise the Tegra 3 is more than likely much more powerful.
$1 gets you a reply
emjlr3 said:
i cant imagine the A5x being anywhere close to the speed of the Tegra 3.
its basically an incremental upgrade to the A5, and the Tegra 3 is in a league of its own.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uh... whut. They were talking about graphics performance and the even the A5 is faster than tegra 3 in that respect. The A5x being 4 times faster is quite plausible.
red12355 said:
Uh... whut. They were talking about graphics performance and the even the A5 is faster than tegra 3 in that respect. The A5x being 4 times faster is quite plausible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i thought the point of the Tegra 3 was to bring desktop graphics to a tablet/phone?
the ipad 2 surely did not have desktop like graphics
AnandTech benchmark ASUS Eee Pad Transformer Prime & iPad 3. Although the number is not up to 4x, but iPad 3 still comes with slightly better graphic performance. Obviously, CPU on Tegra 3 is better.