Running the latest cm7 and latest OC kernal @ 1.1 and time after time when I disable JIT I get quadrant scores 300 points higher on average. Anyone else? What does this mean? I thought JIT would increase the speed of the device.... With JIt disabled im getting 1950's quad scores.
I am by no means an expert on the finer points of the android system, but from what I understand JIT is used by the system for on-the-fly graphics proccesing. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
What I do know is, that all becnhmarking software should be taken with a grain of salt. It's not the end all be all of how a system should be judged. Hell, when I run quadrant I can get scores that vary almost by 200, without changing a thing. 300 is not all that big a difference. I can guarentee you that having JIT on will increase the overall performence of the nook, it's what its meant to do.
I can only guess, but what it may be doing by having it off is freeing some proc. time for quadrant to use.
I am curious though, are you seeing any increase in FPS during the rendering scenes while having JIT off?
Quadrant has known issues with Gingerbread and has not been updated. Quadrant's 3D scores in Gingerbread with JIT are significantly lower than with Froyo. Check various review sites like Anandtech for examples of this.
woot1524 said:
I am by no means an expert on the finer points of the android system, but from what I understand JIT is used by the system for on-the-fly graphics proccesing. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
What I do know is, that all becnhmarking software should be taken with a grain of salt. It's not the end all be all of how a system should be judged. Hell, when I run quadrant I can get scores that vary almost by 200, without changing a thing. 300 is not all that big a difference. I can guarentee you that having JIT on will increase the overall performence of the nook, it's what its meant to do.
I can only guess, but what it may be doing by having it off is freeing some proc. time for quadrant to use.
I am curious though, are you seeing any increase in FPS during the rendering scenes while having JIT off?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya the FPS is actually higher with JIT off....
I know that benchmarking is not an end all be all for system performance.. I just thought it was interesting and thought I would ask the people here on xda.
Related
I just read about a G1 getting a LinPack score of about 3.5ish. Most of the nearly 100% improvementwas attributed to using a rom with JIT. Since the G1 is very similar to the Vogue shouldn't we be able to get similar results.
I am currently getting 1.65.
D
-------------------------------------
Sent via the XDA Tapatalk App
If you thinks that's impressive, you should check out the new Froyo 2.2.
The Nexus One, which has 2.1 got a scrore of 6.5-7 MFLOPS, but with 2.2 it got 37.5 MFLOPS! That's an incredible performance increase.
I want 2.2, the G1 owners can keep their JIT compiler. Them fancy pants people. BTW, the article says that the HTC Hero averages a measly score of about 2 MFLOPS, so us getting 1.65 isn't bad. Though why the Nexus One gets 37.5 MFLOPS with 2.2 makes me wonder. It could be that 2.2 uses the FPU that's in the SnapDragonl, instead of the interger. If that's the case then our devices can only ever do ~1.65, cause they don't come with a FPU processor.
Though if JIT does give G1 owners a boost, then it'll certainly give us a boost. G1 doesn't have a FPU either. I'm also concerned about the 3D accelerator, as we get bad performance in some tests.
The G1 and Vogue share the same chipset--although their CPU is clocked at 528 Mhz, and ours at 400 (at least natively, that is.)
That probably accounts for the difference of 1.65 vs. 2 MFLOPs result.
If the Linpack test is to scale across all platforms, and we estimate an average 400% improvement in floating point performance, we can probably expect 6-8 in terms of a MFLOPs score on Linpack with Froyo.
Real-world applications (integer arithmetic) will not benefit nearly as well as FP arithmetic, because FP arithmetic is incredibly burdensome. However, perhaps an expected improvement of.. 100%, or 2x, is reasonable (depending). Programs with small rapid loops, etc. will see the most benefit. It'll be interesting to see how the Vogue performs.
In regards to graphics / the Vogue GPU:
I'm not completely up to speed on it, but I believe a primitive driver does work for OGL 1.0-based acceleration (Neocore?) but that's it; nothing more than 1.0 (which would explain why Live Wallpapers do not accelerate properly/crash, etc.)
I was under the impression the chipset between the Vogue and the G1/Hero/Eris was the same, and that if we simply used the driver from the G1/Hero/Eris's 2.1 ROM, we'd have full 3D acceleration.. but I don't think that's the case. There's plenty of smarter individuals here who would've ascertained the same thing, but nothing available.
I think (from a GPU perspective) we have official OGL 1.0 support and that's it.
The Kaiser, like the Vogue, uses the 400 Mhz Qualcomm chip. The difference between the chip in the Vogue/Polaris/Kaiser and devices like the G1 is Mhz and small changes done to the ATI accelerator. Though, I don't think the changes for the accelerator are major.
I have no idea about our Android setup. Is it using open source drivers? Is it using a driver taken directly from another Android device and modified, like from the G1?
I also wondered about the battery life using Android with 3D acceleration. Since Android is linux and linux open source graphic drivers are horrible and usually don't have any power management, could it be our poor battery life is due to the graphics driver?
Could it also be that the graphics driver from the G1 would work on our devices, but is a proprietary driver, and therefore can't be distributed? So instead we use open source drivers to avoid legal action?
If anyone knows the answers to these questions that would be great. I'm trying to wonder why my Kaiser with Android uses more battery life when not in use. Browsing the web or talking on the phone the battery life seems normal, but it's when it's idle that it consumes power twice as fast as Windows Mobile. To me it seems something isn't totally off when the device is in standby, and I'm thinking it's graphics related.
I've tested JIT enabled dalvikvm's on both Donut and Eclair. I never saw any noticable improvement in speed. I did however observe longer boot times and odd behavior from heavy memory intensive applications. For example, the browser sometimes doesn't launch when you have clicked it.
Give the JIT dalvikvm a try. Let me know if you experience anything positive on our vogues.
Here's a post for the G1 that uses JIT.
licknuts said:
The libdvm.so that t3steve cross compiled for the DROID at the time was for Android 2.0, the library works for with newer ROMs Android 1.6 that have some eclair pieces built into the kernel, CyanogenMOD has been using bits and pieces for a while now, if other ROM builders have been using his kernel and framework than a good chance it will work for your phone as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, does that mean we just need eclair based roms, or is there more to that?
Dukenukemx said:
Here's a post for the G1 that uses JIT.
So, does that mean we just need eclair based roms, or is there more to that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Eh, I'd just wait for Froyo, for an official JIT system designed specifically for use with the native apps in Froyo as well. Running an unofficial JIT compiler with older apps may cause some problems/force closes.. who knows.
Dukenukemx said:
I want 2.2, the G1 owners can keep their JIT compiler. Them fancy pants people. BTW, the article says that the HTC Hero averages a measly score of about 2 MFLOPS, so us getting 1.65 isn't bad. Though why the Nexus One gets 37.5 MFLOPS with 2.2 makes me wonder. It could be that 2.2 uses the FPU that's in the SnapDragonl, instead of the interger. If that's the case then our devices can only ever do ~1.65, cause they don't come with a FPU processor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Without JIT (multiple test runs):
~ 1.65 MFLOPS for first 15 mins or so after startup
~ 2.33 MFLOPS after 15 mins after startup
Time to enable JIT and possible problems with apps, etc. it may cause probably isn't worth it to me.
You guys should check out this thread made by garringm from the Kaiser forum, if you wanna enable JIT. It should work, considering Kaiser users are using Vogue Android builds.
You'll need the Android SDK installed on your PC. Works with Incubus26Jc's Super Eclair and mssmison's CM 5.0.7 test 3. I ran linpack and got 3.3 MFLOPS.
I find at least for our vogues, linpack is not the best thing to judge by. It more calculations based which in most cases doesn't judge load times and the agility of our applications.
As I mentioned, I've used jit on a number of Donut and Eclair roms and although linpack may report a higher score the user experience in the speed dept wasn't improved.
Infact I found app load times to be longer with a jit enabled dalvikvm.
Are you sure the linkpack score isn't acting as a placebo?
Part of the issue is using (an unofficial) JIT compiler on a system not truly designed for it.
Froyo's compiler (along with Froyo's system) are designed to work with and efficiently use the new compiler, which means the best performance (and user experience) is going to come with Froyo, not Eclair/Donut/Cupcake with an unofficial JIT compiler.
I think we should just be patient--Froyo will be out soon, and we will surely port it to the Vogue, which will answer all of our questions.
myn said:
I find at least for our vogues, linpack is not the best thing to judge by. It more calculations based which in most cases doesn't judge load times and the agility of our applications.
As I mentioned, I've used jit on a number of Donut and Eclair roms and although linpack may report a higher score the user experience in the speed dept wasn't improved.
Infact I found app load times to be longer with a jit enabled dalvikvm.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, the load times of applications are longer. Especially when applications are already loading slowly, this certainly doesn't help.
Are you sure the linkpack score isn't acting as a placebo?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Linpack is probably correct, as are the delays. I've played with emulators in the past, and I understand a bit about JIT. JIT is related to dynamic compilation, which a lot of emulators used in the past. Modern emulators like Dolphin uses JIT.
The idea is that instead of compiling data interpretively, it does it all in one shot, before the program executes. That way the program runs like it was made natively for the hardware. It would make sense that the applications have a delay in execution with JIT.
G1 owners don't have a problem with this since applications launch instantly on their phones. Running JIT for them makes no tangible difference. For us it's worse because we already have a 2-10 second delay to execute applications. This just makes it worse.
Another thing to consider is that many applications don't use MFLOPS, which is the FPU we don't have. Only 3D applications use that, and we don't use many of those. At least not yet. I'd like to try Quake 3 with it and see how it runs.
Which is more effective at speeding things up?
Thx.
Thread moved as it is not development.
ronnienyc said:
Which is more effective at speeding things up?
Thx.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At this point in time, overclocking will give you the best performance. JIT is still a test type thing. Its not official, so consider it like a very pre beta version.
It wont be until android 2.2 "froyo" that we will see a huge impact with JIT.
Thanks for the info!
I prefer both at the same time. The problem with Jit is it doesn't play nice with sense and I get random reboots with it. The upside, with Jit and overclock I've gotten benchmarks from linpack over 5 mflops. More than double my stock scores.
Me too. I posted my scores in the fresh thread, but off the top of my head, testing 5 times and discarding highest and lowest, I averaged 5.1 mflops on linpack 6something on benchmarkpi and 31fps in neocore.
how do you guys overclock?? SetCPU wont let the Hero go beyond 528mhz
iviyth0s said:
how do you guys overclock?? SetCPU wont let the Hero go beyond 528mhz
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have to have a modified kernel like FreshToast.. I am getting speeds of 768mhz
is there way to enable jit on the newest fresh toast 2.1
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..
From the Greene Computing website (accessible from Linpack app), SGS scores range from 8 (Android Eclair 2.1) to 14 (Froyo).
But I see HTC and Motorola Linpack scores (Froyo) ranging from 30s to 40s.
Also does anyone know SGS Quadrant scores (with lagfix)?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Thats 14 PRERELEASE froyo!
But it's theorised it's due to the way SIMD is designed on Hummingbird. Linpack says VERY little about real performance anyway though.
SGS (stock eclair ROM) with OCLF 2.0 gives me a quadrant benchmark score of ~2150, which just about beats every other phone...
andrewluecke said:
Thats 14 PRERELEASE froyo!
But it's theorised it's due to the way SIMD is designed on Hummingbird. Linpack says VERY little about real performance anyway though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you mean that Quadrant is closer to real world users experience compared to Linpack?
From published reviews, it does seem that 2D, 3D games (which is computationally intensive) are generally more fluid on SGS than HTCs
So why does Linpack really indicate?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Prasad007 said:
SGS (stock eclair ROM) with OCLF 2.0 gives me a quadrant benchmark score of ~2150, which just about beats every other phone...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Gosh, if Eclair with lagfix scores 2150, Froyo should be off the charts! Can anyone share the numbers?
Is performance gains for OCLF similar to Voodoo?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
ckkee said:
Gosh, if Eclair with lagfix scores 2150, Froyo should be off the charts! Can anyone share the numbers?
Is performance gains for OCLF similar to Voodoo?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
bear in mind that the number doesn't tell much. You can have great number but ordinary performance.
many screen capture shared in XDA, this is one of the screen capture on I9000XWJM7 + RyanZa OCLF
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=7951649#post7951649
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
I believe you have the basic Quadrant ? Well, I have Quadrant Advanced, and the graph shows sections in the bars for each phone bifurcated as CPU, 2D, 3D performance, etc.. With the lagfix, our I/O section for our phones is significantly elongated (due to the filesystem changes). What do I use to take a screenshot ?
One thing to also add to the balance is that the Galaxy S also has the best GPU available for smartphones:
Here is a GPU comparison for some of the leading smartphones:
■Motorola Droid: TI OMAP3430 with PowerVR SGX530 = 7-14 million(?) triangles/sec
■Nexus One: Qualcomm QSD8x50 with Adreno 200 = 22 million triangles/sec
■iPhone 3G S: 600 MHz Cortex-A8 with PowerVR SGX535 = 28 7 million triangles/sec
■Samsung Galaxy S: S5PC110 with PowerVR SGX540 = 90 million triangles/sec
And for comparison a few consoles:
■PS3: 250 million triangles/sec
■Xbox 360: 500 million triangles/sec
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you also have a dedicated GPU (PowerVR SGX540 GPU) and LinPack is a mathematical only benchmark, so it only test the capacity for the CPU to makes calculation per seconds (MFlops).
Where MFlops is a good indicator, the uses of multimedia applications on modern smartphone is more GPU intensive so, unless you're doing intensive database application on your phone, MFlops are juste an indication.
You can see a comparaison of the full specs here:
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Cellphonehardwarecompari1.png
You can see a real life test here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpP5QljEqow&feature=player_embedded#!
It doesn't test mflops though, it simply tests the speed of Dalvik. Similar to what Nvidia did, it is also possible some manufacturers might begin to optimise specifically for benchmarks (and we don't want that)
The Linpack CPU scores are lower than scores from Qualcomm CPUs because the Qualcomm CPUs have higher throughput SIMD FP units. This means they score higher in the linpack scores, but this does not translate to better performance on a day to day basis.
Quadrant scores with OCLF are not correct. Because of the filesystem changes, OCLF just bypasses the I/O stage of Quadrant, and scores the highest possible mark for I/O. Quadrant scores with Voodoo are a more accurate benchmark, because it actually does the benchmark, rather than just bypassing it.
Here we go again.
The Quadrant scores with the lagfixes are largely irrelevant as it does not in all cases test real world performance. To dumb it down, due to the way some lagfixes are implemented it's not actually real disk reads and writes being tested. Doesn't mean real world performance isn't improved by the lagfixes, because it is. The number in the test just doesn't mean anything. The benchmark has some use when comparing different lagfixes to eachother on the same device, but only to say which one is generally faster, not how much faster it is. Then again, when comparing OCLF to Voodoo it is again not comparable.
As for Linpack, the difference in score is due to the "FPU" (SIMD/NEON/VFP) instructions. Snapdragon (Qualcomm) has a better FPU than Hummingbird (Samsung) does. However, (again) it doesn't make that big a real world difference. Before the Snapdragon and Hummingbird devices, FPU instructions were either slow, really really slow, or emulated in software as the hardware for it was simply non-existent in the chips used. The expected performance of tests that use these instructions by Linpack is likely a whole lot lower then is now being reported by Snapdragon, with Dalvik JIT optimizations for this FPU. The part of the total score that can be attributed to the FPU is therefore blown completely out of proportion, as it completely overshadows the performance of the tests that primarily use the CPU.
Of course, yes, Snapdragon's FPU is a whole lot faster than Hummingbird's. The implied real world performance difference by Linpack is however complete nonsense.
To Chainfire, thanks for the detailed explanation on the two tests, and why the Hummingbird and Qualcomm cpus differs in scores.
From anecdotal comments in reviews (see AnandTech review on SGS devices, which I feel is more objective than most reviewers), SGS is generally regarded as the smoothest Android device amongst the current crop of 1st Ghz smart phones. This is largely based on Android UI operations and 2D/3D games performance.
Hence, I was surprised that SGS Linpack scores are so much lower than Qualcomm devices. Your insightful posting has helped to clear that up.
On the topic of SGS performance, lag fixes seem to help tremendously. Is there a compendium introducing the various lag fixes and which may be most suitable for I9000 international devices?
From reading disparate threads, it appears that OCLF came first (using Ext2 file system) followed by Voodoo (Ext 4). From the view of maintaining compatibility with upcoming Froyo and possible future fixes from Samsung (i.e. Compatibility with Kies is a must), which is the better choice?
Note, I am using stock ROM (Eclaire JG4) with ADW.Launcher. and my SGS does not support 3 button recovery mode.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
I'm sorry to bump this old thread again, but I felt like it was a better choice than opening a new one.
It makes sense there's a difference between Snapdragons and other cores that are more closely related to the Cortex A8 like the Hummingbird and the OMAPs. But I find one thing weird:
This is a screenshot of an iPad having finished a Linpack benchmark. As you can see it's getting a score of more than 62 MFLOPS. iPhone 4's with a similar Apple A4 (albeit at a lower clock speed) are scoring around 36 MFLOPS, which I confirmed on a friend's iPhone 4 as well as internet sources. Now: the Apple A4 and Hummingbird are supposedly very related, and the biggest difference as I understand is actually the GPU, not the CPU core. So these large differences between an iPad and a Froyo Galaxy S should simply not be there.
To me, this can mean three things:
The Linpacks for iOS and Android are completely incomparable
Samsung and Texas Instruments CPUs can't take as much advantage of the JIT in Android as Snapdragons can
There is a large difference in MFLOPS performance between Snapdragons and Cortex A8's - Snapdragons would get a much higher score even when running iOS
To get a definitive answer about the Galaxy S's comparative MFLOPS performance, I think the best idea is to run a native (not using Android) benchmark on both a Hummingbird and Snapdragon (and maybe an OMAP). Could Ubuntu on a Nexus One and Galaxy S give us a definitive answer? Can anyone test?
This should be helpful for Motorola owners as well.
You can't compare them unless you do a native benchmark on Android.
DCKing said:
I'm sorry to bump this old thread again, but I felt like it was a better choice than opening a new one.
It makes sense there's a difference between Snapdragons and other cores that are more closely related to the Cortex A8 like the Hummingbird and the OMAPs. But I find one thing weird:
This is a screenshot of an iPad having finished a Linpack benchmark. As you can see it's getting a score of more than 62 MFLOPS. iPhone 4's with a similar Apple A4 (albeit at a lower clock speed) are scoring around 36 MFLOPS, which I confirmed on a friend's iPhone 4 as well as internet sources. Now: the Apple A4 and Hummingbird are supposedly very related, and the biggest difference as I understand is actually the GPU, not the CPU core. So these large differences between an iPad and a Froyo Galaxy S should simply not be there.
To me, this can mean three things:
The Linpacks for iOS and Android are completely incomparable
Samsung and Texas Instruments CPUs can't take as much advantage of the JIT in Android as Snapdragons can
There is a large difference in MFLOPS performance between Snapdragons and Cortex A8's - Snapdragons would get a much higher score even when running iOS
To get a definitive answer about the Galaxy S's comparative MFLOPS performance, I think the best idea is to run a native (not using Android) benchmark on both a Hummingbird and Snapdragon (and maybe an OMAP). Could Ubuntu on a Nexus One and Galaxy S give us a definitive answer? Can anyone test?
This should be helpful for Motorola owners as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can't really compare the iphone/ipad to android even though the hardware is similar. Android uses a VM so your score is highly dependent on the efficiency of the JIT. This is why you get a much higher linpack score when using 2.2 then 2.1. On a SGS you get around 7-8 MFLOPS with 2.1, and nearly double that 14 MFLOPS if you use 2.2 due to optimization of the JIT. While that's an impressive gain, 2.2 brought more optimization to the snapdragon line of CPU's. Mainly because they have 128 bit SIMD (compared to 64 bit on hummingbird) you get around a 4x increase in performance to around 40 MFLOPS. Someone will surely correct me but the 4x gain on the Snapdragon compared to the 2x gain on the hummingbird is basically because the Froyo JIT is able to send two 64 bit instructions at a time to the 128 bit SIMD in the snapdragon that is why there's a larger gap in linpack scores between the Snapdragon and Hummingbird CPU's in Froyo 2.2 compared to Eclair 2.1.
LeeBear said:
You can't really compare the iphone/ipad to android even though the hardware is similar. Android uses a VM so your score is highly dependent on the efficiency of the JIT. This is why you get a much higher linpack score when using 2.2 then 2.1. On a SGS you get around 7-8 MFLOPS with 2.1, and nearly double that 14 MFLOPS if you use 2.2 due to optimization of the JIT. While that's an impressive gain, 2.2 brought more optimization to the snapdragon line of CPU's. Mainly because they have 128 bit SIMD (compared to 64 bit on hummingbird) you get around a 4x increase in performance to around 40 MFLOPS. Someone will surely correct me but the 4x gain on the Snapdragon compared to the 2x gain on the hummingbird is basically because the Froyo JIT is able to send two 64 bit instructions at a time to the 128 bit SIMD in the snapdragon that is why there's a larger gap in linpack scores between the Snapdragon and Hummingbird CPU's in Froyo 2.2 compared to Eclair 2.1.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Scorpion can only issue one arithmetic instruction per cycle, be they 128-bit SIMD or 32/64-bit VFP (scalar). I doubt the JIT is capable of vectorizing data on-the-fly.
I'd attribute the increase FP performance to the fact that Scorpion's FPU is fully pipelined whereas the FPU of the A8 and A9 are not.
You're being excessive.
Because benchmarks mean nothing. Why does it matter? If your performance is good, why benchmark? It's just a placebo. Just go ahead and remove all of your benchmark tools. It's freeing.
I am pretty new to OC so I cant figure out how to do it for 1.5 or 1.6 GHz.
Even when undervolting A1 kernel it is so unstable and cant pass antutu benchmark without crash and reset.
My best values are attached. Its A1 kernel, performance and cfq at 1.4ghz
I hope you will give me advice how to do better cpu benchmark values.
http://oi47.tinypic.com/2ia4ug7.jpg
You need a kernel that supports it. Look for one that is specific to your device.
God promised men that he'd put beautiful women in all corners of the world. Then he laughed and laughed and made the world round
My experience with undervolting is that the gain, battery wise, is nominal, hence I don't care UV.
I remember I got ~7300 in Antutu running CM10 @1500 with interactive governor. But benchmark
isn't everything, and I'm most happy with stock ICS with A1's 1.8.3c @1400 (interactive). I would
prefer running it @1500, but it tends to get a wee bit warm when doing this.
Of course I use kernel designed for my device.
In game overclocking for high performance are numbers important. Every 20pts in antutu benchmark (3d section) does matter in ingame fps (in my case shadowgun deadzone) and you can See it. So nobody has better score? :'(
I believe this is around the highest I got. No, you can't get too much higher. I am quite frustrated at this devices development - the xoom gets much better development and optimisation.... It is all about optimisation.