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.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
They're pretty reliable I guess, they just can't be translated to real life performance
http://briefmobile.com/cyanogen-demonstrates-quadrants-flaws
Not so, with GB and lag fix kernel and modified prop I had over 2300, but rest of the UX was bad even games were jumpy, now i have less than 1000 with Quadrant and butter smooth UX (user experrience) and better and more stable framerate in games than ever
Let's say on PC you have great score with PC Mark and 3D Mark but you can't play 3D Tetris...
Quadrant Advanced is better in terms that it gives you separate score chart for different parts of test.
Its a benchmark that does not reflect the usability or response of the SGS .
Highest score on Eclair then with each upgrade score gets lower and phone gets faster more responsive and less laggy .
jje
Quadrant results are useful if the ONLY thing you want to run on your phone is quadrant, because that's what it tests. It's similar to how on PC's, some games prefer different video cards. It also comes down to space/speed of algorithms..
The best thing to do, is to uninstall Quadrant, and test the ROM's yourself
Hi N7 fellow users
i get MAX 2600 3D and 350 2D in antutu and quadrant though i'm all the time OC the GPU to 520mhz
is that normal ?? i'm running the latest Paranoid Android rom along the latest Franco kernel.
That is about what I get for 3D. If you go to the developer menu you can improve your 2D performance by checking the "Force GPU rendering" . For what it's worth my 2D for Quadrant went to about 1000 after the checking that option.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Thanks for your reply
My htc one X was getting 39xx, 1k higher than my nexus
though they use nearly the same gpu.
Homurato said:
Thanks for your reply.
My htc one X was getting 39xx, 1k higher than my nexus
though they use nearly the same gpu.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
quadrant does not measure gpu, it measures fps. and we are limited to 59fps no matter how much we overclock the gpu. use a benchmark like windmill, or basemark taiji, to test your gpu and what tweaking your gpu does. quadrant is an old, out of date benchmark.
simms22 said:
quadrant does not measure gpu, it measures fps. and we are limited to 59fps no matter how much we overclock the gpu. use a benchmark like windmill, or basemark taiji, to test your gpu and what tweaking your gpu does. quadrant is an old, out of date benchmark.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i guess i have to forget about all this paranoia coming from the low benchmark scores since every game works xD
(except horn strangely runs about 25 fps it seems, even though i'm oced to 520mhz)
Low of diminishing returns, if you over clock it doesn't mean ull always get higher scores, after ur GPU gets heated up it start to show lower and lower scores.
GPU is stable @ 446 (beyond that when ever it gets heated up it will cause touch and other issues)
Source: Read kernel Developers OP once a while
I looked a bit onto numbers posted on One benchmark post and one thing bothers me, specifically with CF bench:
Native scores are not really that bigger - around 10% higher than let's say S3 (26728 vs 23966). However, java scores are significantly better and are even nearly on par with native scores (and around 3.5x higher than current devices - 20119 vs 6489 for S3).
If I understand it properly, native benchmark is done natively with compiled C application, while java benchmark is running in Dalvik.
Considering that java scores are really ones that got so improved, is there a chance that HTC One contains some huge Dalvik optimizations?
matejdro said:
I looked a bit onto numbers posted on One benchmark post and one thing bothers me, specifically with CF bench:
Native scores are not really that bigger - around 10% higher than let's say S3 (26728 vs 23966). However, java scores are significantly better and are even nearly on par with native scores (and around 3.5x higher than current devices - 20119 vs 6489 for S3).
If I understand it properly, native benchmark is done natively with compiled C application, while java benchmark is running in Dalvik.
Considering that java scores are really ones that got so improved, is there a chance that HTC One contains some huge Dalvik optimizations?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think with Android 4.4 you should have even better performance... thanks to the ART engine.. maybe with following updates you'll score even higher
Hello, as I mentioned I am facing low fps and poor performance in pubg and when I ran the geekbench test it games 1k in singlecore and 3k in multicore test. I am using stock oos oreo with blushark( I don't remember the name lol) kernal with unlocked bootloader. It also shows only 3 cores idk why, and the score is very low compared to other scores on browser.geekbench which shows 2k for single core and 5.5k for multicore. Please help!
I'll try to keep updating my research on this.
I did a hard reset and installed omni rom 8.1 which got me a 80% increase in single core benchmark (~1850) and 25% increase in multi core benchmark(~3925). Single core benchmarks are now around the same as of what others test results are showing in browser.geekbench, but multicore benchmark is still less. :/
Aah I settled on omni ROM 8.1 with caesium kernel and disabled touchboost and changed big cluster governer to ondemand from conservative. I now could play pubg smoothly on 1280x720p with high graphics and extreme fps thanks to gfx tool app before I couldn't even play the game with so smooth graphics and 956x500 blah blah resolution. I noticed the CPU would throttle down and reduce the frequencies for big cluster to like ~1530mhz and little to ~1350 MHz but the gameplay was good.
Assassin P780 said:
I'll try to keep updating my research on this.
I did a hard reset and installed omni rom 8.1 which got me a 80% increase in single core benchmark (~1850) and 25% increase in multi core benchmark(~3925). Single core benchmarks are now around the same as of what others test results are showing in browser.geekbench, but multicore benchmark is still less. :/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Stock kernel will give you the best results IMO. Try the Bane kernel, is good too
nickpapeir said:
Stock kernel will give you the best results IMO. Try the Bane kernel, is good too
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Will try that too! Thanks!
The stock kernel gave me the above result 1850 singlecore and 3900 for multicore and after caesium kernel I got 4050 in multicore and 1650 in single core. But I don't how to go back to stock kernel without reinstalling the rom :/
Assassin P780 said:
... But I don't how to go back to stock kernel without reinstalling the rom :/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Use a file manager, such as Solid Explorer, to copy boot.img from the ROM zip file and flash it in TWRP by selecting Image in the install option.
Sent from my OnePlus 3T using XDA Labs
Thanks to BillGross
I am back on the stock kernel of omni rom 8.1 which gives me a average score of 1900 in single core and 3900 in multicore tests and pubg runs great on hdr 720p 60fps although it doesn't run at full 60 fps and there are some stutters here and there but gameplay is very good.
Simple fact: oos sucks except its face unlock.