I'm just wondering what good benchmark results are. I'm at 683 at 1200mhz. What are you guys getting for results?
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Thats really low
Is this quadrant without lagfix at 1.2 score?
If so i get with new JI5 at 1gz no lagfix 915
And 8.3 score with linpack
demo23019 said:
Thats really low
Is this quadrant without lagfix at 1.2 score?
If so i get with new JI5 at 1gz no lagfix 915
And 8.3 score with linpack
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm using king's #2 kernel. Are my numbers bad? I thought that the lower the number the better. I'm new with using benchmarks, so I really have no idea what I'm doing haha.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
I got 8.4 with linpack, and 633 with long bench in the set CPU app.
i was using jacs kernel but it doesn't work with update so im stuck at 1ghz for now
Buy yea i never used setcpu to bench and with that yea lower is better.
im getting 755 with long bench
Im sure someone else will come post with similar 1.2 setup
I'm getting 622 on Long Bench in SetCPU
9.723 in Linpack
1940 in Quadrant
That's at 1200MHz on JAC's ExtremeMod with Voodoo, stock Deodexed 2.1
Dan_Brutal said:
I got 8.4 with linpack, and 633 with long bench in the set CPU app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your numbers are fine. Dont be too conserned with benchmark scores even though it is fun to run them from a gear head point of view...
Although if you want a bit more accuracy, run any benchmark three times and average out your total score.
My scores are, so you have an idea:
Linpack= 9.2 averaged on three runs
SetCpu= Long Bench 636 averaged on three runs
Quadrant= 1863 on three runs
*(RyanZ's lagfix has been proven to cheat Quadrant thus giving users a much higher score. example: 2300,2400 etc.)*
Running Bionix 1.5 w/Jacs OC/Voodoo kernel
So, for all us CM7 users, there have recently been alot of questions as to why there is such a disparity between the stock CM7 kernel, and the 1.1Ghz kernel, given both are made by the same person (dalingrin). Really, there are two questions -
1) Why is the quadrant score different between the kernels?
2) How does this equate to real-world use?
To help answer #1, i went ahead and purchased a copy of Quadrant Advanced. The advanced version lets me run the bench offline (helpful at work ), and also shows each piece of the score (the important part, as seen in the results). this breakdown shows where the difference is.
But to answer #2, I have to go well beyond Quadrant, and look at many different benches. I tried to find a variety of both system and 3D benches in a hope to uncover any problems anywhere. If there is a more widespread problem, it may be uncovered in other benchmarks. So, without further ado, the test system:
CM7- nightly 27, running on eMMC
Stock CM7 Kernel, 925Mhz, Performance Governor
OC CM7 Kernel, 1000Mhz, Performance Governor
OC CM7 Kernel, 1100Mhz, Performance Governor
I kept the gov on performance, to help rule out any differences between governors. Performance runs the CPU at full speed all the time, so it keeps the benches comparable. For every CPU speed/kernel change, i rebooted the system, and ran each bench once in the order listed. And the results!
Stock kernel
CPU @ 925, Performance gov,
Quadrant (First run only):
Total: 1536
CPU: 2504
Mem: 1080
I/O: 3629
2D: 188
3D: 278
Linpack:
12.078Mflops
NenaMark:
16.7 Fps
Benchmark PI (https://market.android.com/details?id=gr.androiddev.BenchmarkP):
Pi found in 1636ms
Antutu System benchmark (https://market.android.com/details?id=com.antutu.ABenchMark):
Total Score: 1675
Memory: 407
CPU Integer: 578
CPU Float: 129
2D Graphics: 100
3D Graphics: 276
Database IO: 10
SD Card Write: 5.0 MB/s
SD Card Read: 12.5 MB/s
An3DBench (https://market.android.com/details?id=com.threed.jpct.bench):
Fillrate ST/MT: 6.21/6.22 MP/s
High object count: 27.03 Fps
Multiple Lights: 40.19 Fps
High polygon count: 19.97 Fps
Keyframe animation: 39.97 Fps
Game level: 30.04 Fps
Total score: 4278
3/16 Overclock Kernel
CPU @1000Mhz, Performance gov
Quadrant (First run only):
Total: 960
CPU: 2693
Mem: 1099
I/O: 522
2D: 202
3D: 286
Linpack:
12.983Mflops
NenaMark:
17.0 Fps
Benchmark PI:
Pi found in 1627ms
Antutu System benchmark :
Total Score: 1832
Memory: 445
CPU Integer: 631
CPU Float: 144
2D Graphics: 109
3D Graphics: 302
Database IO: 20
SD Card Write: 5.8 MB/s
SD Card Read: 12.3 MB/s
An3DBench:
Fillrate ST/MT: 6.23/6.19 MP/sec
High object count: 30.46 fps
Multiple Lights: 39.96 fps
High polygon count: 20.16 fps
Keyframe animation: 40.40 fps
Game level: 30.43 fps
Total score: 4397
CPU @1100Mhz, Performance gov
Quadrant (First run only):
Total: 1001
CPU: 2833
Mem: 1085
I/O: 566
2D: 213
3D: 306
Linpack:
MFlops: 13.917
NenaMark:
16.8 Fps
Benchmark PI:
Pi found in 1460
Antutu System benchmark:
**Would not run at 1100**
Total Score:
Memory:
CPU Integer:
CPU Float:
2D Graphics:
3D Graphics:
Database IO:
SD Card Write:
SD Card Read:
An3DBench :
Fillrate ST/MT: 5.89/6.01
High object count: 17.53 fps
Multiple Lights: 40.22 fps
High polygon count: 20.13 fps
Keyframe animation: 40.37 fps
Game level: 30.44
Total score: 4054
The results speak alot, i think, and yet they don't. The big difference, is that the IO score on Quadrant tanks on the OC kernel, but is fine/better on every other test. Specifically, i noticed that file system writes takes much longer on the OC kernel, than the stock. 3D performance makes obvious gains with increasing clock speed, and other CPU / IO benches show no problem either.
The antutu bench failing at 1.1 is very odd, since my system has never shown any instability at this speed. It crashes almost immediately , where are 1.0Ghz makes it through just fine. Could it be my system is instable? Possibly...
just for the heck of it, i set the gov to interactive, and here is what i got (1100Mhz, OC kernel, Interactive Gov):
Antutu System benchmark:
Total Score: 1089
Memory: 481
CPU Integer: 701
CPU Float: 154
2D Graphics: 101
3D Graphics: 209
Database IO: 10
SD Card Write: 4.9 MB/s
SD Card Read: 10.4 MB/s
who knows....
Thus, I am left with this question: Is the Quadrant bench testing an IO function that no other bench i tried is, or is it testing something in a way no other bench does, and just doesn't like this kernel? Obivously, SOMETHING is going on, becuase the problem is measurable and repeatable. The kernel change showing the problem alludes to a possible issue, but other benches say that the likelyhood of noticing it is minimal.
That said, our device isn't the only one that seems like it has a problem with IO scores: http://androidforums.com/samsung-captivate/136969-quadrant-scores.html
Hopefully, this is a starting point for people, and might even help a dev or two pinpoint what might be happening. I am no expert, but am willing to help where i can.
Data Formatting
Thanks for the bench scores. Hopefully its a starting point to understand the issue.
Here is a better looking version of your numbers :
{
"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"
}
Wow.. many thanks for the awesome graph; it really makes things so much neater!
Also the guesses that it may be a problem with quadrant may pan out. I always thought the OC kernel seemed snappier as far as user interaction (especially launching the applications list w/ animations.)
chisleu said:
Also the guesses that it may be a problem with quadrant may pan out. I always thought the OC kernel seemed snappier as far as user interaction (especially launching the applications list w/ animations.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The user interaction improvement is due to increased CPU clock and 2D performance. IO matters when you install or load something.
amtrakcn said:
The user interaction improvement is due to increased CPU clock and 2D performance. IO matters when you install or load something.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except those numbers are inaccurate.
chisleu said:
Except those numbers are inaccurate.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The performance increase I've experianced with the o/c kernal leads me to agree with your point about the quad benchmark numbers being off the mark. That said, I was wondering if your statement is based on a deeper understanding of what is causing the low io quadrant numbers, and if it is, that you would be willing to share your thoughts. Thanks.
I think the statement really is worth looking into - the performance variance should be explored; just because quadrant is the only bench that shows and issue, doesn't mean there isn't one in the system...
Divine_Madcat, just wanted to say I appreciated the way you analyzed the issue and presented your findings. I learned alot from your approach. Enjoying your post. I'll send a thanks your way next time I sign in from my web browser.
Sent from my SGH-I897 using XDA App
vizographic said:
The performance increase I've experianced with the o/c kernal leads me to agree with your point about the quad benchmark numbers being off the mark. That said, I was wondering if your statement is based on a deeper understanding of what is causing the low io quadrant numbers, and if it is, that you would be willing to share your thoughts. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not making a statement based on personal knowledge, but simply parroting something the guy who manages the kernal builds said.
So which should we use?
evilmerlin said:
So which should we use?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The OC Kernel. The OP was documenting something in detail to try to help out. There is a weird issue causing the OC kernel to show up slower than the stock in one benchmark. It's faster in all other benchmarks. There is probably something wrong with the benchmark.
chisleu said:
The OC Kernel. The OP was documenting something in detail to try to help out. There is a weird issue causing the OC kernel to show up slower than the stock in one benchmark. It's faster in all other benchmarks. There is probably something wrong with the benchmark.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for all the feedback guys. Chisleu, i would say you are correct, that it probably is the bench. Yet, there is just this small nagging part of me that wonder if quadrant isn't using something nothing else is, and found a hidden problem. Needless to say, i am not done looking at all this yet.
Divine_Madcat said:
Thanks for all the feedback guys. Chisleu, i would say you are correct, that it probably is the bench. Yet, there is just this small nagging part of me that wonder if quadrant isn't using something nothing else is, and found a hidden problem. Needless to say, i am not done looking at all this yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is worth investigating though I must say it is low on my priority list. I don't put much weight in Quadrant and especially their I/O tests. Their I/O tests are known to be especially flaky.
When I get a chance, I will go through and remove the tweaks that are not in common with the CM7 kernel to see what is causing it. Unless someone beats me to it. *hint hint*
Thank you, Mr. Divine_Madcat! Hopefully you will continue your highly valuable benchmarking work with every significant CM7 nightly and RC, and Froyo/HC, to show the progress and better appreciate the work of our devs.
Quadrant marks peculiarities are, yes, puzzling. And they are not just in their absolute values, but the scatter of these between consequent benchmarkings.
Also, I know it's not the opportune time, but just to get into an understanding of a baseline FPS for OpenGL ES HW acceleration (or lack thereof), it might be worth the effort to do Neocore, at least on CM7 builds.
Thank you.
dalingrin said:
It is worth investigating though I must say it is low on my priority list. I don't put much weight in Quadrant and especially their I/O tests. Their I/O tests are known to be especially flaky.
When I get a chance, I will go through and remove the tweaks that are not in common with the CM7 kernel to see what is causing it. Unless someone beats me to it. *hint hint*
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I got confused going into the kernel code. It looked like you guys only changed 8-10 lines of code from the B&N release. The last CVSystem I've used was CVS. heh. This new fangled "git" thingie is blowing my mind.
EDIT: NM... I wasn't seeing all the commits. Now I get it. Do we have to make config/menuconfig/whatever to setup the kernel, or are all the flags ready to go?
EDIT: Man I have some catching up to do. I remember when menuconfig was hot ****. The last kernel I built was 2.2.something IIRC.
Can't find the .config. Surely it's not hidden?
i know that quadrant puts a big emphasis on i/o score. just going from ext3 to ext4 on a archos 101 gave ~800-1000 pts.
scores have been around 2900 on quadrant for a device that feels slower than a galaxy tab.
I seem to have more touchscreen lag/miscalibration when using the oc kernal. It's only really apparent when i'm typing on the keyboard. I was using the stock kernal for about a week with no real issues. Is this something anyone else is experiencing? I was going to flash back to stock, but if it seems isolated, and i'll just flash the new nightly and the OC kernal on top of it again.
xwint3rxmut3x said:
I seem to have more touchscreen lag/miscalibration when using the oc kernal. It's only really apparent when i'm typing on the keyboard. I was using the stock kernal for about a week with no real issues. Is this something anyone else is experiencing? I was going to flash back to stock, but if it seems isolated, and i'll just flash the new nightly and the OC kernal on top of it again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
search for the touchscreen calibration. it's like 1 su/adb command.
chisleu said:
I am not making a statement based on personal knowledge, but simply parroting something the guy who manages the kernal builds said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the clarification. I take it you are referring to dalingrin. I think I recall the issue being addressed in a thread but I can't remember exactly what was said or where it was brought up. Do you have the threads post number by chance, since any observations on his part are worthy of serious consideration. Just hoping to learn something new here. Thanks in advance.
Web page refresh showed post by chisleu which quoted dalingrin on the io issue. If this was the post You were referring to then please ignore the above request.
So,as the title points out,Nenamark 2 is out and it sports some MUCH more advanced graphics,meaning it will stretch the GPU's abilities to the maximum.
Owning a Desire HD,I get 48 FPS @1.8GHz and performance governor on Nenamark 1.5(where GS2 gets 59.7).On the new Nenamark 2,with the exact same setup,I get a miserable 13.3 FPS.And I can tell you,graphics' quality of the benchmark can be compared to some simple PC games(Not Crysis obviously ).
So,what are your results?
(Same thread also on Sensation forums)
Here's my first and only run
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA Premium App
I got 45.6 on my first run.. stock rom.
Seems the sgs2 is ruling the roost on this benchmark
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
49.7fps with stock ROM and performance governor in setCPU.
Did 3 runs, got 49.x fps in each run.
Sensation is handicapped in the test because it is running at higher res.
Could you guys try turning Chainfire3D off for a try?In case it affects results showing raw power of the GPU.
tolis626 said:
Could you guys try turning Chainfire3D off for a try?In case it affects results showing raw power of the GPU.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I got 43,x with stock firmware and no root (so no Chainfire3D)
And yep,that's what I'm talkin' about!
I'm 80% sold at this point and all's inclining towards the Galaxy S 2!My wallet included!
Someone with the 1.5ghz overclock should try this
36 on first run, my sgs2 is a slough lol
rocketpaul said:
36 on first run, my sgs2 is a slough lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've scored lows of 36 too.
45.4 fps for me
Software has bugs. Shows needle between 50-60 but scores me at 43. First run was 35 after closing some apps.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App
How about Electopia OpenGL ES 2.0 benchmark utility?
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.tactel.electopia
Has anyone used this for benchmarks? I don't have the phone myself, so can't test it
Third run i got 44.6 not to bothered about scores, not relevant in real world.
rd_nest said:
How about Electopia OpenGL ES 2.0 benchmark utility?
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.tactel.electopia
Has anyone used this for benchmarks? I don't have the phone myself, so can't test it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would like that to
Got 53.8 as maximum score
Stock rooted KE7 no mods .
47.4 --- 47.5 --- 47.8
Electopia
Ave 45.07 fps
jje
OC @1.5 ghz and chainfire3d app
I too got 53.8 on nenamark as max
On electopia I got 56 fps.
Stock rom, no chainfire activated, no OC.
44/49 on nenamark
49/50 on electopia
45.2 - original ROM
How are other android touchpads doing? W / the 1.7ghz overclock I'm hitting a Max of 98ish mflops and 3300+ on quadrant! Which makes it my fastest Droid to date. Lets see if anybody can post a better quadrant screenshot?
richard head said:
How are other android touchpads doing? W / the 1.7ghz overclock I'm hitting a Max of 98ish mflops and 3300+ on quadrant! Which makes it my fastest Droid to date. Lets see if anybody can post a better quadrant screenshot?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i overclock my touchpad to 1.782 ghz. do you know how to overclock gpu
adreno 220 is in 266 mhz original but i need to overclock it to 300 mhz because its a very good frequency or 320 mhz
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
Gotcha
Think I beat you
Fastest I've gotten. Have not really tried with the latest versions.
general feeling is that as far as benchmarks go, quadrant is crap
should try antutu instead.
ive a thread in this section somewhere where some people have posted results
This discussion seems a bit flawed, in that you're gauging performance based upon benchmark software, etc. We've talked about this a lot over the past year, and most of these tests are very dependent upon specific hardware setups, usually in much older devices with older chipsets. My Nexus S w/ a single-core 1ghz UNDERCLOCKED to 880mhz scores a 3500 all the time in Quadrant. No way in hell it's better than the touchpad. It's not even a fair fight, if you compare raw specs.
Do you judge the performance of your computer based on how fast it can perform iterations of Prime 95? No, you judge it based on user experience.
Is your user experience with CM7 very fast? I know mine is. Based on that, and the experience I get with gfx-intense apps like GTA3, etc, I say the performance is very good.
PS. The fact that Quadrant to this day still has the Nexus One as its top reference device says something about it being old and outdated. The Nexus One came out in Jan 2010, 2 years ago.
Hello XDA,
I was just wondering if anyone else have encountered the same issue (not sure if it is an issue).
When I run Quadrant Benchmark, there is only 8 CPU showing. I have googled and have seen a few videos shows 12 CPU during a Quadrant Benchmark.
I have attached screenshots of the information Quadrant Benchmark shows.
Also Quadrant seems to only show 1 Core in System Information.
Not sure that the device being a refurb would have anything to do with it. But I just want to make sure that I am getting the most out of my phone, and may be also possibly increases by benchmark scores to the 4000-5000 range as even with just 8 CPU I am averaging between 3000-4000 benchmark points.
Any clarification and assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance!!!
I think you're quite confused . The "8 CPUs" are the number of tests it runs to test the CPU portion. Could be as simple as they previously used 12 tests but have now managed to test the same things with 8 tests. You phone doesn't have 8 CPUs
Quadrant often only displays 1 core because the other "sleeps" when not needed. Once the demand for more power is there it'll wake the second core.
If you want higher scores you can overclock, change governor, etc. but really benchmark scores are meaningless
Quadrant was updated several months ago and the number of CPU tests was reduced to 8 from 12. See this post (its a june 2010 post) http://www.aurorasoftworks.com/products
Wink
Thank you
Hello All, Thank you to the both of you for the clarification and guidance. Much appreciated!!!
Have a great day/night.
Close
Ok, How do I go about closing this thread? Edit Post maybe?
twiggums said:
I think you're quite confused . The "8 CPUs" are the number of tests it runs to test the CPU portion. Could be as simple as they previously used 12 tests but have now managed to test the same things with 8 tests. You phone doesn't have 8 CPUs
Quadrant often only displays 1 core because the other "sleeps" when not needed. Once the demand for more power is there it'll wake the second core.
If you want higher scores you can overclock, change governor, etc. but really benchmark scores are meaningless
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Beyond [email protected] said:
Ok, How do I go about closing this thread? Edit Post maybe?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have to wait for one of the mod's to close it. Maybe they'll close it, now that you've requested it. Or maybe it'll just stay open and get buried, which is fine too.
Pm a mod and request it to be closed.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using XDA
My understanding is that you need to edit the title to say [SOLVED] and it will either get buried and die or Red will close it.