How much Faster is the PDF Rendering Speed - Asus Eee Pad Transformer Prime

1. How fast does a large PDF File maybe (50-150mb) renders in TFT Prime?
Anyone using an SGS2 can compare it with TFT Prime (Tegra 3)?
Thanks!

link a file and I could do the comparison

Related

[Q] Why are desktop browsers so much faster than mobile browsers?

Run Speed Battle. What's your score?
My score using my Macbook Pro i7 with Firefox 10 and 8gb of ram is in the 400-500 range. My score using my HTC Flyer tablet (1.5 GHz Scorpion single core, with 1gb ram) with Opera Mobile is in the 25-35 range. When using Opera Mini or the stock Honeycomb browser, it's even lower, somewhere in the 10-20 range.
I ran this test because I was confused why my desktop browser is so much faster than browsing on a tablet. From these numbers, you would conclude that it's on the order of 10x faster. Naively, I just assumed that the biggest factor behind loading a website was the connection speed. But since the same connection is used for both my tests, I guess this can't be the reason. Certainly, CPU matters when it comes to processing the webpage, but does it matter this much?
So perhaps someone else can explain: why is mobile browsing on the order of ten times slower than desktop browsing?
TSGM said:
Run Speed Battle. What's your score?
My score using my Macbook Pro i7 with Firefox 10 and 8gb of ram is in the 400-500 range. My score using my HTC Flyer tablet (1.5 GHz Scorpion single core, with 1gb ram) with Opera Mobile is in the 25-35 range. When using Opera Mini or the stock Honeycomb browser, it's even lower, somewhere in the 10-20 range.
I ran this test because I was confused why my desktop browser is so much faster than browsing on a tablet. From these numbers, you would conclude that it's on the order of 10x faster. Naively, I just assumed that the biggest factor behind loading a website was the connection speed. But since the same connection is used for both my tests, I guess this can't be the reason. Certainly, CPU matters when it comes to processing the webpage, but does it matter this much?
So perhaps someone else can explain: why is mobile browsing on the order of ten times slower than desktop browsing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Err, because that's not a connection test, but a javascript test. Thus executing code... Can't expect a phone to compete with a full fledged top of the line computer, can you?
Pretty obvious is it not? Wow...
Sent from my Nexus S using xda premium
I just think it's quiet obvious, but that mostly comes from that it has always been this way for me. I think it's just because of the fact that a Mac is a Mac and a tablet is a.. tablet
CdTDroiD said:
Pretty obvious is it not? Wow...
Sent from my Nexus S using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sorry, call me stupid, but I don't think it's obvious at all.
Let us assume that there is an upper limit for the computing speed and resources required to render a typical internet page. I would have assumed that the kind of processors found in tablets are already near this upper limit. So, as a made up figure, a 486 machine running Windows 3.1 might be able to render a given page in 10 seconds, and my modern desktop might render it in 3. A tablet might be able to render it in 5. A supercomputer might render it in 2.5. This is assuming all these machines are on the same connection.
The point is that there is a point of diminishing returns, where the principle bottleneck of rendering a page is the connection speed.
However, because I noticed a substantial difference in loading times between a tablet and a desktop, I was forced to conclude that the principle bottleneck in speed wasn't the connection speed, but rather the CPU's capability in loading various scripts (or whatnot). I'd simply assumed that the technology in 2011 (regardless of whether it took tablet or desktop form) was already close to the plateau of diminishing returns. This, I found surprising.
...but then again, I guess everybody here thinks it's obvious that the principle bottleneck is not connection speed, but something else.
It is definitely obvious. You can make a 1000-page post explaining why you THINK it isn't obvious, but it will still be obvious.
I'm completely sorry.
Mr. Holmes said:
It is definitely obvious. You can make a 1000-page post explaining why you THINK it isn't obvious, but it will still be obvious.
I'm completely sorry.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand. Thanks.
Can you explain to me what is the relation between browsing speed and CPU? Is it a linear relation? I would have expected it to vary to a plateau. This is the point I am most curious about. I don't think the functional dependence is at all obvious, but I am happy to hear your explanation.

Flash slower than sg2?

I was trying to load Bejeweled blitz from facebooks desktop site and it looks choppy and unsmoothed. I tried it on my friends sg2 and its smooth as butter.
Making me wonder if the sg2 is much better than the prime? I have a g2x and its no where near the speed of the sg2 and I really thought the prime was able to load flash much better but not the case.
Nvidia always!
I cant reproduce it with flash games, but my experience so far is that the Galaxy S2 is MUCH smoother than the Prime in EVERY respect (with the exception of hardware video decoding, but hey...).
HOWEVER I definitely hope that is because of Honeycomb rather than Tegra 3. But I'll have to wait another 2 1/2 weeks for ICS to decide that...
The bizarre thing is that from pure specs, even the Tegra 2 is a faster/more powerful SoC than the Exynos in the SGS2, but it's lacking the NEOS which the SGS2 has. Also remember the SGS2 has to drive a much smaller screen. Also, flash can probably not use the quadcore (?) well.
So far I have to say in general smoothness Tegra 3/HC has been very underwhelming. And the 3 week delay of ICS in Germany does not bode well.
I am on ICS and its not that much of a difference in resolution for it to lag so much. All I can think of is tegra doesn't do well with flash.
Nvidia always!
Wow so I installed chainfire 3d on my g2x and installed the nvidia plug in and guess what? Seems as fast as the sg2. I take it flash just isn't optimized for nvidia. I am gonna try this on the prime and see what the results are
Nvidia always!
Alot smoother and just with chainfire. I wonder how or why?
Nvidia always!
A member of the Android team posted this about smoothness comparisons between the GS2 and the Galaxy Nexus. I think this may apply to the Prime as well.
"Some have raised points along the lines of Samsung Galaxy S2 phones already having a smoother UI and indicating that they are doing something different vs. the Galaxy Nexus. When comparing individual devices though you really need to look at all of the factors. For example, the S2's screen is 480x800 vs. the Galaxy Nexus at 720x1280. If the Nexus S could already do 60fps for simple UIs on its 480x800, the CPU in the S2's is even better off.
The real important difference between these two screens is just that the Galaxy Nexus has 2.4x as many pixels that need to be drawn as the S2. This means that to achieve the same efficiency at drawing the screen, you need a CPU that can run a single core at 2.4x the speed (and rendering a UI for a single app is essentially not parallelizable, so multiple cores isn't going to save you).
This is where hardware accelerated rendering really becomes important: as the number of pixels goes up, GPUs can generally scale much better to handle them, since they are more specialized at their task. In fact this was the primary incentive for implementing hardware accelerated drawing in Android -- at 720x1280 we are well beyond the point where current ARM CPUs can provide 60fps. (And this is a reason to be careful about making comparisons between the Galaxy Nexus and other devices like the S2 -- if you are running third party apps, there is a good chance today that the app is not enabling hardware acceleration, so your comparison is doing CPU rendering on the Galaxy Nexus which means you almost certainly aren't going to get 60fps out of it, because it needs to hit 2.4x as many pixels as the S2 does.)"
A link to the rest of the article is in my sig.
Yeah but why does it work as smooth when applying chainfire 3d? I mean its a world of difference there on both my devices.
Besides the prime has a quad core with a much powerful gpu than the s2
Nvidia always!
Try going to blitz on Facebook or g+ and play without chainfire and then with.
Nvidia always!
Got an s3 now and flash is awesome
Sent from my GT-I9300 using XDA Premium HD app

3D graphics acceleration

Hi all,
I have been developing a small android app which is sort of a reader for results coming from a desktop application. Some of these results are in the shape of a 3-dimensional structure made of a number of basic geometries, which I have been generating using a library which I coded in C++ using OpenSceneGraph and compiled with NDK. I have tested my app on both my HTC 3D EVO (before on stock rom, then on a few gingerbread custom ROMS and finally on a few ICS roms too) and also on a crappy 7'' chinese tablet which I bought really cheap a while ago. This tablet has a pretty basic AllWinnerTech A10 single core 1GHz processor, 512 Mb RAM and a Mali 400 GPU. So nothing fancy at all. However in all my tests I get about 2 to 3 times as many FPS from the tablet compared to the EVO. The structure can be moved, zoomed in and out much more smoothly. Remarkably so!
Am I missing something obvious here? Is there a "turn on graphics acceleration, you idiot!" button which I have not found yet? I mean, just in terms of specs I would have expected the EVO to run circles around that tablet.
Has anyone got any idea?
Cheers.
Have you tried forcing HW acceleration threw your build prop to see if makes a difference on your setup??
#Root-Hack_Mod*Always\
debug.sf.hw = 1 already. anything else in the build.prop file that may improve this? Could it be a drivers issue, or is it just me expecting more that I should from this phone?
Are you hitting the frame limit cap ?
what would the value of this cap be? I barely go above 15-20fps on the smallest structures. anyway, don't get me wrong: I can live with it.
It was just curiosity, because I expected much better performance from the EVO. and so I was wondering where/what is the bottle neck
From what I understand HTC shipped the EVO 3D with terrible drivers, I think that they fixed this problem with the ICS update. With these drivers the Adreno 220 is able to surpass the Mali 400 mp4 (galaxy s2 version) in some situations.

[Q] Flash on 101g9 ics

Hi folk,
I'm here to ask you: have you problems with flash videos streaming on the 101g9 1.0 ghz ti omap 4430? Since HC I had problems like laggy flash video streaming, then on ICS official too.
I'm talking about anime videos, that my other cheap tablet (a mediacom with 1gb ram, ics, 8" display (1024x768), arm cortex8 single core) can easily handle.
With my A101g9 I have slow flash videos loading and then browser's FC without errors...is that a common problem?
Thank you so much
Sent from my ARCHOS 101G9 using xda premium

[INFO] Nexus 10 vs Nexus 7 and emulators

Last summer, I decided to buy a Nexus 7 for using it mainly as an ebook reader. It's perfect for that with its very sharp 1280x800 screen. It was my first Android device and I love this little tablet.
I'm a fan of retro gaming and I installed emulators on every device I have: Pocket PC, Xbox, PSP Go, iPhone, iPad3, PS3. So I discovered that the Android platform was one of the most active community for emulation fans like me and I bought many of them, and all those made by Robert Broglia (.EMU series). They were running great on the N7 but I found that 16GB was too small, as was the screen.
I waited and waited until the 32 GB Nexus 10 became available here in Canada and bought it soon after (10 days ago). With its A15 cores, I was expecting the N10 to be a great device for emulation but I am now a little disapointed. When buying the N10, I expected everything to run faster than on the N7 by a noticeable margin.
Many emulators run slower on the N10 than on the N7. MAME4Ddroid and MAME4Droid reloaded are no longer completely smooth with more demanding ROMs, Omega 500, Colleen, UAE4droid and SToid are slower and some others needed much more tweaking than on the N7. I'm a little extreme on accuracy of emulation and I like everything to be as close to the real thing as possible. A solid 60 fps for me is a must (or 50 fps for PAL machines).
On the other side, there are other emus that ran very well: the .EMU series and RetroArch for example. These emulators are much more polished than the average quick port and they run without a flaw. They're great on the 10-inch screen and I enjoy them very much. The CPU intensive emulators (Mupen64Plus AE and FPSE) gained some speed but less that I anticipated.
So is this because of the monster Nexus 10's 2560x1600 resolution? Or is it because of limited memory bandwith? Maybe some emulators are not tweaked for the N10 yet. I wish some emulators had the option to set a lower resolution for rendering and then upscale the output. I think that many Android apps just try to push the frames to the native resolution without checking first if there is a faster way.
The N7 has a lower clocked 4 core CPU but has only 1/4 the resolution. I think that it's a more balanced device that the N10 which may have a faster dual core CPU but too much pixels to push. It's much like the iPad3 who was twice as fast as the iPad2 but had a 4x increase in resolution.
I am now considering going for a custom ROM on the N10 but I wonder if I will see an increase in emulation speed. Maybe those of you who did the jump can tell me. I'm thinking about AOKP maybe.
Any suggestion on that would be appreciated, thanks!
The emulators just need to be tweaked a bit to better perform on the completely different processor architecture. Really our processor is far more powerful than the Nexus 7 so the emulators should run faster. I too am a fan of the old games, and I play Super Nintendo and Game Boy Advance (and some Color) games quite often. I find performance to be perfect with no issues at all, but then again those arent exactly "demanding" emulators.
We do not have any sort of memory bandwidth limitation on the Nexus 10. The tablet has been designed to give the full needed 12.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth that is required for 2560x1600 resolution.
EniGmA1987 said:
The emulators just need to be tweaked a bit to better perform on the completely different processor architecture. Really our processor is far more powerful than the Nexus 7 so the emulators should run faster. I too am a fan of the old games, and I play Super Nintendo and Game Boy Advance (and some Color) games quite often. I find performance to be perfect with no issues at all, but then again those arent exactly "demanding" emulators.
We do not have any sort of memory bandwidth limitation on the Nexus 10. The tablet has been designed to give the full needed 12.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth that is required for 2560x1600 resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm, if no memory bandwidth limitation exists on the N10, wouldn't I be able to run GTA 3 at 100% screen resolution and not have significantly lower FPS, as compared to 50% resolution?
Even Beat Hazard Ultra seems to be a bit laggy on the N10. When I inquired about it to the developer, he said:
Having to render to that size of screen [2560x1600] will slow the game down. It’s called being ‘fill rate bound’. Even for a good processor it's a lot of work as the game uses quite a lot of overdraw.
The solution is to draw everything to a smaller screen (say half at 1280x800) and then stretch the final image to fill the screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A sad true my nexus 10 get dam hot and i have to play games at 1.4 or 1.2 that sux
Sent from my XT925 using xda app-developers app
espionage724 said:
Hmm, if no memory bandwidth limitation exists on the N10, wouldn't I be able to run GTA 3 at 100% screen resolution and not have significantly lower FPS, as compared to 50% resolution?
Even Beat Hazard Ultra seems to be a bit laggy on the N10. When I inquired about it to the developer, he said:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But fillrate isnt memory bandwidth. We need both more MHz and more raster operations to get higher fill rate of pixels per second. We can overclock the GPU to get the MHz, and that will help, but we have to find a way to solve the higher heat output too from that. More ROP's are impossible as it is a hardware design for how many we have. If we ever get to overclock up to around 750 MHz then we should see a 30-40% improvement in fill rate. At that point we may have memory bandwidth problems, but we wont know for sure until we get there. But the 12.8GB/s of bandwidth that we currently have is enough to support 2560x1600 resolution at our current GPU power. Our Nexus 10 also has the highest fillrate of any Android phone or tablet to date, about 1.4 Mtexel/s. And if we have memory bandwidth limitations, then we would see no improvement at all from the current overclock we do have up to 612-620MHz because the speed wouldnt be where the bottleneck is. Yet we can clearly see in benchmarks and real gaming that we get FPS increases with higher MHz, thus our current problem is the fillrate and not the memory bandwidth.
Also, the solution is not to render the game at half the resolution as that is a band-aid on the real problem. If the developer of a game would code the game properly we wouldnt have this problem, or if they dont feel like doing that then they should at least stop trying to put more into the game than their un-optimized, lazy project is capable of running nicely.
espionage724 said:
Hmm, if no memory bandwidth limitation exists on the N10, wouldn't I be able to run GTA 3 at 100% screen resolution and not have significantly lower FPS, as compared to 50% resolution?
Even Beat Hazard Ultra seems to be a bit laggy on the N10. When I inquired about it to the developer, he said:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With that logic you could buy any video card for a PC and it would run any game at the resolution the video card supports. That isn't the case because rendering involves more than just memory fill rate. There are textures, polygons, multiple rendering passes, filtering, it goes on and on. As EniGmA1987 mentioned nothing has been optimized to take advantage of this hardware yet, developers were literally crossing their fingers hoping their games would run 'as is'. thankfully the A15 cpu cores in the exynos will be used in the tegra 4 as well so we can look forward to the CPU optimizations soon which will definitely help.
Emulators are more cpu intensive than anything else, give it a little time and you won't have any problems with your old school games. Run the new 3DMark bench to see what this tablet can do, it runs native resolution and its not even fully optimized for this architecture yet.
2560*1600*4*60/1024/1024 = 937,3 MB/s for a 60 fps game at 32-bit depth. Most emulators don't use 3D functions so fillrate, rendering, overdraw won't be a factor. Most emulators are single-threaded (correct me if I'm wrong) and the A15 should shine in this particular situation and even more so in multi-threaded scenarios. With its out-of-order pipeline and greatly enhanced efficiency it should be perfectly suited for the job.
We have the fillrate, we have enough CPU power and I'm still wondering why simple app like emulators aren't much faster than that. Is it Android? Is it the Dalvik VM? Or is it because some emulators need to be written in native code instead of using Java VM? I'm not a developer and I have only minimal knowledge in this department. I can only speculate but I'm curious enough about it that I started googling around to find why.
Lodovik said:
2560*1600*4*60/1024/1024 = 937,3 MB/s for a 60 fps game at 32-bit depth
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just curious but what is that calculation supposed to be? total bandwidth needed? Cause I don't see your bit depth in there, unless the 4 is supposed to be that? If that is true than you are calculating on 4-bit color depth?
And then the result would just be bandwidth required for pixel data to memory wouldnt it? It wouldnt include texture data in and out of memory and other special functions like post processing.
2560*1600 = number of pixels on the screen
4 = bytes / pixels for 32-bits depth
60 = frames / second
/1024/1024 = divide twice to get the result in MB
Actually, I made a typo the result is 937,5 MB/s or 0.92 GB/s. This is just a rough estimate to get an idea of what is needed at this resolution just to push the all pixels on the screen in flat 2D at 60 fps, assuming that emulators don't use accelerated functions.
My point was that with 12.8 GB/s of memory bandwith, we should have more than enough even if this estimate isn't very accurate.
Thanks for the explanation
If there really were a memory bandwidth limitation the newer Trinity kernels and newest KTManta should help. In addition to the higher GPU speed they both allow (KTManta up to 720MHz) both ROM's have increased memory speeds which increase memory bandwidth to 13.8GB/s, up from 12.8 on stock.
Thanks for the info. There's so many configuration options available for the Nexus 10. I really enjoy having all those possibilities.
EniGmA1987 said:
If there really were a memory bandwidth limitation the newer Trinity kernels and newest KTManta should help. In addition to the higher GPU speed they both allow (KTManta up to 720MHz) both ROM's have increased memory speeds which increase memory bandwidth to 13.8GB/s, up from 12.8 on stock.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
=Lodovik;40030*1600*4*60/1024/1024 = 937,3 MB/s for a 60 fps game at 32-bit depth. Most emulators don't use 3D functions so fillrate, rendering, overdraw won't be a factor. Most emulators are single-threaded (correct me if I'm wrong) and the A15 should shine in this particular situation and even more so in multi-threaded scenarios. With its out-of-order pipeline and greatly enhanced efficiency it should be perfectly suited for the job.
We have the fillrate, we have enough CPU power and I'm still wondering why simple app like emulators aren't much faster than that. Is it Android? Is it the Dalvik VM? Or is it because some emulators need to be written in native code instead of using Java VM? I'm not a developer and I have only minimal knowledge in this department. I can only speculate but I'm curious enough about it that I started googling around to find why.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are taking what I said out of context. I was responding to someone else, thus the "quote" above my post.
Since you posted I loaded up some Super Nintendo, N64, and PlayStation games on my n10 without any issues. It may just be your setup. There are a lot of tweaks out there that could easily increase performance. One great and very simple one is enabling 2D GPU rendering which is in developer options. Just do some searching. GPU Overclocking won't help much, as you said above your games are only 2D. I am sure you can get them running just fine.

Categories

Resources