Related
Hi,
from the Streak's wiki page I know that we have a 1 GHZ cpu and a decent gpu in the Streak. The Iphone 4 also has a 1 GHZ cpu. Assuming that the Iphone's hardware is a little more upmarket than the Streak's I'm still completely confused why the Iphone (even the old 3GS) plays Epic Citadel ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvSckim3GzI ) at a high framerate whereas my Streak can't even play Dungeon Defenders (an Unreal 3 engine based game) at an acceptable framerate.
I am running froyo 2.2.2 and I'm getting 1200 points in the Quadrant test.
Comparing the Epic Citadel demo with the Streak stuttering at some older gameloft titles I wonder how much faster the Iphone really is ? Seems the Iphone has several times the power of a Streak or Nexus or Desire etc...
How come ?
Also: Is it normal that more demanding games like Dungeon Defenders have terrible performance on the Streak ?
Are you on a stock rom? which one
I'd prob be a bit faster on streakdroid + OC
You are talking about 2 different platforms.
I do not play games so cannot really answer you question but dont go with the quadrant numbers.
I'm on stock 2.2.2 but according to other peoples quadrant score custom roms aren't much faster.
I mean the epic citadel demo features almost next gen graphics wheras the Streak (and probably any non dualcore android phone) offers playstation 1 (maybe 2) like 3d performance.
Just wondering how the iphone achieves that. Especially as the citadel demo also runs on the old iphone 3gs which only has a 600mhz cpu.
I guess the citadel demo is somehow tweaked in the highest possible way. The android smartphones are not that optimized for specific applications because it's a more open platform.
powervrs tend to be a bit faster then adrenos
the iphone 3gs uses a SGX535 i believe?
the s5 uses an adreno 200
powervr chips have always been faster then adreno in 3d/gpu
streakdroid averages 1600 in quad and can go up to 2600 with perfmod (though the latter doesnt do as much as the former)
more importantly you can oc the cpu to 1.1ghz and possibly higher in the future, seeing as snapdragon is an SoC the gpu might be tied to the cpu's clockrate and ocing might improve it a bit.
If the whole thing is gpu bound it doesnt really matter how fast/slow the cpu is (unless it reverses back to being cpu bound)
if you want a more fair comparison try something like the galaxy s (1) it uses the sgx535 i believe
It could be a driver issue as the s5 isnt exactly the best in the case of drivers, you could also compare it to other snapdragon 8x50 chips like in the nexus 1 or htc desire
Hugo32 said:
I'm on stock 2.2.2 but according to other peoples quadrant score custom roms aren't much faster.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my streaks quadrant score is between 1900 and 2200 dependent on how it feels at the time
the custom roms are a lot faster then what dell has to offer
Stock roms are slower since they have a lot of hardware acceleration turned off, some can be reenabled by editing build.props and some require a custom kernel (like in streakdroid)
Half the real work on streakdroid is irking out every performence tweak that dj_steve and fards knows of, but not all of them are stable so they become optional (like perfmod)
After downloading dungeon defenders and poking around on title screen/opening lvl thing it seems acceptly fast if you turn down resolution,
i cant find how to turn on fps counter though
But isn't there a 60fps cap in the stock rom. So you can't really compare it to custom roms...
Fps cap doesnt matter if you're not even hitting it, I'm pretty sure even with res turned down it's still only running at mabye ~30 fps?
I finally found a comparable tegra 2 bench posted online in a droid x 2 review, both devices have a qHD screen. It's looking like the hardware we have here isn't particularly impressive, and let's not even go there with the Galaxy s 2 *shudder*, it's a massacre.
I was to understand that the Qualcomm/Adreno setup was going to at least be competitive, and was supposed to be all out superior to Tegra 2. Can anyone shed some light on this?
Levito said:
I finally found a comparable tegra 2 bench posted online in a droid x 2 review, both devices have a qHD screen. It's looking like the hardware we have here isn't particularly impressive, and let's not even go there with the Galaxy s 2 *shudder*, it's a massacre.
I was to understand that the Qualcomm/Adreno setup was going to at least be competitive, and was supposed to be all out superior to Tegra 2. Can anyone shed some light on this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't look at benchmarks too much... but it can download n' upload like a God that's its power tool
My overlocked 1.5 Ghz tegra 2 lags behind my EVO 3D but it scores 900 more points in quadrant so my epeen feels alright. Seriously most of these benchmarks are not coded well.
I think the 3vo uses only one core with quadrant. You have to use a dual core benchmark test like CF Bench for better results. Then again benchmarks really don't mean much.
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Benchmarks are nearly useless measures.
Using benchmarks to determine real world performance is like licking your finger and sticking it up in the air to determine how fast the wind is moving.
Yeah, it'll put you roughly in the ballpark--roughly. But that ''ballpark'' is big enough to drive a couple dump trucks through...
Both the droid x2 and the galaxy s2 aren't running sense, which usually drags down bench marks even though the phone is silky smooth. Benchmarks may be useful for testing modifications on the same phone, but not for comparing different phones. Just ask yourself... Does it seem to suffer to you?
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
Who gives a #$% about benchmarks, all I know is that this thing is fast, way faster than the EVO. I have a gTablet (tegra 2, Honeycomb) that runs games very well and this 3VO runs the same games but only smoother and faster, no hiccups at all. Totally happy here and I have like 200 apps on this thing and I have like 280 megs left.
Oh, and my gTablet is clocked to 1.5ghz!
G_Dmaxx said:
Who gives a #$% about benchmarks, all I know is that this thing is fast, way faster than the EVO. I have a gTablet (tegra 2, Honeycomb) that runs games very well and this 3VO runs the same games but only smoother and faster, no hiccups at all. Totally happy here and I have like 200 apps on this thing and I have like 280 megs left.
Oh, and my gTablet is clocked to 1.5ghz!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seriously my Tegra 2 Transformer has nothing on my EVO 3D. Why people look only at benchmarks and not what is in front of them I have no clue.
danaff37 said:
Both the droid x2 and the galaxy s2 aren't running sense, which usually drags down bench marks even though the phone is silky smooth. Benchmarks may be useful for testing modifications on the same phone, but not for comparing different phones. Just ask yourself... Does it seem to suffer to you?
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've actually never had an AOSP rom run all that much faster than a Sense rom. Enough of a variance to say that there isn't a difference at all.
Like many others have pointed out. Quadrants is a terrible bench for dualcore phones until it's updated. When it reads off a bunch of question marks as the evo3ds CPU, CPU speed,etc. You know its not going to be a reliable test.
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Go to anand-tech for the Adreno 220 benches... It crushed the competition so maybe that'll make you feel better.
1 possible reason why the EVO 3D isn't scoring as high as you expect is because I think the benchmark tests don't utilize CPU's with asynchonous dual cores correctly.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Galaxy uses synchonous cores which mean they can only work on the same thing at the same time, they can't work on separate operations at the same time.
The EVO 3D has asynchonous cores which allow for true multitasking meaning each core will work on separate tasks. As I understand it, support for this type of CPU is going to be added in Android 2.4 and later, but don't quote me on that.
LOL @ benchmarks
DDiaz007 said:
Go to anand-tech for the Adreno 220 benches... It crushed the competition so maybe that'll make you feel better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any similar comparisons to the exynos/mali(?) that the sgs 2 is packing?
Some of the above statements about asynchronous processing do make me feel better if true.
Levito said:
Any similar comparisons to the exynos/mali(?) that the sgs 2 is packing?
Some of the above statements about asynchronous processing do make me feel better if true.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why not feel good in the first place?
This phone screams. You're comparing it to a Moto phone with Tegra 2 which will likely be one of the last new phones with Tegra 2. Enjoy the 3D. By the time something comes around to crush it, we'll be into 4 core territory, or Android will be updated to better support multiple cores (if I remember right, this was only really started for 3.0).
I'll agree the SGS2 seems like a killer but I'll take HTC build quality over Samsung any day of the week. Plus, let's see Exynos pushing qHD.
No I hear you. Truth is that there probably won't be any software written for quite sometime that is going to really push our current hardware. Besides I upgrade every year or so anyway, making future proofing less of an issue for me.
It's the principle of the thing.
Levito said:
No I hear you. Truth is that there probably won't be any software written for quite sometime that is going to really push our current hardware. Besides I upgrade every year or so anyway, making future proofing less of an issue for me.
It's the principle of the thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hear ya too, but you gotta try not to get caught up in numbers. Numbers can be manipulated. Manufacturers can tune their phones to perform better in Quadrant (this can also be done with custom ROMs; when it is, performance in other categories suffers). AMD and Intel still participate in this ePeen warfare.
I won't be surprised if we see that Evo 3D outperforms the Tegra Moto overall.
The good thing is, we will eventually see this thing rooted completely (hopefully not after it's lost most of its luster). THEN we will see what we can push out of this phone. Look how fast it's running sense. Imagine a vanilla Android experience on it, or an overclock to say, 1.8 GHz (which will probably happen). I dunno about you but I'm salivating.
Ok, the only benchmark I need to know is that my phone boots up from "off" in 10-12 seconds. Base your satisfaction on a constant, not on relativism.
megatron-g1 said:
1 possible reason why the EVO 3D isn't scoring as high as you expect is because I think the benchmark tests don't utilize CPU's with asynchonous dual cores correctly.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Galaxy uses synchonous cores which mean they can only work on the same thing at the same time, they can't work on separate operations at the same time.
The EVO 3D has asynchonous cores which allow for true multitasking meaning each core will work on separate tasks. As I understand it, support for this type of CPU is going to be added in Android 2.4 and later, but don't quote me on that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Should be no difference to code for asynchronous or synchronous. The cores will run at full speed if they're pushed. Quadrant scores are more based on database read and write speeds than anything.
I've owned many many phones, and this one is by far the most fluid (although I have not had hands on with the Galaxy SII, but I hate Samsung's software)
I haven't run into a case where the phone stutters, have you?
I believe in the Anandtech benchmarks, they used a developer phone that has the same qualcomm chipset running at the stock 1.5ghz, while our phones were downclocked to 1.2ghz.
They might have done this for various reasons, it would be interesting to see how our phones overclock and if there's any changes in battery life.
I've been looking for a more technical analysis of these SOCs and I have been trying to learn how the async CPU setup on the MSM8660 affects performance.
Nvidia claims that the power saving feature of our CPU (async) will inevitably cause a decrease in performance:
http://www.intomobile.com/2011/03/2...ed&utm_campaign=Feed:+IntoMobile+(IntoMobile)
Does anyone have any comments on this? If this is the case, I am wondering if through software we can force both cores to run at the same voltage/frequency. I wonder if it would cause an increase in performance (at least in benchmarking). Many claim that the Evo 3d only gets medicore benchmark scores due to having asynchronous cores that are not being accurately benched. It would be interesting to verify this claim.
Also, does anyone know which SOC between the three I listed in the title is the highest in performance (not talking about useless benchmarks like quadrant)?
So....there is possibly a 10–15% decrease in performance.....that's fine with me. Most of the time you won't even notice until you run benchmarks and looks at the numbers.
SetCPU + Performance mode are all you should need
DarkManX4lf said:
So....there is possibly a 10–15% decrease in performance.....that's fine with me. Most of the time you won't even notice until you run benchmarks and looks at the numbers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well the 10-15% slower is nVidia's claim, not sure if its true.
Does that make both cores run at the same time or running cores at the same time not possible due to the processor
xHausx said:
SetCPU + Performance mode are all you should need
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
ttieder said:
Does that make both cores run at the same time or running cores at the same time not possible due to the processor
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It will keep the cpu running at full speed. Which core gets used for what depends on a lot of things but it mostly depends on how the apps and kernel are programmed.
xHausx said:
It will keep the cpu running at full speed. Which core gets used for what depends on a lot of things but it mostly depends on how the apps and kernel are programmed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but is it possible to keep both cores at their full frequency? Setting the exynos or tegra 2 on performance mode makes both cores stay at their maximum frequency since they are synchronous. I think setting performance mode on the Evo 3d would only guarantee that one of the core will remain at its full frequency.
Not sure about this of course. Anyone have any insight into this?
Second Core wouldnt kick in if ur not heavily multitasking or running multithreaded apps and u wouldnt need second core for minor multitasking or single threaded operations as single core is enough
i will tell you that on paper the msmx60 should beat out all, but in real world use, the exynos hammers everything. the s2 is a beast
The Exynos is the better SoC, plain and simple. If we get into GPU discussions, the Adreno 220 is the best, as in better than Mali 400.. Go to Anandtech, and watch them use a Qualcomm device for the benches.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
Is it a "for sure" thing that ICS will use the GPU acceleration in the OS? Or is that just everyone's hopes and dreams
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
You could program the kernel to keep both cores at max frequency. Im not a developer but am sure something like this could be done
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk
bballer71418 said:
Is it a "for sure" thing that ICS will use the GPU acceleration in the OS? Or is that just everyone's hopes and dreams
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ics will include all of the features that honeycomb has and honeycomb has 2d acceleration so yes
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
Maybe we should make some real world benchmarks and get some SGS2 people in on it. Like how fast a particular app opens(say angry birds), How many fps a game plays at, Convert a file to another format, complete a 5 step plan to take over the world things like that. Alot of things like that are how reviewers rate and test things like new video cards and cpus plus all the benchmark programs.
I used to use a program called fraps to see how many fps my pc games were playing at so I could tweak stuff( long live unreal tournament!!!!). It would just display the fps in the top corner of the screen.
Also comparing the 3vo and SGS2 will really heat up when we get root and CM7. 400mb less roms have gatta make a huge difference on performance. I dunno about you guys but I haven't been able clog up my 3vo yet(and I've been trying!), I'm pretty impressed with the hardware so far.
Drewmungus said:
Maybe we should make some real world benchmarks and get some SGS2 people in on it. Like how fast a particular app opens(say angry birds), How many fps a game plays at, Convert a file to another format, complete a 5 step plan to take over the world things like that. Alot of things like that are how reviewers rate and test things like new video cards and cpus plus all the benchmark programs.
I used to use a program called fraps to see how many fps my pc games were playing at so I could tweak stuff( long live unreal tournament!!!!). It would just display the fps in the top corner of the screen.
Also comparing the 3vo and SGS2 will really heat up when we get root and CM7. 400mb less roms have gatta make a huge difference on performance. I dunno about you guys but I haven't been able clog up my 3vo yet(and I've been trying!), I'm pretty impressed with the hardware so far.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fraps tends to lie with FPS.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
GPU acceleration will be nice. Hope we see ICS soon.
Sent from my EVO 3D w/ Tapatalk
It is known that the MSM8660 can achieve higher clock frequencies than the Exynos, though clock for clock the Exynos has better IPC.
As of right now the GSII beats the 3VO in both benchmarks and real world tests, but I suspect this is because Sense is a pig that takes far too much ram and system resources. HTC also seems to have poorer unoptimized drivers. In addition to this, the async CPUs of the 3VO may not be properly tested by current benchmarking tools.
I think comparing a rooted 3VO and a rooted GSII should be much closer. Imagine the MSM8660 at 1.8-2.0 Ghz both cores running full frequency with no Sense and other bloat to slow it down. Combine that with a hardware accelerated GUI and this phone should be amazing.
The Adreno GPU will get better over time... and will develop much faster than before. Since Qualcomm purchased the branch from AMD (ATi), there has been much improvement in a reasonably small amount of time. There are various claims that the Adreno 220 outperforms the Tegra 2. I havent seen a solid comparison of the Adreno 220 vs the Exynos although I have read that the Exynos is a very capable processor.
As they both stand in stock offering, the Samsung GS2 will be faster; it has tremendous less resources to move. I agree with what has been said about root & rom options: CM7 on the EVO 3D will likely result in unprecedented (real world) benchmarks .Also note that the current Android releases are not yet optimized for dual/quad core management. But rest assured, it is well under development and the Sprint EVO 4G4D (hypothetical name) will behold a treasure trove of menacing capabilities.
HTC + Qualcomm + Android = Future
I think we should just wait until we can do a head-to-head AOSP CM 7 benchmark/real world test to see what happens. I'm confident the SGSII will get shredded by the E3D.
It seems unfair to compare anything within the phone itself now, because of what each phone has to run. Sense is pretty tasking on our phones and I can't say as much for the opposition.
It's funny to see NVIDIA make snide comments about Qualcomm when their phones are getting bested. Although I must say it is impressive to see that Tegra 2 phones are over a year old and keeping up with the E3D's dual-core deliciousness.
Just my thoughts.
Personally I don't believe Nvidia, plenty of benchmarks contradict their statement. That and whoever said "Additionally, the operating systems like Android and many apps aren’t set up for an asynchronous architecture." is an idiot because 99% of apps in the market don't support dual core lmfao.
Can someone help me? Why tegra 3 games doesn't launch on the s3 ? And the s3 has better processor!
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Maybe because they're made for the tegra 3 not exynos.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
louayjoumaa said:
Can someone help me? Why tegra 3 games doesn't launch on the s3 ? And the s3 has better processor!
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mate tegra 3 has a different or addition Gpu instructions Set proprietary from Nvidia that others gpu doesn't have and make games on tegra look a little bit better.
And this is not about who has the fastest Cpu but about GPU so tegra 3 will never launch as far as I know on others cpu as the exynos for example on Samsung because Mali Gpu doesnt not simple have the requirement in orther to run Tegra Games
Hope it helps
Cheeers
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
so what ur telling me basicly is, the samsungs are better for raw processing power. But for games and video things the HTC's are better?
Kinda like xbox, the xbox has a better gpu.
games like dead trigger just require a file edit to enable all tegra specific ****s as they call, its just a software trick which can by bypassed by some well known dev. atleast for some of the tegra based games
soulzero said:
so what ur telling me basicly is, the samsungs are better for raw processing power. But for games and video things the HTC's are better?
Kinda like xbox, the xbox has a better gpu.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No exactly... but yes Samsung has a pretty decent raw processing power and in some case like HTc one x vs S3 exynos dominate the Htc in cpu power..but Tegra Gpu is not really better than let say others Gpu for example mali400 or adreno 320 as far as gaming benchmark is concern but as I said it has just some extra instructions set or api that make the game look better...like more intensive smoke effect, better lightning , better water reproduction etc. And yes I believe that game will be better for hardcore gamer (lol) on tegra devices like HTC one X for example ( with only supported Tegra Games)
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
but as I said it has just some extra instructions set or api that make the game look better...like more intensive smoke effect, better lightning
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Regardless of what movies suggest, a processor does not have commands for "make that game look awesome" or "add lightning here". All they are capable of doing is trigonometric manipulation with dots, lines, triangles and squares.
Here's a short and somewhat technical description on how e.g. illumination is calculated. As you can see, nothing but lots of math - not a prepared and ready-for-use command
http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems2/gpugems2_chapter38.html
The difference between Exynos and Tegra is that Nvidia actually cares a lot about getting developers on their platform. (Well it is their last straw in mobile computing and they are pretty much f*** if that fails since they only sell parts, not entire platforms)
As a result they help with development, costs and give lots of promises to have the games exclusively appear for their platform. But as others said, usually there is not really a reason for the limitation and in some case a small manipulation of textfiles is sufficient to trick the games into believing they are running on Tegra platforms and thus use their full capacity.
To some extend you can compare it with the exclusive games on Xbox360 and PS3. There is obviously no technical reason why it could not be ported to the other platform, but often the studios still do not. Some stuff may look better on Xbox, some on PS3. However that usually boils down to how well the developers know the platform and especially the completelty different CPU architectures (Cell vs PowerPC)
d4fseeker said:
Regardless of what movies suggest, a processor does not have commands for "make that game look awesome" or "add lightning here". All they are capable of doing is trigonometric manipulation with dots, lines, triangles and squares.
Here's a short and somewhat technical description on how e.g. illumination is calculated. As you can see, nothing but lots of math - not a prepared and ready-for-use command
http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems2/gpugems2_chapter38.html
The difference between Exynos and Tegra is that Nvidia actually cares a lot about getting developers on their platform. (Well it is their last straw in mobile computing and they are pretty much f*** if that fails since they only sell parts, not entire platforms)
As a result they help with development, costs and give lots of promises to have the games exclusively appear for their platform. But as others said, usually there is not really a reason for the limitation and in some case a small manipulation of textfiles is sufficient to trick the games into believing they are running on Tegra platforms and thus use their full capacity.
To some extend you can compare it with the exclusive games on Xbox360 and PS3. There is obviously no technical reason why it could not be ported to the other platform, but often the studios still do not. Some stuff may look better on Xbox, some on PS3. However that usually boils down to how well the developers know the platform and especially the completelty different CPU architectures (Cell vs PowerPC)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You dont know what your talking about and...no offense Since the graphic processor is all about calculating polygon etc can you for example on Pc run a Dx11 Game in Dx10 or Dx9 GPU Cards??? so that your Dx10 graphic CARD will render the game with same details , tessellation as a Dx11 graphic card?? WELL NO and im repeating again there is some Hardware tweak on Tegra device so the software (Games) could look better yeah its all about polygon yes but how or the way you get those polygon matters and for that gpu architecture matters also
You might tweak some tegra games by modifying some file in order to run it on other devices but I believe you wont have the same experience as on tegra device at least for the must uptimized tegra game
Get your fact straight
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
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.