What do benchmarks actually measure? I always make allkinds of tests to the phones i have just for fun and to compare to others i have understood that a bigger score is always better..?
Benchmark test with antutu shows for me
10372
I have a s3 16gb and using the latest stock ics..
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
CPU tests i guess is based on really long loops and depends on time that loop take you get result. RAM tests I think write big file direct to memory and depend of time get you speed of RAM memory in MBps or GBps...
On Antutu I have about 14,9K-15K with Paranoid and Siayah kernel. On Quadrant i have about 5,7K
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
e-peen.
Seriously, different benchmarks measure different types of system performance by subjecting different elements of the device to different stress and performance tests. CPU calculstions, frames per second, javascript performance - they're genuinely useful in some situations, such as for devs to test out different approaches and ideas to see if one works fundamentally better than the other, and if done properly it can be useful to compare raw performance of one device to another, but they've cottoned on in the wider community because some people like to benchmark their phones and post those benchmarks proudly.
It's all a bit ridiculous, especially if - indeed - they don't know what they're benchmarking, or they're using out of date and largely useless benchmarks like quadrsnt, or they're just doing it for the bragging rights. It's relatively easy to push your phone and have it score well in assorted benchmarking tools if you really want to, it's just unlikely to be genuinely useful in that state - for example, setting the CPU governor to 'performance' had the effect of boosting it up to the highest available clock speed, and of raping your battery life. These are mobile devixes, not gaming PCs, and are designed to operate accordingly.
Personally, I ignore people's benchmark posts, because if they're posting benchmarks they're either brsgging, complaining about something absurd - "Your kernel doesn't perform as well as someone else's when in this unrealistic benchmarking scenario! It may best optimised for daily use, but now I can't hold my precious benchmarking score above everyone else's heads!" or "This new software update sucks because I don't get as high as score in Wankermark Extreme! [twenty sad faces]."
Hope that helps.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
onslaught86 said:
e-peen.
Seriously, different benchmarks measure different types of system performance by subjecting different elements of the device to different stress and performance tests. CPU calculstions, frames per second, javascript performance - they're genuinely useful in some situations, such as for devs to test out different approaches and ideas to see if one works fundamentally better than the other, and if done properly it can be useful to compare raw performance of one device to another, but they've cottoned on in the wider community because some people like to benchmark their phones and post those benchmarks proudly.
It's all a bit ridiculous, especially if - indeed - they don't know what they're benchmarking, or they're using out of date and largely useless benchmarks like quadrsnt, or they're just doing it for the bragging rights. It's relatively easy to push your phone and have it score well in assorted benchmarking tools if you really want to, it's just unlikely to be genuinely useful in that state - for example, setting the CPU governor to 'performance' had the effect of boosting it up to the highest available clock speed, and of raping your battery life. These are mobile devixes, not gaming PCs, and are designed to operate accordingly.
Personally, I ignore people's benchmark posts, because if they're posting benchmarks they're either brsgging, complaining about something absurd - "Your kernel doesn't perform as well as someone else's when in this unrealistic benchmarking scenario! It may best optimised for daily use, but now I can't hold my precious benchmarking score above everyone else's heads!" or "This new software update sucks because I don't get as high as score in Wankermark Extreme! [twenty sad faces]."
Hope that helps.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
200% agree but it wont stop the what is your quadrant score posts .
jje
it wont stop the what is your quadrant score posts .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Anyone good with Photoshop? Create a graph that reads 999'999'999'999'999'999 for your phone of choice and paste it under other people's claim.
It's neither more useful nor more useless than what they do
Benchmarks can be useful for yourself to check very basic performance before and after making changes (rom, kernel etc)
Sent via TCP/IP
gsw5700 said:
Benchmarks can be useful for yourself to check very basic performance before and after making changes (rom, kernel etc)
Sent via TCP/IP
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Possible but run ten benchmarks one after the other and you get different results .
But as a method of a basic test to see if firmware has brought something extra to your phone yes .
Two areas of concern for users are always one use how the phone responds scrolls etc and that's subjective .Two is battery life and none of these benchmarks actually run a standard test that could be used to give a basic battery consumption figure over say a two hour period . But even that's not a good indicator of individuals battery usage .
jje
Related
So I installed SetCPU today. Been testing the kernels ability to work underclocked at the max of 918mhz. Also set the scaling to conservative. After a days use it's been as good as normal full speed, 1512mhz
The battery lasted throughout the day, compared to my first two days of stock settings with only 6 hours of good use.
I'll keep playing. Still want to do some testing and benchmarks to make sure it's not under performing. But at least at the user level it seems to react the same.no lag.
I did confirm the clock speed out side of SetCPU using system panel.
Sent from my rezound.
Don't bother using benchmarks to rate a phones performance that is a fatal error there. Benchmarks never effectively rate a phones performance. I just go by how smooth the phone runs and it does it run everything I throw at it. If so gg pz end of story.
zetsumeikuro said:
Don't bother using benchmarks to rate a phones performance that is a fatal error there. Benchmarks never effectively rate a phones performance. I just go by how smooth the phone runs and it does it run everything I throw at it. If so gg pz end of story.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, but people still like to get the general idea. There are many factors.hence why I said the over all feel seems the same. Im going to use antutu, and quadrant. 5 times each to get a range.=-)
Sent from my rezound.
Izeltokatl said:
True, but people still like to get the general idea. There are many factors.hence why I said the over all feel seems the same. Im going to use antutu, and quadrant. 5 times each to get a range.=-)
Sent from my rezound.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well whatever works for you. Just saying Quadrant is a poor tool to use to bench for many reasons which I won't go over. Antutu is nice for SD speed testing I think, oter than that meh. Benches are just for numbers for people to flex their epeens with. They just really don't truly gauge a devices performance.
zetsumeikuro said:
Well whatever works for you. Just saying Quadrant is a poor tool to use to bench for many reasons which I won't go over. Antutu is nice for SD speed testing I think, oter than that meh. Benches are just for numbers for people to flex their epeens with. They just really don't truly gauge a devices performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Benchmarks do have a some good uses... while comparing different phone models with benchmarks can be iffy, it can give an overall insight, (things like graphics capabilities with very GPU extensive games) but in the end user experience and daily use are the real judges.
Where benchmarks can be of the most use, is when comparing changes to the same phone model.
E.G. Comparing performance impacts of AOSP vs Sense, overclocking and under-clocking, and de-sensing/bloat removal.
When used for these reasons, you can get a really good feel for how changes are affecting your device overall. Even then, benchmarks are not the be all end all, and user experience is still important. As you may introduce lag or other performance issues that do not show up in benchmarks.
Which temp root method are you using? Mine isn't staying rooted long enough for me to justify using setCPU at all...
The new version and the one that comes with the newest clean tool stays until reboot.
Marine6680 said:
The new version and the one that comes with the newest clean tool stays until reboot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thx for the info, guess I must still be using the outdated method. I'll run the latest version of Scott's Clean tool and give it a shot.
Izeltokatl said:
So I installed SetCPU today. Been testing the kernels ability to work underclocked at the max of 918mhz. Also set the scaling to conservative. After a days use it's been as good as normal full speed, 1512mhz
The battery lasted throughout the day, compared to my first two days of stock settings with only 6 hours of good use.
I'll keep playing. Still want to do some testing and benchmarks to make sure it's not under performing. But at least at the user level it seems to react the same.no lag.
I did confirm the clock speed out side of SetCPU using system panel.
Sent from my rezound.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please let us know what settings you use that work for you.
I generally stay temprooted unless I'm going to be away from a charger for a bit and need BT (since you can't turn BT back on after temproot). I wouldn't have SetCPU autostart on boot (since it won't ever be able to get root access immediately after boot).
Meanwhile, I also set it to conservative and will see what that accomplishes.
A kernel needs to support setcpu, stock kernels do not. You need to flash a custom kernel, so you need a development phone or s-off.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA App
This kernel apparently does work with SetCPU. I've confirmed using other cpu monitoring apps that the clock speed changes are capped.
I own 7 android phones, and have been rooting, overclocking, undervolting each and every single one of them (well one I still cant get rooted). I know when the cpu is under clocked and when it is not. Been doing these tweaks for 4 years now. If you use a tool like System Panel, at stock settings you can see the max cpu around 1500 on our little bad boy. When it peaks out the clock speed is shown. When you under clock it, then check again it won't go beyond the max cpu set in my testing I put a ceiling at 918mhz. System Panel reported full CPU usage (100%) at clock speed 918mhz. Typically with stock kernels, your absolutely right, changes to SetCPU do nothing at all to the real cpu. Which is confirmed, when I reboot and dont have root, if I attempt to use SetCPU and make the changes, System Panel reports 1500mhz (roughly) at full load regardless of what I set it to in SetCPU. If I did this to any of my other phones with stock kernels, you are correct it makes no difference as SystemPanel reports the stock max setting.
No I'm not being mean or aggressive, just saying. =-) And no don't believe me, but test it yourself and confirm or prove me wrong some other way and I admit error. Either way, half the fun is messing with the phone and trying to get it to do things it should not do.
Grnlantern79 said:
A kernel needs to support setcpu, stock kernels do not. You need to flash a custom kernel, so you need a development phone or s-off.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my rezound.
Izeltokatl said:
No I'm not being mean or aggressive, just saying. =-) And no don't believe me, but test it yourself and confirm or prove me wrong some other way and I admit error. Either way, half the fun is messing with the phone and trying to get it to do things it should not do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or I would say, "half the fun is messing with the phone and trying to get it to do things it should have always been allowed to do...." Just sayin'.
Are you using the profiles at all? Im interested to know what seems to be working out the best for you.
Izeltokatl said:
True, but people still like to get the general idea. There are many factors.hence why I said the over all feel seems the same. Im going to use antutu, and quadrant. 5 times each to get a range.=-)
Sent from my rezound.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In my view, the "benchmarks" would be an OK measurement if you were comparing apples to apples.
I tried running both Linpack and Quadrant on the very recently and dearly departed Incredible right after a fresh reboot and having charged the battery overnight...when the thing should have been at it's freshest.
I got wildly different scores each time I ran it after a reboot...knowing that on both programs the scores would improve the more times you ran the test.
It didn't seem to me that either program was a reliable indicator of what my phone was capable of. I didn't even trust them to tell me whether something I'd done...cleared cache or deleted bloatware...had any real effect.
It simply boils down to how the phone feels. That's not scientific, but it works for me.
douger1957 said:
In my view, the "benchmarks" would be an OK measurement if you were comparing apples to apples.
I tried running both Linpack and Quadrant on the very recently and dearly departed Incredible right after a fresh reboot and having charged the battery overnight...when the thing should have been at it's freshest.
I got wildly different scores each time I ran it after a reboot...knowing that on both programs the scores would improve the more times you ran the test.
It didn't seem to me that either program was a reliable indicator of what my phone was capable of. I didn't even trust them to tell me whether something I'd done...cleared cache or deleted bloatware...had any real effect.
It simply boils down to how the phone feels. That's not scientific, but it works for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Linpack and Quadrant are not reliable benchmarks. TBH I don't take any of the benchmarks seriously, they are more for entertainment for me. But to each their own right?
Yeah some of the benchmark apps are a bit unreliable to say the least...
If I use one, I try to use ones that Anandtech uses. I trust them to find the better benchmark tools.
So I overclocked my GSII to 1.6Ghz, and ran benchmarks and it was blazing fast. So what's the point of overclocking other than running benchmarks? I'd rather not have my processor running at 1.6Ghz all the time and draining battery power. I actually prefer underclocking to save power. So my question is - how else can I benefit from overclocking my device?
yo whyd you put this in the dev section? get flame suit on brotha.
miui+siyah = beast
Well its obviously to have your device performance better. Honestly it's not really practical to run higher than 1.2 ghz though.
You also put this in the wrong section. Prepare your anus.
NJGSII said:
Well its obviously to have your device performance better. Honestly it's not really practical to run higher than 1.2 ghz though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But in what ways other than benchmarks? Am I really going to notice a difference if I kick it up to 1.4 or 1.6Ghz when browsing the web or playing Angry birds or something?
where is the download link and what does it do?
Some serious development going on here.. [\sarcasm\]
OP even if you crank it up to 1.6GHz, unless your isolating that step, your phones not using that clock speed unless your doing sh*t on your phone. It will increase how fast apps or menu's open navagating throughout the phone. Your making the CPU think faster so your phone ends up doing its tasks little and big ...faster
But dude.. Googling the benefits of OC could have giving you an answer ..and FASTER. Lol
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
The benefits of overclocking you ask? Let me tell you just a few.
1. For every overclocked phone, one dollar is anonymously donated to poor and starving children, families, and college students across the world [citation needed].
2. Overclocking your phone emits a low frequency gamma wave inhibitor which in some cases, tested by prestigious scientists, has proven to protect you from harmful UV rays from the sun, nuclear fallout, increases neural synapse action in the brain, lowers bad cholesterol AND blood pressure, increases lifespan up to a minimum of three years, and is a natural antimicrobial agent that also interacts with your white blood cells to not only increase output and strength, but also breaks down the DNA rebuilding process by inhibiting protein synthesis in a wide variety of foreign microbes in your body.
3. Overclocking has been used to successfully treat sever depression, obesity, dementia, and AIDS.
4. With an overclocked phone, it's been observed waiting times for and inside elevators is severely decreased.
5. Bad driver? Accident prone? Overclocking has been shown to heighten driver awareness and overall skill.
6. It speeds up your phone on a day to day basis, with some, but not terribly noticeable battery drain [citation needed].
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
Overclocking is entertaining. But I'm running the Unnamed rom on my device and have it UNDER clocked to 800mhz. Crazy good battery life and zero lag.
Overclocking is pointless as it runs everything great already. I'm waiting to overclock until my phone is outdated and my contracts about to expire.
While its rather easy to do there really isn't any benefit to overclocking the SGSII. Yes, it'll run a little faster and your Angry Birds might run smoother (really? ), but it'll also mean a little more heat and more battery drain all to accomplish something you really won't be able to get any real advantage from.
another reason to overclock would be bragging rights
DJSLINKARD said:
another reason to overclock would be bragging rights
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only reason in my opinion lol...
Sent from my Galaxy S II (I777) - 1.4Ghz
For this phone, it's pretty much useless. The phone runs great without the faster clock speeds.
On the other hand, if it was a snapdragon processor, you'd need 1.5 GHz just to be marketable next to this phone (and 1.8GHz to perform as well in day to day usage.)
One reason could be... Because we can!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
highaltitude said:
One reason could be... Because we can!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
haha ... love it!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
MattMJB0188 said:
So I overclocked my GSII to 1.6Ghz, and ran benchmarks and it was blazing fast. So what's the point of overclocking other than running benchmarks? I'd rather not have my processor running at 1.6Ghz all the time and draining battery power. I actually prefer underclocking to save power. So my question is - how else can I benefit from overclocking my device?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most people overclock for a smoother/snappier experience. I notice that roughly 20% increase in scrolling/tabbing around. Also you can think of it like this:
1.4ghz will finish tasks faster then 1.2, that way taking less battery. You could also undervolt that 1.4 to 1.2 (1275mV), so your finishing tasks quicker while draining no more then stock.
I switch between 1.4 and 1.0 every other day it seems. 2 months later, still looking for the right one for me. 1.6 should only be for benchmarking imo, epeen.
cwc3 said:
1.4ghz will finish tasks faster then 1.2, that way taking less battery. You could also undervolt that 1.4 to 1.2 (1275mV), so your finishing tasks quicker while draining no more then stock..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not that simple.
There are dozens of bottlenecks in these devices (and any other computer), and 9 times out of 10, it's NOT the processor. Persistant storage, RAM, bus speeds, etc - all those things will ensure that a 10% bump in processor speed will NOT give you a 10% decrease in run time for a given typical application. In many cases, you'll see no speed increase at all, as it takes the same amount of time to flush to persistant storage no matter how fast the write cache fills.
I'm not suggesting that a person shouldn't O/C, but don't be surprised when going from 1200MHz to 1400MHz makes no visible difference other than the battery draining slightly quicker.
I know someone is going to respond that the processor will bump back down to a slower speed and therefore it runs at the higher speed for less time, etc. However, unless you have the governor set to poll for usage so often that the governer is driving your clocks up to max, it's not going to poll often enough to make much (if any) difference.
Think of it this way: We both own a mustang, but mine is a V6 at 220HP and yours is a V8 at 300HP. In theory, yours can accel faster and maintain a higher top speed. In reality, neither one of us can go faster than the car in front of us (but you'll burn more gas doing it.) (Of course, you'll have more fun in yours.)
I hope this helps with a very common misconception.
Take care
Gary
garyd9 said:
It's not that simple.
There are dozens of bottlenecks in these devices (and any other computer), and 9 times out of 10, it's NOT the processor. Persistant storage, RAM, bus speeds, etc - all those things will ensure that a 10% bump in processor speed will NOT give you a 10% decrease in run time for a given typical application.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very true. Also I am guessing in gaming, that OC will drain your battery quite well.
Consider I mostly do Web browsing on my phone (I need a tablet), 1.4 is a much better browser experience imo. Worth the 100mV.
garyd9 said:
Think of it this way: We both own a mustang, but mine is a V6 at 220HP and yours is a V8 at 300HP. In theory, yours can accel faster and maintain a higher top speed. In reality, neither one of us can go faster than the car in front of us (but you'll burn more gas doing it.) (Of course, you'll have more fun in yours.)
I hope this helps with a very common misconception.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Excellent analogy.
Sent from my Galaxy SII
While for now Overclocking is mainly just done for fun im hoping that closer to my upgrade time that i will be overclocking for more actical reasons. That is the way it was for my Captivate. I enjoy trying to push my hardware to its limits. Ive gotten my GSII so far to a stable 1700mhz but i think i can squeak out a little more speed especially with the gpu down clocked a little. I run it at 1400MHZ Though with the gpu forced at 267mhz.
so maybe this is a newbie question but I was wondering what everyone uses as a benchmark or if the modding community as a whole finds benchmarking archaic or silly. I downloaded cf-bench and passmark performance last night, any feedback on these two benchmarks, or recommendations on new ones, or even reasonable condemnation of benchmarking in general is welcome.
JohnnyKushi said:
so maybe this is a newbie question but I was wondering what everyone uses as a benchmark or if the modding community as a whole finds benchmarking archaic or silly. I downloaded cf-bench and passmark performance last night, any feedback on these two benchmarks, or recommendations on new ones, or even reasonable condemnation of benchmarking in general is welcome.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Benchmarks take the human factor out of the equation, and what we really want is a snappy response and smooth transitions (the human experience)... neither of which can be benchmarked.
I'm partial to Quadrant Standard myself.
I love the aesthetics of Quadrant more than most others but like the functionality of AnTuTu. I know the results really don't translate to everyday performance all the time with these apps but find myself using them nonetheless. Again, the cool graphics is probably why
All benchmarks are different, and none are completely indicative of real world performance
Can any one post some bencharks of roms? for example Stock Samsung ICS Rom and CM9? Really want to know if roms compared to stock Samsung and CM9 make diference in speed? Please
1) Benchmarks are meaningless. The only people who think benchmarks are useful are normally the people who fap off over their benchmark scores. They're simply not any indication of real world performance of the phone.
2) Why not flash each rom & run benchmarks yourself ? Easy to do.
MistahBungle said:
1) Benchmarks are meaningless. The only people who think benchmarks are useful are normally the people who fap off over their benchmark scores. They're simply not any indication of real world performance of the phone.
2) Why not flash each rom & run benchmarks yourself ? Easy to do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This ^
I can easily manipulate the same ROM and Kernel to get whatever Benchmark scores I want without too much difficulty, it would also likely be impossible for anyone to tell I did it other than the fact that my scores would be unbelievably high/low.
Also, some ROMs run better than others on a ROM/kernel combo depending on their ability to handle OC/UV and GPU tweaks, not every handset can handle these things in the same way (I have 2 GT-I9100Ms, one can handle heavy UV while the other doesn't seem to be able to handle any, based on the serial numbers they were manufactured at roughly the same time, possibly the same batch) so what benchmarks well for one person may show awful results for another.
Thank you for your replies. the thing is i dont have S2 any more and waiting for S3. but curious about ROM well samsung rom should have better optimisation of drivers and so on because it's their rom well thats what i think but thats why i posted this to find out. ok so in real life what do you think witch is faster on browsing gaming and so on?
You mean between S2 and S3? Its obvious..
Bout benchmarks, always get higher quadrant on stock, and low on cm9/ aosp. But aosp runs as fast or faster in real life.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
atifsh said:
You mean between S2 and S3? Its obvious..
Bout benchmarks, always get higher quadrant on stock, and low on cm9/ aosp. But aosp runs as fast or faster in real life.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree here, Touchwiz based ROMs seem to benchmark higher, while AOSP seems smoother in real world situations, I'm sure there are people out there who have the opposite results, so you aren't likely to get a consensus on whether one is better/faster/smoother than the other.
MistahBungle said:
1) Benchmarks are meaningless. The only people who think benchmarks are useful are normally the people who fap off over their benchmark scores. They're simply not any indication of real world performance of the phone.
2) Why not flash each rom & run benchmarks yourself ? Easy to do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's actually not true. Period.
fenjen said:
That's actually not true. Period.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you write that one-handed? Question mark. (why are we writing punctuation?)
oinkylicious said:
Did you write that one-handed? Question mark. (why are we writing punctuation?)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You do know it's to emphasise my point and it's a pretty common way to do it right?
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Yeah it is true. You bumped a two month old thread simply to say "That's actually not true. Period.", so let's hear it champ. Tell us why that's the case. Or are you just another benchmark fapper who's FOS ?
I gave up porn a long time ago to masturbate furiously over benchmarks. This has actually had numerous positive effects on both my social life and my sex life.
First, using benchmarks instead of porn allows me to tailor exactly the intensity of fapping I want at that time in a easy, quick and efficient way. No longer do I have to wade through numerous porn videos trying to find that one attractive girl or that one interesting concept to fap to - now I can simply tweak my ROM and Kernel a little bit and get a score which reflects my horniness. Say I'd been camping with my trio of male friends for a week and having to share a tent the entire time, naturally fapping in such a situation would be frowned upon. When I finally get home I would be ready for a really special fap, so maybe I'd tune the scores upto a good 9000 and really crank one out. For everyday use, I use a steady 6000 score. This allows me to really optimize the amount of time I spend fapping per day.
Secondly, exchanging porn for benchmarks has had an extremely positive effect on my Sex life. No more am I staring at Pornstar's penises amazed at their size and wishing I had a similar prowess in bed. No longer am I insecure about sex or constantly wondering whether women actually like getting slapped. Now, when I have sex, I'm thinking one thing and one thing only - a score of 12000 in Quadrant. I am 12000, I am that score, I embody that score, that score is me and it drives me to hump like a God. Indeed, I can attest to the fact that fapping over benchmarks is far better than porn. So I say go OP go, I understand your plight, don't let these meth head unemployed porn addicts ever talk you out of your love of benchmarks, stay strong OP, stay fapping.
Hahahahahaha ;-) That could be the greatest post on XDA. Ever.
I used stock indian rom which was way more scoring than galaxy nexus f1 rom.
Mostly the difference was in i/o score.
Still will show you the stock score with speedmod kernel. :thumbup:
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
*********
I've read on several ROM forums that only certain apps utilize or dual cores. go to sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1 there is a file there. When using one of the above said apps it populated cpu1 with freq folders etc, changes that one file from 0 to 1 enabling it. without one if these apps there is no freq tables for cpu1.
****my question: using Linux and cpu i ran speed tests. Over 70 tests in total. There is zero performance difference in using one app versus another versus cm performance cpu menu. I understand how it looks like two cores are only utilized from certain apps looking at the folders. However it does not change performance at all. Tests show same speed any way to control cpu. Also feels the same. Is there really a difference our is it monkey say????
Also in my tests i found using "VR" versus sio or noob or cfq to be the fastest. I didn't feel a difference however changing i/o setting.
Sent from my SGH-I717 using xda premium
Their are claims that Intel’s internal handset testing has shown multi-core implementations running slower than single core, however they did not cite any particular chip. If you take a look a lot of handsets on the market, when you turn on the second core or having the second core there [on die], the [current] leakage is high enough and their power threshold is low enough because of the size of the case that it isn’t entirely clear you get much of a benefit to turning the second core on. In some of the use cases they cited, having a second core is actually a detriment, because of the way some of the software engineers have not implemented their thread scheduling properly.......
That being said, one could argue the concept that a single core chip, running a slight overclock, would produce a far better result, than a dual core application. But again, thread scheduling detracts from any governor efforts anyway...IMHO....g
Hum. I would have to agree then that in our case and in my tests dual core doesn't help nor hinder performance results but does appear to reduce battery life. Now these are my tests using two different programs to test performance and using combo of setcpu/system pro/Cm10 performance built in/Tasker to control cpu. I have done enough testing to know that on cm10 roms dual core, or so the sys files indicate, is of zero performance upgrade and appears to drain battery faster.
Sent from my SGH-I717 using xda premium
Yes ...I agree with your findings.
I suppose it's safe too say then, when using the AOSP rom source, within it's normal configuration, that unless development is done beyond the current schedules, the stated performance is well ....overstated ??
Of course , CM is in a constant state of change, and I suppose that after they are finished with the functional repairs, they may focus more on the kernel.
I'd be very interested to see your same tests against another kernel, say flappjaxxx latest JB build.
I do know that he, and several other developers have made some great improvements to the source kernels, and although there will likely always be bugs present, after running my own evaluation of them, the governors are functional and do make at least a perceived difference.
But as you stated, albeit at the cost of battery life.
I choose not to overclock, as I feel that the marginal reward , as proven by your testing , and by testing from several reputable sources, is simply not worth the risk ...g
I agree Greg, i will test other kernels... Samsung ROM is probably the only one i won't test... I also don't overclock, i do under clock at work and screen off using Tasker for battery life. That does help greatly. I'll post back after testing different kernels tonight.
Sent from my SGH-I717 using xda premium
troyolson92 said:
I agree Greg, i will test other kernels... Samsung ROM is probably the only one i won't test... I also don't overclock, i do under clock at work and screen off using Tasker for battery life. That does help greatly. I'll post back after testing different kernels tonight.
Sent from my SGH-I717 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Excellent....
And I suppose, since this is the Premier development site, that it would be of great value to the community if you could perhaps publish your results here ?
These aspects of the android OS have been of great interest to me for some time.
Without doubt, many other users would enjoy this information as well in forming their decision regarding roms, kernels etcetera.
Thanks to you, for your inspiring thread. I look forward to the forthcoming information ....g
Ok with out posting tons of pics i tested all available kernels (new). Results were the same. No real difference in single core versus dual core...
The following pics show how to know whether the second core is online or not and my results and how i tested this time around... I was more through the first time but results the same.
Sent from my SGH-I717 using xda premium
troyolson92 said:
Ok with out posting tons of pics i tested all available kernels (new). Results were the same. No real difference in single core versus dual core...
The following pics show how to know whether the second core is online or not and my results and how i tested this time around... I was more through the first time but results the same.
Sent from my SGH-I717 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am posting pictures for first time hope this turns out.
What do you use to disable the second core? Read this with some interest. Would like to try this with ics Rom. With oc'ing fRom 1.56 to 1.72 i see a consistent jump of 300-400 in my antutu scores. Currently on flapjaxx ics b4.
I know it is just a score, but is your score indicative of the cm builds? It just seems really low.
Here is my 'stock 1.56 speed' with ondemand governor. Want to a get a single core sample.to compare with it.
How interesting ....
I can say that both of your posted results lead toward our initial assumptions, that indeed we are seeing a consistent draw against the systems cores with little or no improvement upon activation of the second core.
Some Time ago, shortly after my note arrived, I began some simple tests with low speed dual core activation. My thought process was simply this.
Slow speed dual core operation (both cores running in the 650mhz range ) would ideally produce a faster process response.
My initial results were favorable, as I had a noticeably quicker device during screen transitions, and even in several multitasking functions.
I even went so far as to create a small script to handle this function for me. I'm no developer, and ultimately I didn't possess the programming skills I needed to complete and implement my script into an actual, flash worthy modification. And based on what we are seeing here , the results provided would indicate that my attempt is flawed due to chip current leakage, if the cores are allowed to ramp to high, and perhaps even the use of improper source schedule interference.
I'm so busy these days, I simply haven't time to explore the low speed theory further at this point.
But perhaps with your test bench already set, a simple test using my concept could be carried out??
As we know, CPU [current] thresholds are plagued by voltage bleeding at maximum CPU frequencies, but the thought has just occurred to me that [current ] bleeding is highly controllable when the CPU is driven at lower voltage inputs. And too combine a reduced frequency with reduced voltage over a multiple core platform, could, or should balance the loss and equal the output levels.
Are you up for another test ??
If so ....I suggest the following parameters.
Core "0" at 600/700 MHz
Core "1" at 600/700 MHz
Governor at "interactive "
Voltage at "-24Mv"
Then we'll see if the theory holds water.
P.S. thanks gents, I'm enjoying the heck out of this thread ......g
Mad383max, look at your folders from my pics to tell if two cores are running. Typically on after market roms one core is running until you enable the second from other software like from my pics.
Will test at lunch. I like this lower voltage idea. If i were a betting man i would guess with speeds you proposed and two cores i would guess similar to higher results. Let's see....
Sent from my SGH-I717 using xda premium
troyolson92 said:
Mad383max, look at your folders from my pics to tell if two cores are running. Typically on after market roms one core is running until you enable the second from other software like from my pics.
Will test at lunch. I like this lower voltage idea. If i were a betting man i would guess with speeds you proposed and two cores i would guess similar to higher results. Let's see....
Sent from my SGH-I717 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed......
I'm excited to see the results....and thank you !!...g
I have to reflash ROM so pics might be a little awhile. I messed up some things and somehow lost my Google account. reflashing gapps and ROM didn't fix it.
Anyway results were 2600 something at 700 both cores underclocked 25... Slightly more than half of normal speed at slightly less than half clock speed... For kicks i tried 1.5 clock speed undervolted 75 (most my phone will go without lockups) and got 5k results. Best yet.
You are on to something. Less voltage = more speed. I now need to try single core undervolted. Give me couple hours for pics etc.. Got to get phone working with Google again and spend time with wife. She hates me on the phone.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda premium
No worries Troy. ...
Take all the time you need.....
I do appreciate the excellent testing you have undertaken. I know that the results are going to benefit the community.
And i am highly intrigued by your first run under the parameter set you've chosen...
It's leading down the exact path that i suspected. ..
I'll talk with you soon. ...g
A few additional items that I have failed to consider during my testing, could weigh heavily on our testing results and should be considered during testing.
They are, battery power levels, charger connection and type....(wall/PC), and rom power save levels.
I do know that the android OS will adjust itself during varying power levels, much like our setting the CPU to UC/UV settings, only on a much smaller scale.
I feel its important that we are able to control the input levels in the following way...
Battery to full charge, with no charger connection, and if the cable is needed we use a non powered port. Next would be controlling the rom power settings if the rom contains them, as found in most GB and ICS builds.
If these baselines are met, we should be able to greater rely on the mark scores we are seeing. These variables could explain why we continue to see so many peaks and valleys in scores when two users share the same builds, on like devices.....(speculation)..
Additionally, are we able to control the background processes to the extent, they will remain constant for testing?
Sorry for the rant.....Im just concerned about the ability to quantify our findings once testing is complete.
Ive started some tests on my end as well, and certainly do not want to give you the impression that I expect you to do all of the work.
After all, you did ask first....lol and I feel like Im dumping this effort into your lap.
And please forgive my pathetic punctuation in this post, as my keyboard of choice decided to fail tonight....g
Battery does effect performance greatly.... Also noticed none of the apps to test are very repeatable. Fluctuation seemed to be about 100.
Having issues up loading pics from phone, I'm away from laptop for a few days.
In the end i found -12 v single core to provide the best battery and performance that was equal to dual core. I tried over under voting many differences.... over voting did nothing, under voting a little made small preformance improvements. I believe some of fluctuations are related to app, battery, etc.... In the end it's too say dual core has no speed improvement. I would be cool to test an app that it's specifically for dual core. I am better off without the second core speed is same anyway, and battery is much better. There is definitely voltage leakage..
Let me know what y'all find in your tests....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda premium
Outstanding !!
I appreciate the hard work !!
So it seems we are better off using the note running a single core and about 12mv under volt.
And I'm of the belief that our second core is rather pointless...unless it can be proven that the second core is absolutely needed to perform a function.
And so far, I haven't found anything I use that requires activation of the second core.
I'll continue my tests, but the way it looks now, Intel is right, and Samsung pushed a dual core chip to this device for nothing more than a market share increase. As it is quite clear that the device does "not " need it to function well, and at a Very respectable speed.
Now we have a quad core version, and I highly question the motivation behind that move, beyond marketing as well.
These statements may offend some, and folks will certainly disagree, but if you want a great running device and great battery life, you need a single core chip ...IMHO ....g
Agreed Greg. Someone will get upset when they do thirty own tests and realize what we see, and what you said, good marketing by Samsung. Numbers don't lie and i did tests as controlled as possible. Even my battery shows in the picks... A true second useful core would have easily bested the single core results. Plus undervolting tella the bigger story...
I must say though. It had been very useful.. My battery life is so much better now!!!
For me the only true performance gain had been from v6 supercharger.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda premium
Fyi: same exact results using cm9 versus cm10. Neither ROM benchmarks faster than the other as of 9/16 cm9 and 9/15 cm10 builds. Dual core zero performance upgrade.
Tried quadrant again and result very up to 20% back to back so that app is useless to me.
Can someone try a Samsung based ROM. I'm curious add to a difference in roms. just use antutu benchmark and set cpu however you wish to whatever you wish just report cpu clock speed, type of test, and results
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda premium
Out of town this week Troy, but i'm gonna bump it for ya...g