Related
So I've gotten anywhere between 2.5 to 5.1 MFLOPS using various ROMS and have yet to be able to notice something incredibly different.
710...768...806 - What does it matter? What program other than Linpack shows a sizable difference? Sure, maybe things open quicker? What am I missing here?
I read all this about achieving high MFLOPS and OC Kernels yet I still can't achieve smooth game play on 16 bit emulator on my phone with 5 MFLOPS.
MFLOPS mean jack when there is little way to observe the difference.
Carreno43 said:
So I've gotten anywhere between 2.5 to 5.1 MFLOPS using various ROMS and have yet to be able to notice something incredibly different.
710...768...806 - What does it matter? What program other than Linpack shows a sizable difference? Sure, maybe things open quicker? What am I missing here?
I read all this about achieving high MFLOPS and OC Kernels yet I still can't achieve smooth game play on 16 bit emulator on my phone with 5 MFLOPS.
MFLOPS mean jack when there is little way to observe the difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Linpack MFLOPS - measures the floating point performance of your phone.
710...768...806 - refers to CPU frequencies
increasing the CPU frequency should equate to better general-case performance, including things opening quicker as you mention, but also other types of general snappiness like moving between screens and so forth.
"I read all this about achieving high MFLOPS and OC Kernels yet I still can't achieve smooth game play on 16 bit emulator on my phone with 5 MFLOPS." - This may have less to do with the performance of your phone and more to do with the emulator itself. Emulation is a surprisingly CPU intensive operation, especially if the emulater isn't well written. Rather than looking a ton into overclocking and JIT, etc, maybe you ought to look for a better piece of software.
Yea,
I've tested most emulators. Wish there was an Atari emulator!
Thanks for the response.
Carreno43 said:
Yea,
I've tested most emulators. Wish there was an Atari emulator!
Thanks for the response.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have run roms with 5.1 MFLOPS and now am running a rom that gets 3. I can honestly say I see no difference.
Spencer_Moore said:
I have run roms with 5.1 MFLOPS and now am running a rom that gets 3. I can honestly say I see no difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can see a difference... in battery life! Lolz
g00gl3 said:
I can see a difference... in battery life! Lolz
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha Awesome
it looks like to me that everyone is look at the wrong things.
for example:
I am running a Tom that is getting on a average of 4.9 mflops.
I get smoother screen changes....
streaming videos online is so much faster compared to a 3.0 mflop rom. ...
tubetube and other....... websites.
to me everything I do is faster...
I.don't play game on my phone so I don't know how that is.... but everythng else I do is very much faster.
I love high mflop roms...
I have notice about mflops is that it matters about the kernal that u use.
Isn't it true that the MSM7201 in our phones is already overclocked to get to 528mhz as it is? I see a lot of different places saying Qualcomm chips in general are just not worth overclocking... and since our chip is factory overclocked to begin with... just seems like we're pushing the already-pushed here. But the way this board goes crazy for overclocking... it's contradictory. I don't know what to think, cause I've run Linpack myself and gotten ~4.9 with JIT + OC versus ~2.5 without... but I'm with the OP on this one... only difference I'm seeing is my battery draining faster and my phone getting physically hotter.
xatch said:
Isn't it true that the MSM7201 in our phones is already overclocked to get to 528mhz as it is? I see a lot of different places saying Qualcomm chips in general are just not worth overclocking... and since our chip is factory overclocked to begin with... just seems like we're pushing the already-pushed here. But the way this board goes crazy for overclocking... it's contradictory. I don't know what to think, cause I've run Linpack myself and gotten ~4.9 with JIT + OC versus ~2.5 without... but I'm with the OP on this one... only difference I'm seeing is my battery draining faster and my phone getting physically hotter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have OC and JIT and getting about 5.1 mflops and haven't had worse battery life or a hotter phone. It could be the battery I'm using but meh (got a replacement one that's 2000 mAh) but I got worse battery life on leak 2.1 than with the rom I'm using now that has OC, JIT, LWP, etc. I can go about 8 hours with heavy texting, moderate internet usage and my lwp's running and it only goes to about 65%
so OC and Jit don't make that big of a difference in gameplay?
Sent from my Eris using the XDA mobile application powered by Tapatalk
What the OP and all the respondents are noting is frankly quite typical of what happens when performance tuning focuses on a single benchmark: the results obtained are essentially meaningless for different kinds of activities on the same device.
That's because there's a whole chain of dependencies that are specific to a given task, any number of which could become the rate-limiting factor; and a different task on the device will have a different set of dependencies and therefore different rate-limiting behaviors.
For instance, let's take writing to an SD card as an example: there's really no way that OC'ing will speed that up in a measurable way - because the CPU isn't the rate limiting factor.
That Linpack benchmark measures floating-point performance using a software library (as the Eris has no hardware FP capability). Most of the apps on the phone do very little FP work at all. But, it's not a bad test of CPU speed, because it performs no I/O. It also may not be very memory bandwidth intensive, either (if the problems it works on stays in the uP cache and there are few page faults).
OTOH, a game emulator needs to write to the graphics display (at a minimum) and possibly also do read I/O from flash.
Different task, different results. Sometimes things can be improved by hardware or firmware; sometimes the software itself needs to be improved.
bftb0
im sorry, but could you just answer in plain english
Sent from my Eris using the XDA mobile application powered by Tapatalk
TheSonicEmerald said:
im sorry, but could you just answer in plain english
Sent from my Eris using the XDA mobile application powered by Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lima beans bad.
Pork good.
Slow phone bad.
Fast phone good.
bftb0
Thanks for my laugh of the day on that one.
What I'm trying to get at is -
I should be able to play, at the basic level, Sonic or Mario - Without issues.
At the very least
I prefer roms over market games any day (Sonic, Mario, Zelda, DK-Country) and it cripples the phone, at least in my view, that I cannot enjoy the fruits of old games.
Although, I was able to find some old Atari games - which, thankfully, work without stuttering.
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.
Hey fellow XDAers
I'm currently running LeeDroids awesome GSM Rom, with his Kernel and a lot of others the stock speeds are 384mhz - 1.51ghz (using LagFree governor).
I'm just wondering is there any point of having it boosted from 1.18ghz to 1.51ghz or is it just overkill? I can see the Sense UI is slightly smoother, but I'm not really sure how the battery life is affected by the OC.
If I wanted to save battery life, would it be best to reduce it back to 1.18ghz or use a different governor (and what one?)
Thanks in advance,
Louis
Gsm and cdma processors default speeds are different?
overclocked
lhayati said:
Hey fellow XDAers
I'm currently running LeeDroids awesome GSM Rom, with his Kernel and a lot of others the stock speeds are 384mhz - 1.51ghz (using LagFree governor).
I'm just wondering is there any point of having it boosted from 1.18ghz to 1.51ghz or is it just overkill? I can see the Sense UI is slightly smoother, but I'm not really sure how the battery life is affected by the OC.
If I wanted to save battery life, would it be best to reduce it back to 1.18ghz or use a different governor (and what one?)
Thanks in advance,
Louis
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes i read overclocking do take a toll on ur battery just like an engine more horsepower/cylinder more gas lol if u really need the extra speed try juce defender or something to help save you your battery while over clocking. Hope this helps
I keep mine at 1.2ghz max as it is fast enough like that, and makes the battery last longer.
Yeah point off overclocking is that we don't need buy an new device to get some extra speed. But I think on 1.2 it runs fine to.
No sorry, I think I worded that incorrectly. I mean with custom Kernels they usually are 1.51ghz by default.
oohaylima said:
Gsm and cdma processors default speeds are different?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh and do people know if by default it's 1.18 or 1.21? I know it's not much difference, but i'm a little ocd
lhayati said:
Oh and do people know if by default it's 1.18 or 1.21? I know it's not much difference, but i'm a little ocd
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1.18ghz /10char
If you want insane speed is what you gain tho you don't gain better battery life More speed the less life... . Both cores running all the time will eat it up.
If you push it too high you can burn it up.. Depends on what you want outta things...
Well the second core isn't so active as far as I know. It has been more designed to jump in when needed.
But reason most custom roms include an overclock off 1.51Ghz is because the cpu was designed for it, HTC just under clocked it, but in the HTC Sensation XE they not underclocked it.
lhayati said:
No sorry, I think I worded that incorrectly. I mean with custom Kernels they usually are 1.51ghz by default.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, I see now. I get what you're saying now. Overclocking is good, but becomes detrimental when the freq starts sucking the life out the battery.
Aren't we underclocked from the jump. I though Chad Goodman said the actual processor speed is 1.5 by default. Per Qualcomm specs at least.
Sent from my Clean Rom'd HTC Flyer using XDA Premium.
In short, yes.
OC'ing makes your phone much faster and, also helps out with benchmarks. However, battery saving is not an issue either. Most CPU control apps will allow you to set a different frequency when the phone is closed so it saves batter. For example, I'm on zr3d right now and my normal profile is 1.7x ghz. When the screen is off, it scales conservatively from 192 to 540 mhz. Gives better performance and better battery.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using XDA Premium HD app
jdeoxys said:
In short, yes.
OC'ing makes your phone much faster and, also helps out with benchmarks. However, battery saving is not an issue either. Most CPU control apps will allow you to set a different frequency when the phone is closed so it saves batter. For example, I'm on zr3d right now and my normal profile is 1.7x ghz. When the screen is off, it scales conservatively from 192 to 540 mhz. Gives better performance and better battery.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using XDA Premium HD app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol That will save you life when your screen is off but not when your running a game or hammerin away at stuff
OC beyond Quallcoms spec 1.53ghz is pointless and good for nothing but killing your battery. There are a great many here who gush over high benchmarks but that means absolutely nothing in "real world" performance no matter how much they tell themselves that it does. Just sayin....
Thanks for all your reply's
But for the average use (browsing, video streaming, bit of gaming, messaging) what should I set as my max OC as? And what is the best governor for battery + performance.
troyboytn said:
OC beyond Quallcoms spec 1.53ghz is pointless and good for nothing but killing your battery. There are a great many here who gush over high benchmarks but that means absolutely nothing in "real world" performance no matter how much they tell themselves that it does. Just sayin....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope.jpeg. I was playing canabalt the other day at 1.5X ghz. It was the tiniest bit choppy so I upclocked to 1.7. Perfect performance and, also real world performance I believe(actually it's a game so its not real life).
Best settings I'd say would be 1.5 ghz on interactive/intellianthrax guvner while screenon and .5 or .3 ghz conservative/powersave while screen off. Or, for heavy stuff, go all the way up to 1.7/1.8 ghz.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using XDA Premium HD app
Just curious, does ICS in general have worse 3D performance than GB, or is it simply a matter of waiting until the kernels mature?
General performance is pretty dang zippy for being T+1 week after source drop, I just noticed slower framerates in games.
Sent from my i777 using xda premium
It actually has better 3D performance, however the CPU isn't scaling properly and for some reason it will randomly use only 1 core instead of both cores. This is a kernel thing, it will be fixed in future releases.
interesting. was wondering about the stability/performance of the new ported/leaked ics stuff.
stability and battery life is the most important thing for me. can't have my phone dying or going wacky in the middle of the day for work purposes. looks like i'll be staying away from flashing the new stuff for just a bit longer
*********
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