sammy battery vs cm battery - Galaxy S III Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting

this issue is driving me crazy... no matter what i do i can't get good battery life with cm based roms.... no mater what i try: official, temasek, carbon, paranoid, all have **** battery life that barrely last a day.
i always end up going back to sammy based roms like wanamlite. byt i dont like it!
i greenify apps, disable gps, dormancy, startup apps, what else???
if it matters, i never change kernels..

---

You aren't experiencing anything new, only Samsung based roms will get good battery life on the S3.

---

Probably due to a lack of sources
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4

---

rootSU said:
Probably due to a lack of sources
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what do you mean?

---

Samsung don't release their exynos source code properly, so AOSP developers don't have all the information required to get similar performance out of all the hardware components
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4

---

rootSU said:
Samsung don't release their exynos source code properly, so AOSP developers don't have all the information required to get similar performance out of all the hardware components
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
is there any aosp or aokp based rom that will provide good battery life?

---

They're all about the same
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4

---

they last the same for me with custom kernels.
i wont go back to sammy
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app

---

To me, any CM/AOSP and any kernel included or custom last about the same, and that is about 40% less then stock samsung rom.
Of course depending on situation...
However I won't be coming back to stock samsung rom any time soon

---

Agreed, custom kernels help a lot but still not quite as much as stock. Similarly, im sticking with aosp
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4

---

Probably irrelevant but i tried the Illusion Rom and it gave me 1d 53h of normal usage whereas sammy barely gets me through the day
Just thought id mention it

---

1 day + 4 days?
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4

---

You are confusing things here...
rootSU said:
Probably due to a lack of sources
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are confusing things here - the lack of sources is somehow relevant to the kernel part, and generally the best kernels in regard to power consumption are the custom ones (like Perseus, Siyah and so on) - which are precisely started from the sources coming from Samsung.
The ROM part only talks to the kernel part, and once you have the same kernel (like Siyah) talking to both a CM ROM and a Sammy ROM and you get better power consumption in Sammy I don't really see how that can be related to "lack of sources".

---

rootSU said:
1 day + 4 days?
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hahahaha sorry my bad:silly:
1d 13h

---

AthlonGFX said:
Probably irrelevant but i tried the Illusion Rom and it gave me 1d 53h of normal usage whereas sammy barely gets me through the day
Just thought id mention it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah sure, I even got on couple of occasion over 2 day and maybe 3-4hrs...
But however on stock with the the approximately same usage I would still have 30-40% more usage time.

---

xclub_101 said:
You are confusing things here - the lack of sources is somehow relevant to the kernel part, and generally the best kernels in regard to power consumption are the custom ones (like Perseus, Siyah and so on) - which are precisely started from the sources coming from Samsung.
The ROM part only talks to the kernel part, and once you have the same kernel (like Siyah) talking to both a CM ROM and a Sammy ROM and you get better power consumption in Sammy I don't really see how that can be related to "lack of sources".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No im not confusing things - but you're over simplifying things. The kernel sources are complete. Siyah uses the samsung kernel sources as a base and it interacts with touchwiz roms perfectly. The same kernel does not interact with aosp roms in the same way.
Set up a touchwiz rom with basic settings and siyah kernel and compare it to aosp with the same basic settings and kernel and touchwiz will win hands down.
Samsungs kernel source may be complete but the exynos and hardware sources are incomplete. That's why an aosp rom camera is much lower quality than samsungs using the same hardware.
Also its worth noting that these dual purpose kernels are built from a mixture of samsung sources and Google sources. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to support 4.2.2 aosp roms...because 4.1 kernels are different to 4.2 kernels...hence no existing kernels can work on 4.2 sammy roms. We need their kernel sources for that, but they will come unlike complete exynos sources.
If you look at the snapdragon variants of the s3, the chipset is well documented so the developer community have much more scope to get comparable battery performance but this isn't an option for us. This is why the developer community here are so frustrated with samsung and the i9300 to the point where team hacksung decided they no longer wish to support cyanogen on exynos devices. We are unable to exploit the hardware to its full potential as we don't have what's required. Developers need to use a lot of guess work to get things working. Our s3 device tree for aosp roms is incomplete and this is samsungs fault for not being forthcoming with their non kernel sources
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4

---

You are still confused
rootSU said:
...
Samsungs kernel source may be complete but the exynos and hardware sources are incomplete. That's why an aosp rom camera is much lower quality than samsungs using the same hardware.
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is completely irrelevant to what it was discussed - and is also false since for instance your own post is somehow trying to suggest that the AOSP camera works perfectly for non-Exynos S3 and works bad for Exynos S3 - once you get your time to check reality instead of propagating stuff you will see that is just another myth and that:
a) the AOSP camera is about as bad for BOTH CPUs
b) the information that is missing has nothing to do with the CPU from Samsung but instead with the camera itself.
And getting back to what this thread was about - POWER CONSUMPTION - the facts show that most CM ROMs have worse power consumption than most Sammy ROMs when both scenarios are run with the SAME KERNEL compiled from sources. A very remote point might be (maybe) made for device-drivers that are blobs (and where custom ioctls maybe are not documented) - but CPU / power management is not one of those! Debunking even further your childish talking point - with the same Sammy ROM the POWER CONSUMPTION is clearly better when running with one of those custom kernels then when running standard Samsung kernel - so any point that somehow any information relevant to power consumption is missing - when actually the custom open-source kernels are demonstrably better in this regard - now stands forever debunked

---

xclub_101 said:
That is completely irrelevant to what it was discussed - and is also false since for instance your own post is somehow trying to suggest that the AOSP camera works perfectly for non-Exynos S3 and works bad for Exynos S3 - once you get your time to check reality instead of propagating stuff you will see that is just another myth and that:
a) the AOSP camera is about as bad for BOTH CPUs
b) the information that is missing has nothing to do with the CPU from Samsung but instead with the camera itself.
And getting back to what this thread was about - POWER CONSUMPTION - the facts show that most CM ROMs have worse power consumption than most Sammy ROMs when both scenarios are run with the SAME KERNEL compiled from sources. A very remote point might be (maybe) made for device-drivers that are blobs (and where custom ioctls maybe are not documented) - but CPU / power management is not one of those! Debunking even further your childish talking point - with the same Sammy ROM the POWER CONSUMPTION is clearly better when running with one of those custom kernels then when running standard Samsung kernel - so any point that somehow any information relevant to power consumption is missing - when actually the custom open-source kernels are demonstrably better in this regard - now stands forever debunked
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Without the exynos source the cm kernels can't take full advantage of exynos power saving features..... Simple.
On another note, I suggest you tone down your attitude, and apologise for calling rootSU childish, and don't treat this place like somewhere you can come to wind people up or I will personally introduce you to the moderators

---

xclub_101 said:
That is completely irrelevant to what it was discussed - and is also false since for instance your own post is somehow trying to suggest that the AOSP camera works perfectly for non-Exynos S3 and works bad for Exynos S3 - once you get your time to check reality instead of propagating stuff you will see that is just another myth and that:
a) the AOSP camera is about as bad for BOTH CPUs
b) the information that is missing has nothing to do with the CPU from Samsung but instead with the camera itself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, way to take something completely out of context and miss an entire point! I didn't even think this was possible. Impressive.
So firstly, I cited the camera as an example of something that relied on Samsung sources along with the exynos chipset (NOT CPU by the way, I haven't use the term CPU, so I guess you just decided to choose that term yourself). The sources are incomplete and the binaries, libs an patches provided are not enough to get everything running on the device as it should be. I, in know way stated or inferred that the camera was better on snapdragon S3's.
The point was we don't have everything in relation to the camera, ergo the camera is not as good as Samsungs. This is not because of the AOSP camera application. Instead it is down to a lack of documentation /sources for the camera HAL. It was a simple example explaining that if we haven't got everything required to run the hardware properly, we can't achieve the same performance. This is obvious with the camera and it's poorer quality images compared to the touchwiz camera using the very same hardware. This is not the case with just the camera though, this extends to all the hardware where we have incomplete information and sources.
xclub_101 said:
the facts show that most CM ROMs have worse power consumption than most Sammy ROMs when both scenarios are run with the SAME KERNEL compiled from sources
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is true, with the SAME KERNEL on both platforms, power consumption is different (That's exactly what my post said). However, the dual purpose kernels are compiled from 2 sets of sources, so AOSP and Touchwiz platforms do not overlap 100% with each other (usage wise) in regards to what is compiled into these kernels. Touchwiz ROMs utilise (random guess number to illustrate a point) 90% of whats in the kernel as does AOSP. Meaning there could be a (fictitious) 10% of the kernel exclusively for each platform.
xclub_101 said:
but CPU / power management is not one of those!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't mention CPU power management. I did not say that the kernels on AOSP were any different at *managing* the power. Although thanks for bring that up... because now that you mention it, they are.
xclub_101 said:
Debunking even further your childish talking point
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't understand how you can be so audacious to call my talking point childish when you've managed to avoid applying adult levels of reading to my entire post thus far and have taken every point I made conversely to how it was intended.
xclub_101 said:
with the same Sammy ROM the POWER CONSUMPTION is clearly better when running with one of those custom kernels then when running standard Samsung kernel
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Say what now? If You're saying you think that custom kernels on a Sammy ROM are better than stock kernels on the same sammy rom for power consumption, you'd be right. I never said anything to the contrary of that. I said these custom kernels on a sammy rom are better that they are on an AOSP rom for power consumtion.
xclub_101 said:
so any point that somehow any information relevant to power consumption is missing - when actually the custom open-source kernels are demonstrably better in this regard - now stands forever debunked
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really don't think you are managing to get any point you're trying to make across. You're not even arguing against the point I made. Surely a rebutal must directly address my points. You seem to be meandering aimlessly, taking pot shots at what you *think* is my point.
Again, I never said anything about information pertaining to power consumption being missing. My point is simple and basic, so here it is again. We do not have everything to run the hardware optimally. Whenever this is the case, performance suffers. If it is not running as originally intended because sources are missing to provide proper and full support, things are inefficient. Inefficiencies can lead to more power being used than is needed. That's all I was saying. You seem to be going out of your way to argue points I didn't even make, and not even graciously.
Edit>
Link for reading:
http://www.xda-developers.com/android/samsung-aware-of-exynos-documentation-issue/

---

slaphead20 said:
Without the exynos source the cm kernels can't take full advantage of exynos power saving features..... Simple.
On another note, I suggest you tone down your attitude, and apologise for calling rootSU childish, and don't treat this place like somewhere you can come to wind people up or I will personally introduce you to the moderators
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would just put him on ignore. It won't be the first time he's acting like an obnoxious know-it-all and it certainly won't be his last. For all his talk, I haven't seen him contribute anything remotely useful to any sort of development, just pointless ranting, raving and demanding.