Related
Hi guys..
I sad Google developed 2.2 to improve snapdragon cpu and becuase of that the benchmarks shows 3X faster cpu on nexus,
will work 2.2 on galaxy like nexus ? or not for SGS cpu!
at all what you think about power of CPU/GPU in SGS on 2.2 ?
Is nexus cpu better than galaxy on Android 2.2 ?
The Galaxy's CPU/GPU is the best on the market right now and with 2.2 it should fix a lot of software problems with the SGS.
Actually can't wait for 2.2, and it's released around about my birthday!
When is your birthday
22nd September mate. You can buy me a Galaxy S as a spare if you want
well I have to see it first.
Guess Samsung finds a way to **** up the phone again i'm sure of that.
matty___ said:
well I have to see it first.
Guess Samsung finds a way to **** up the phone again i'm sure of that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If it has rfs file format and TouchWiz, consider it ****ed up.
kgk888 said:
If it has rfs file format and TouchWiz, consider it ****ed up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If froyo on the SGS sucks, then the chefs in here will cut it open and make it run properly and it won't matter what the FW was like when samsung sent it out. Also, TouchWiz is fine, even if it does have a dumb name.
I have been worried about this. The sgs line and droid line do not get over 15 in linpack with 2.2. I dont see the same increase in speed as I do with snapdragon based phones. I have read this is due to the snapdragon having 128 bit vs 64 bit something but cant find the forum post about this. The sgs line with 2.1 is still faster then a 2.2 snapdragon based phone but it must have the lag fix installed. Without the lag fix it is slower for sure. I will try to find the forum post about 128bit vs 64bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKsAUR61ByM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji49qFNxC4c
Edit: found the forum post
Originally Posted by Gimic26
Your question was answered already...it comes down to processor architecture. Qualcomm's Snapdragon platform and more specifically the Scorpion application processor, while being related to TI's Omap Arm series, has enhancements made by Qualcomm. The part of the cpu that handles the SIMD instructions has a wider pipeline, 128 bits vs 64 bits in TI's Omap. Scorpion also has a deeper pipeline to better handle all that data which I'd assume offsets some of the performance benefits a little bit.
As far as the difference between the two benchmarks, they are written to benchmark two different things. Linpack can run almost entirely within the SIMD/NEON portion of the cpu thereby showing off the enhancements made by Qualcomm. Quadrant stresses the entire core showing off total system performance showing that only in certain situations will Snapdragon outperform any other Arm based core.
shep211 said:
I have been worried about this. The sgs line and droid line do not get over 15 in linpack with 2.2. I dont see the same increase in speed as I do with snapdragon based phones. I have read this is due to the snapdragon having 128 bit vs 64 bit something but cant find the forum post about this. The sgs line with 2.1 is still faster then a 2.2 snapdragon based phone but it must have the lag fix installed. Without the lag fix it is slower for sure. I will try to find the forum post about 128bit vs 64bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKsAUR61ByM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji49qFNxC4c
Edit: found the forum post
Originally Posted by Gimic26
Your question was answered already...it comes down to processor architecture. Qualcomm's Snapdragon platform and more specifically the Scorpion application processor, while being related to TI's Omap Arm series, has enhancements made by Qualcomm. The part of the cpu that handles the SIMD instructions has a wider pipeline, 128 bits vs 64 bits in TI's Omap. Scorpion also has a deeper pipeline to better handle all that data which I'd assume offsets some of the performance benefits a little bit.
As far as the difference between the two benchmarks, they are written to benchmark two different things. Linpack can run almost entirely within the SIMD/NEON portion of the cpu thereby showing off the enhancements made by Qualcomm. Quadrant stresses the entire core showing off total system performance showing that only in certain situations will Snapdragon outperform any other Arm based core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I've seen and read, the 2.2 builds for the Galaxy S do NOT have a JIT compiler enabled which explains the lower scores. The N1 got the huge CPU boost from having JIT enabled. That doesn't explain the Droid X's scores, but then again I haven't read enough about 2.2 running on the DX to see if it has JIT installed.
What're you think? I'll buy SGS 2.1 or wait for SGS 2.2 ?
It's very important to buy most powerfull phone.
I like Nexuse cus it's tested sucssasfuly in Android 2.2 and I'm gono love SGS if it will be better than nexus in 2.2.
Help me to choose better path )
Vogie said:
What're you think? I'll buy SGS 2.1 or wait for SGS 2.2 ?
It's very important to buy most powerfull phone.
I like Nexuse cus it's tested sucssasfuly in Android 2.2 and I'm gono love SGS if it will be better than nexus in 2.2.
Help me to choose better path )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would wait at this time before purchasing an SGS if that's your concern.
Out of the box, the current phone/software is laggy and disappointing. If you're willing to hack it with some of the various fixes found here (I prefer samset with mimocan kernel), then you won't be unhappy with the phone, but there's no guarantee that Samsung will get FroYo right, and that if they do get it wrong that the devs here will be able to bring you a hot, non-laggy, super FroYo ROM before there's better, or at least comparable hardware done right by the manufacturer available.
That's no reflection on the devs here at all, I'm just thinking that Samsung won't release the firmware until the end of September, the devs will need a couple of weeks to make magic at least, and so now we're well into October. By October, the SGS will be a six month old phone. Six months is a very long time in the Android hardware world, and we'll likely see a landslide of new phones with faster CPU, maybe even dual-cores in the fall for the holiday season. The only thing the SGS will have over other phones at that point is the Super AMOLED screen by Samsung, since they're holding it all to themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if Moto or HTC try to kang the iPhone display tech for newer models if they can't get Super AMOLED for themselves.
In the android world it is nearly impossible to but a device that won't be out of date within at most a year and sometimes within 6 months.
Having said that, I don't see anything that will topple the sgs quite that soon. Although there is talk of dual core snap dragons, there has been nothing announced yet, and indeed the two new Desire handsets are still on the same chip.
I wouldn't expect to see anything that will have more raw power than the sgs until at least mid 2011. If there was anything closer than that it'd already be getting hyped.
If you keep looking at what is just over the horizon then you won't end up ever getting one, because there always seems to be something new out in a few months time. The sgs isn't prefect, but it beats the hell it of most anything that you'll be able to buy this year.
My humble opinion of course, but I think that if you want top end hardware, the sgs will serve you very well.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Based on your responses so far, I'd just get an iPhone 4 and be done with it.
There are a lot of people here and elsewhere who are perfectly happy with the device. I for one haven't installed the lag fix and I don't experience any lags, except for the situations below:
1. I'm trying to do something while there are several apps being installed/downloaded from the marketplace in the background. I think this will be resolved with the dualcore next gen CPU's.
2. Using LauncherPro, for all that is good and nice on this earth, I do not know why it took me 3 months before the option to change the shortcut on its drawer was shown to me. Imagine that, 3 months just to show the option to add a shortcut. Jeezus. I click on add shortcut and it took 3 months. Someone shoot me. I'm using ADW now and am very happy.
Out of sheer curiosity, why is it that you need "THE MOST POWERFUL PHONE"?
shep211 said:
As far as the difference between the two benchmarks, they are written to benchmark two different things. Linpack can run almost entirely within the SIMD/NEON portion of the cpu thereby showing off the enhancements made by Qualcomm. Quadrant stresses the entire core showing off total system performance showing that only in certain situations will Snapdragon outperform any other Arm based core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The hummingbird core is widely recognized to be faster than the snapdragon core. Benchmarks do not tell you everything. Reference:
You might think that the Hummingbird doesn’t stand a chance against Qualcomm’s custom-built monster, but Samsung isn’t prepared to throw in the towel. In response to Snapdragon, they hired Intrinsity, a semiconductor company specializing in tweaking processor logic design, to customize the Cortex-A8 in the Hummingbird to perform certain binary functions using significantly less instructions than normal. Samsung estimates that 20% of the Hummingbird’s functions are affected, and of those, on average 25-50% less instructions are needed to complete each task. Overall, the processor can perform tasks 5-10% more quickly while handling the same 2 instructions per clock cycle as an unmodified ARM Cortex-A8 processor, and Samsung states it outperforms all other processors on the market (a statement seemingly aimed at Qualcomm).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here is a GPU comparison for some of the leading smartphones:
Motorola Droid: TI OMAP3430 with PowerVR SGX530 = 7-14 million(?) triangles/sec
Nexus One: Qualcomm QSD8x50 with Adreno 200 = 22 million triangles/sec
iPhone 3G S: 600 MHz Cortex-A8 with PowerVR SGX535 = 28 7 million triangles/sec
Samsung Galaxy S: S5PC110 with PowerVR SGX540 = 90 million triangles/sec
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait for G2 as nexus one is old news and i think they are winding down production. Frankly i love my sgs. Get it now cos frankly froyo is way over hyped compared to what sgs can do now with a lagfix
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
ickyboo said:
Wait for G2 as nexus one is old news and i think they are winding down production. Frankly i love my sgs. Get it now cos frankly froyo is way over hyped compared to what sgs can do now with a lagfix
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can't really say froyo is over hyped, I mean its free, and beyond that its an incremental upgrade.
I don't see why anyone would be staying on eclair once official froyo drops, and you can't deny that it will bring a performance boost.
Now I doubt it will bring quite as much of a boost as it gave to the N1 until we get a few months of development to really get it running sweetly, but all the same its still not over hyped if I ask me.
With optimized ROMs and whatever fixes we need (cuz samsung WILL break something) I figure the sgs will shred the N1's new scores. I recon we'll see around 3k in quadrant.
Considering how far ahead of almost everything a lag fixed non-stock-rom sgs is now, we'll see something really special once froyo starts rocking our crotches.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
The.Opethian said:
Based on your responses so far, I'd just get an iPhone 4 and be done with it.
There are a lot of people here and elsewhere who are perfectly happy with the device. I for one haven't installed the lag fix and I don't experience any lags, except for the situations below:
1. I'm trying to do something while there are several apps being installed/downloaded from the marketplace in the background. I think this will be resolved with the dualcore next gen CPU's.
2. Using LauncherPro, for all that is good and nice on this earth, I do not know why it took me 3 months before the option to change the shortcut on its drawer was shown to me. Imagine that, 3 months just to show the option to add a shortcut. Jeezus. I click on add shortcut and it took 3 months. Someone shoot me. I'm using ADW now and am very happy.
Out of sheer curiosity, why is it that you need "THE MOST POWERFUL PHONE"?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why powerfull phone? ok i'll tell u:
Because I don't like to buy an expensive phone (like SGS) that power is lesser than a chipper phone (like N1) !
Because I'd rather a phone without stalling (lagging) to play games and running big applications. I will very gray if i'll se lagging/stalling...
Because I need a phone with a good support (it's enough, don't need mazing support). a phone with a clear (alive or nice) Future
JIT for Hummingbird should be promising.
High Mem
anyone got any idea on the high mem issue?... when i was browsing the Gmarket.com, i realize 305 total available memory is not enough for me... and the web page just closed....
I've been reading a lot of discussion on this and would love to hear some opinions and see some benchmarks.
I currently own a Nexus One & where I live they are priced about $150 dollars more for a Nexus than a Galaxy S (It's my understanding Nexus are regarded as cheaper phones in America?) So basically I can sell my 4 month old Nexus One & buy a brand new 16GB Galaxy S for no extra cost. Here is what I am wondering...
I know the Galaxy S has an amazing GPU, it facerolls the Nexus One & even seems to stomp the Droid X with its improved GPU so that is great.
The CPU however seems to under perform in every benchmark I can find versus the Nexus/Droid2 & many more current high end Androids.
I realise these devices are running Android 2.2 with JIT. I've seen Linpacks of 2.2 running Galaxy S devices and JIT enabled ROMs that still don't compare with these other devices.
Question 1
What I'm wondering is the difference we can see in CPU benchmarks going to be surpassed with the addition of a proper 2.2 JIT rom on our devices or is simply that the Snapdragons & other Qualcomm CPU are actually better than our Hummingbird.
Question 2
My Nexus One is Linkpacking 30 MFlops atm, I think with OC etc I can get it higher too. Does anyone have any evidence of a Galaxy S phone (running 2.2, JIT, lagfix or anything) that competes (or even comes close to competing) with this? I have been unable to find anything.
Question 3
Is the current Quadrant scores that I'm seeing people reporting in the Lag Fix threads (2000+) actually representative of speed or are these (as Cyanogen & others seem to be claiming) distorted?
(I realise a lot of people are reporting lag fixed.. what I'm asking is the number represented there (x2 N1 Froyo's score) actually accurate. I don't understand the mechanics behind the I/O benchmark so I don't understand if the lagfix is distoring the reported results from it.)
1. Hummingbird is apparently faster.
2. We don't have JIT yet.. Compare Nexus One 2.1/Eclair with Galaxy S 2.1, and I remember seeing we are faster.. JIT has a massive impact on mflops (because the benchmark uses bytecode, not compiled code).
3. No benchmark is really representative of speeds (no matter what people tell you). Because different apps have different workloads. You might get 50mflops in a CPU test, but for 3D games, the number of triangles matters more. It has recently been shown the I/O test for quadrant can be tricked too.
Benchmarks aren't really comprehensive enough for anything more than getting an idea of the performance.. But don't rely on them.
The reason why we get crappy benchmarks is due to having ****ty filesystem (rfs) which don't let us have multi writes. That's what lag fixes help. Cpu wise we eat snapdragons for breakfast, lunch and tea.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
andrewluecke said:
1. Hummingbird is apparently faster.
2. We don't have JIT yet.. Compare Nexus One 2.1/Eclair with Galaxy S 2.1, and I remember seeing we are faster.. JIT has a massive impact on mflops (because the benchmark uses bytecode, not compiled code).
3. No benchmark is really representative of speeds (no matter what people tell you). Because different apps have different workloads. You might get 50mflops in a CPU test, but for 3D games, the number of triangles matters more. It has recently been shown the I/O test for quadrant can be tricked too.
Benchmarks aren't really comprehensive enough for anything more than getting an idea of the performance.. But don't rely on them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what he said ^^^
regards
ickyboo said:
The reason why we get crappy benchmarks is due to having ****ty filesystem (rfs) which don't let us have multi writes.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source please.. I never have actually seen anyone prove this here, but I hear it being thrown around increasingly. How was this proven? I'm becoming increasingly concerned that this conclusion was made by playing chinese whispers
andrewluecke said:
Source please.. I never have actually seen anyone prove this here, but I hear it being thrown around increasingly. How was this proven? I'm becoming increasingly concerned that this conclusion was made by playing chinese whispers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, if you look at pre-Froyo benchmarks of Snapdragon devices, they generally get around 6.1 in Linpack, vs ~8.4 for a Galaxy S. That's a pretty big delta, and carriers through most other synthetic and real world benchmarks, roughly 20% faster at the same clock speed. Same thing can be seen with the TI processors in the Droid line, at 1Ghz, they score in the 8's with 2.1.
Froyo benchmarks are suspect for a number of reasons, mainly because most of the benchmarks were designed with 1.6-2.1 in mind, and partly because Google spent a lot of time optimizing the base Froyo build for a Snapdragon processor. HTC, Sony, Dell, etc can piggyback off this work with their version, whereas Samsung and Motorola have to start much closer to scratch. Which is also why the HTC devices got Froyo sooner.
Believe it or not (and despite the marketing hype) the Snapdragon chipset is a budget solution, with less complex/expensive memory subsystem, and a far less costly integrated graphics solution than what is found on the Galaxy S.
It's cheap to produce, it has almost everything in a nice tidy package that makes it cheaper to engineer handsets (when I say everything, I mean CPU/GPU/Radio/WiFi/GPS/USB).
It's a pretty good package for companies like HTC, who don't do any real hardware engineering, and try to keep costs low. They do software (very very well, I should add), industrial design, and mass manufacturing, but they've NEVER designed a chipset (or display), they always source those from a third party, in this case Qualcom for the chipset, Samsung/Sony for the displays, etc.
However, they were the first to market with 1Ghz speed and it's a solid and stable hardware setup. Just keep in mind that clock speeds don't tell the whole tale.
The Galaxy S, (and to a lesser extent the Droid series) use a better stand-alone CPU solution and a far superior non-integrated (has its own chip) GPU. Samsung does do their own in-house chipset engineering, and they didn't cut corners on the CPU design, and they learned a lot about how to squeeze a lot of performance out of the ARM instruction set from their own products and the work they did for the iPhone processors. In brute-force, they smack the Snapdragon chipset around like a *****, but they get slapped around in turn by HTC's superior software engineering.
HTC has a real advantage in lots and lots of PDA/Smartphone software experience. They know how to make the most of the hardware they purchase, and seem to spend a great deal of time optimizing the software, be it Windows Mobile or Android, and lessons learned from a decade of making PDAs, under their name and for others.
If HTC used a Hummingbird or TI OMAP chipset with PowerVR GPU, I have no doubt they'd be able to more quickly wring more performance and stability out of it than Samsung or Motorola can.
Croak said:
Well, if you look at pre-Froyo benchmarks of Snapdragon devices, they generally get around 6.1 in Linpack, vs ~8.4 for a Galaxy S. That's a pretty big delta, and carriers through most other synthetic and real world benchmarks, roughly 20% faster at the same clock speed. Same thing can be seen with the TI processors in the Droid line, at 1Ghz, they score in the 8's with 2.1.
Froyo benchmarks are suspect for a number of reasons, mainly because most of the benchmarks were designed with 1.6-2.1 in mind, and partly because Google spent a lot of time optimizing the base Froyo build for a Snapdragon processor. HTC, Sony, Dell, etc can piggyback off this work with their version, whereas Samsung and Motorola have to start much closer to scratch. Which is also why the HTC devices got Froyo sooner.
Believe it or not (and despite the marketing hype) the Snapdragon chipset is a budget solution, with less complex/expensive memory subsystem, and a far less costly integrated graphics solution than what is found on the Galaxy S.
It's cheap to produce, it has almost everything in a nice tidy package that makes it cheaper to engineer handsets (when I say everything, I mean CPU/GPU/Radio/WiFi/GPS/USB).
It's a pretty good package for companies like HTC, who don't do any real hardware engineering, and try to keep costs low. They do software (very very well, I should add), industrial design, and mass manufacturing, but they've NEVER designed a chipset (or display), they always source those from a third party, in this case Qualcom for the chipset, Samsung/Sony for the displays, etc.
However, they were the first to market with 1Ghz speed and it's a solid and stable hardware setup. Just keep in mind that clock speeds don't tell the whole tale.
The Galaxy S, (and to a lesser extent the Droid series) use a better stand-alone CPU solution and a far superior non-integrated (has its own chip) GPU. Samsung does do their own in-house chipset engineering, and they didn't cut corners on the CPU design, and they learned a lot about how to squeeze a lot of performance out of the ARM instruction set from their own products and the work they did for the iPhone processors. In brute-force, they smack the Snapdragon chipset around like a *****, but they get slapped around in turn by HTC's superior software engineering.
HTC has a real advantage in lots and lots of PDA/Smartphone software experience. They know how to make the most of the hardware they purchase, and seem to spend a great deal of time optimizing the software, be it Windows Mobile or Android, and lessons learned from a decade of making PDAs, under their name and for others.
If HTC used a Hummingbird or TI OMAP chipset with PowerVR GPU, I have no doubt they'd be able to more quickly wring more performance and stability out of it than Samsung or Motorola can.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, that was a really insightful post.
So basically even though our processor should outperform or ATLEAST match the snapdragons. Due to the mass optimization of 2.2 JIT for Snapdragon devices it's likely we'll never see the same performance. Unless Samsung gets really keen to do some optimization themselves.
I searched all over the internet to see why the CPU scores in Quadrant and other benchmarks are waaaay lower then the Nexus ones, but still I can't find anything.
Does Samsung disable the JIT in their Froyo ROMs? Because both Snapdragon and Hummingbird are still based on the same Cortex A8 cores
"It's clear that FroYo's JIT compiler currently only delivers significant performance gains for Snapdragon CPUs with the Scorpion core. This in turn explains why, so far, only a beta version of Android 2.2 is available for the Cortex-A8-based Samsung Galaxy S — the JIT compiler is the outstanding feature of FroYo. For the widespread Cortex-A8 cores, used in many high-end Android smartphones, the JIT compiler needs to be optimised. A Cortex-A8 core will still be slower than a Scorpion core at the same clock speed, but the Scorpion's advantage may not be as much 260 percent."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://androidforums.com/samsung-ca...ant-scores-why-humming-bird-doing-so-bad.html
There are multiple reasons, not optimised jit, slow memory for caching and more. Most of them are solved in the CM roms (it performs on par with the N1), and i can tell you that when Gingerbread comes it will blow the snapdragons away.
Which custom ROM provides CPU performance close to Snapdragon?
[ignore this post please]
Still the 1Ghz humming bird out performs the 1Ghz snap in real world performance
Even the LG Optimus One ARM11 600MHz Core scores better than Galaxy S. I still believe it's a software problem.
http://lgoptimusonep500.blogspot.com/2011/01/custom-rom-for-lg-optimus-one-p500.html#more
Another benchmark:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4126/nokia-http://www.anandtech.com/show/4126/nokia-n8-review-/7
...where the Nexus S proves that the Hummingbird can do more than it currrently does in Galaxy S.
From the Greene Computing website (accessible from Linpack app), SGS scores range from 8 (Android Eclair 2.1) to 14 (Froyo).
But I see HTC and Motorola Linpack scores (Froyo) ranging from 30s to 40s.
Also does anyone know SGS Quadrant scores (with lagfix)?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Thats 14 PRERELEASE froyo!
But it's theorised it's due to the way SIMD is designed on Hummingbird. Linpack says VERY little about real performance anyway though.
SGS (stock eclair ROM) with OCLF 2.0 gives me a quadrant benchmark score of ~2150, which just about beats every other phone...
andrewluecke said:
Thats 14 PRERELEASE froyo!
But it's theorised it's due to the way SIMD is designed on Hummingbird. Linpack says VERY little about real performance anyway though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you mean that Quadrant is closer to real world users experience compared to Linpack?
From published reviews, it does seem that 2D, 3D games (which is computationally intensive) are generally more fluid on SGS than HTCs
So why does Linpack really indicate?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Prasad007 said:
SGS (stock eclair ROM) with OCLF 2.0 gives me a quadrant benchmark score of ~2150, which just about beats every other phone...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Gosh, if Eclair with lagfix scores 2150, Froyo should be off the charts! Can anyone share the numbers?
Is performance gains for OCLF similar to Voodoo?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
ckkee said:
Gosh, if Eclair with lagfix scores 2150, Froyo should be off the charts! Can anyone share the numbers?
Is performance gains for OCLF similar to Voodoo?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
bear in mind that the number doesn't tell much. You can have great number but ordinary performance.
many screen capture shared in XDA, this is one of the screen capture on I9000XWJM7 + RyanZa OCLF
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=7951649#post7951649
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
I believe you have the basic Quadrant ? Well, I have Quadrant Advanced, and the graph shows sections in the bars for each phone bifurcated as CPU, 2D, 3D performance, etc.. With the lagfix, our I/O section for our phones is significantly elongated (due to the filesystem changes). What do I use to take a screenshot ?
One thing to also add to the balance is that the Galaxy S also has the best GPU available for smartphones:
Here is a GPU comparison for some of the leading smartphones:
■Motorola Droid: TI OMAP3430 with PowerVR SGX530 = 7-14 million(?) triangles/sec
■Nexus One: Qualcomm QSD8x50 with Adreno 200 = 22 million triangles/sec
■iPhone 3G S: 600 MHz Cortex-A8 with PowerVR SGX535 = 28 7 million triangles/sec
■Samsung Galaxy S: S5PC110 with PowerVR SGX540 = 90 million triangles/sec
And for comparison a few consoles:
■PS3: 250 million triangles/sec
■Xbox 360: 500 million triangles/sec
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you also have a dedicated GPU (PowerVR SGX540 GPU) and LinPack is a mathematical only benchmark, so it only test the capacity for the CPU to makes calculation per seconds (MFlops).
Where MFlops is a good indicator, the uses of multimedia applications on modern smartphone is more GPU intensive so, unless you're doing intensive database application on your phone, MFlops are juste an indication.
You can see a comparaison of the full specs here:
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Cellphonehardwarecompari1.png
You can see a real life test here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpP5QljEqow&feature=player_embedded#!
It doesn't test mflops though, it simply tests the speed of Dalvik. Similar to what Nvidia did, it is also possible some manufacturers might begin to optimise specifically for benchmarks (and we don't want that)
The Linpack CPU scores are lower than scores from Qualcomm CPUs because the Qualcomm CPUs have higher throughput SIMD FP units. This means they score higher in the linpack scores, but this does not translate to better performance on a day to day basis.
Quadrant scores with OCLF are not correct. Because of the filesystem changes, OCLF just bypasses the I/O stage of Quadrant, and scores the highest possible mark for I/O. Quadrant scores with Voodoo are a more accurate benchmark, because it actually does the benchmark, rather than just bypassing it.
Here we go again.
The Quadrant scores with the lagfixes are largely irrelevant as it does not in all cases test real world performance. To dumb it down, due to the way some lagfixes are implemented it's not actually real disk reads and writes being tested. Doesn't mean real world performance isn't improved by the lagfixes, because it is. The number in the test just doesn't mean anything. The benchmark has some use when comparing different lagfixes to eachother on the same device, but only to say which one is generally faster, not how much faster it is. Then again, when comparing OCLF to Voodoo it is again not comparable.
As for Linpack, the difference in score is due to the "FPU" (SIMD/NEON/VFP) instructions. Snapdragon (Qualcomm) has a better FPU than Hummingbird (Samsung) does. However, (again) it doesn't make that big a real world difference. Before the Snapdragon and Hummingbird devices, FPU instructions were either slow, really really slow, or emulated in software as the hardware for it was simply non-existent in the chips used. The expected performance of tests that use these instructions by Linpack is likely a whole lot lower then is now being reported by Snapdragon, with Dalvik JIT optimizations for this FPU. The part of the total score that can be attributed to the FPU is therefore blown completely out of proportion, as it completely overshadows the performance of the tests that primarily use the CPU.
Of course, yes, Snapdragon's FPU is a whole lot faster than Hummingbird's. The implied real world performance difference by Linpack is however complete nonsense.
To Chainfire, thanks for the detailed explanation on the two tests, and why the Hummingbird and Qualcomm cpus differs in scores.
From anecdotal comments in reviews (see AnandTech review on SGS devices, which I feel is more objective than most reviewers), SGS is generally regarded as the smoothest Android device amongst the current crop of 1st Ghz smart phones. This is largely based on Android UI operations and 2D/3D games performance.
Hence, I was surprised that SGS Linpack scores are so much lower than Qualcomm devices. Your insightful posting has helped to clear that up.
On the topic of SGS performance, lag fixes seem to help tremendously. Is there a compendium introducing the various lag fixes and which may be most suitable for I9000 international devices?
From reading disparate threads, it appears that OCLF came first (using Ext2 file system) followed by Voodoo (Ext 4). From the view of maintaining compatibility with upcoming Froyo and possible future fixes from Samsung (i.e. Compatibility with Kies is a must), which is the better choice?
Note, I am using stock ROM (Eclaire JG4) with ADW.Launcher. and my SGS does not support 3 button recovery mode.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
I'm sorry to bump this old thread again, but I felt like it was a better choice than opening a new one.
It makes sense there's a difference between Snapdragons and other cores that are more closely related to the Cortex A8 like the Hummingbird and the OMAPs. But I find one thing weird:
This is a screenshot of an iPad having finished a Linpack benchmark. As you can see it's getting a score of more than 62 MFLOPS. iPhone 4's with a similar Apple A4 (albeit at a lower clock speed) are scoring around 36 MFLOPS, which I confirmed on a friend's iPhone 4 as well as internet sources. Now: the Apple A4 and Hummingbird are supposedly very related, and the biggest difference as I understand is actually the GPU, not the CPU core. So these large differences between an iPad and a Froyo Galaxy S should simply not be there.
To me, this can mean three things:
The Linpacks for iOS and Android are completely incomparable
Samsung and Texas Instruments CPUs can't take as much advantage of the JIT in Android as Snapdragons can
There is a large difference in MFLOPS performance between Snapdragons and Cortex A8's - Snapdragons would get a much higher score even when running iOS
To get a definitive answer about the Galaxy S's comparative MFLOPS performance, I think the best idea is to run a native (not using Android) benchmark on both a Hummingbird and Snapdragon (and maybe an OMAP). Could Ubuntu on a Nexus One and Galaxy S give us a definitive answer? Can anyone test?
This should be helpful for Motorola owners as well.
You can't compare them unless you do a native benchmark on Android.
DCKing said:
I'm sorry to bump this old thread again, but I felt like it was a better choice than opening a new one.
It makes sense there's a difference between Snapdragons and other cores that are more closely related to the Cortex A8 like the Hummingbird and the OMAPs. But I find one thing weird:
This is a screenshot of an iPad having finished a Linpack benchmark. As you can see it's getting a score of more than 62 MFLOPS. iPhone 4's with a similar Apple A4 (albeit at a lower clock speed) are scoring around 36 MFLOPS, which I confirmed on a friend's iPhone 4 as well as internet sources. Now: the Apple A4 and Hummingbird are supposedly very related, and the biggest difference as I understand is actually the GPU, not the CPU core. So these large differences between an iPad and a Froyo Galaxy S should simply not be there.
To me, this can mean three things:
The Linpacks for iOS and Android are completely incomparable
Samsung and Texas Instruments CPUs can't take as much advantage of the JIT in Android as Snapdragons can
There is a large difference in MFLOPS performance between Snapdragons and Cortex A8's - Snapdragons would get a much higher score even when running iOS
To get a definitive answer about the Galaxy S's comparative MFLOPS performance, I think the best idea is to run a native (not using Android) benchmark on both a Hummingbird and Snapdragon (and maybe an OMAP). Could Ubuntu on a Nexus One and Galaxy S give us a definitive answer? Can anyone test?
This should be helpful for Motorola owners as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can't really compare the iphone/ipad to android even though the hardware is similar. Android uses a VM so your score is highly dependent on the efficiency of the JIT. This is why you get a much higher linpack score when using 2.2 then 2.1. On a SGS you get around 7-8 MFLOPS with 2.1, and nearly double that 14 MFLOPS if you use 2.2 due to optimization of the JIT. While that's an impressive gain, 2.2 brought more optimization to the snapdragon line of CPU's. Mainly because they have 128 bit SIMD (compared to 64 bit on hummingbird) you get around a 4x increase in performance to around 40 MFLOPS. Someone will surely correct me but the 4x gain on the Snapdragon compared to the 2x gain on the hummingbird is basically because the Froyo JIT is able to send two 64 bit instructions at a time to the 128 bit SIMD in the snapdragon that is why there's a larger gap in linpack scores between the Snapdragon and Hummingbird CPU's in Froyo 2.2 compared to Eclair 2.1.
LeeBear said:
You can't really compare the iphone/ipad to android even though the hardware is similar. Android uses a VM so your score is highly dependent on the efficiency of the JIT. This is why you get a much higher linpack score when using 2.2 then 2.1. On a SGS you get around 7-8 MFLOPS with 2.1, and nearly double that 14 MFLOPS if you use 2.2 due to optimization of the JIT. While that's an impressive gain, 2.2 brought more optimization to the snapdragon line of CPU's. Mainly because they have 128 bit SIMD (compared to 64 bit on hummingbird) you get around a 4x increase in performance to around 40 MFLOPS. Someone will surely correct me but the 4x gain on the Snapdragon compared to the 2x gain on the hummingbird is basically because the Froyo JIT is able to send two 64 bit instructions at a time to the 128 bit SIMD in the snapdragon that is why there's a larger gap in linpack scores between the Snapdragon and Hummingbird CPU's in Froyo 2.2 compared to Eclair 2.1.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Scorpion can only issue one arithmetic instruction per cycle, be they 128-bit SIMD or 32/64-bit VFP (scalar). I doubt the JIT is capable of vectorizing data on-the-fly.
I'd attribute the increase FP performance to the fact that Scorpion's FPU is fully pipelined whereas the FPU of the A8 and A9 are not.
You're being excessive.
Because benchmarks mean nothing. Why does it matter? If your performance is good, why benchmark? It's just a placebo. Just go ahead and remove all of your benchmark tools. It's freeing.
The Droid2/X use the same graphic processor as Droid 1, which is PowerVR SGX 530. According to the datasheet, this core is designed to run at 200Mhz with power of rendering 14M triangles/sec. But our Droid/Milestone runs underclocked at 110Mhz(7M tri/s) while D2/X at 200Mhz. That leads to major UI responsiveness&gaming difference between D2&D1.
I wonder if there's any possibility to overclock the GPU as well?
Thanks in advance.
Sent from my Milestone using XDA App
TeroZ said:
The Droid2/X use the same graphic processor as Droid 1, which is PowerVR SGX 530. According to the datasheet, this core is designed to run at 200Mhz with power of rendering 14M triangles/sec. But our Droid/Milestone runs underclocked at 110Mhz(7M tri/s) while D2/X at 200Mhz. That leads to major UI responsiveness&gaming difference between D2&D1.
I wonder if there's any possibility to overclock the GPU as well?
Thanks in advance.
Sent from my Milestone using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I know this has been tried (overclocking), but with no results (constant reboots)
Imagination Technologies (PowerVR) defines the GPU internals and sells the "plans" for the part, to be included in SOCs like TI's OMAP.
But PowerVR does not, however, define the exact clocks at which the parts should run, nor other things like number of memory channels, memory speed, etc.
Texas Instruments are the ones who defined the GPU clocks. The OMAP 34xx chips (Droid 1, Milestone, XT720, Flipout, etc) are made using 65nm process, and that determines a certain power consumption using certain clocks, hence why they defined a ~100MHz clock for the GPU and ~600-800MHz for the CPU.
The OMAP 36xx (Droid X, Droid 2, Defy, etc) are made using a newer, smaller 45nm process, which allows them to run at higher speeds while spending approx. the same power, which is why Texas Instruments decided to clock the GPU at ~200MHz and the CPU at ~1-1.2GHz.
So it's not like the Milestones and Droids have their GPUs underclocked, those are just their factory clocks.
Of course, overclocking the GPU would be nice and it could be possible. If someone found out how to change the GPU's voltage and clocks, I'm sure it could come in handy in future games.
However, right now, the 1st gen Milestones/Droids are running every high-end HD game from gameloft at full speed, and I bet it'll even do Infinity Blade and other UE3 games when they're out for Android.
Every "HD" Android game has to be compatible with the 1st-gen Snapdragon's GPU, the Adreno 200, which is a lot slower than the SGX530 @ 100MHz, so we're sitting confortably above the base spec for now. And with all the Windows Mobile 7 phones coming with a 1st-gen Snapdragon (mandatory requirement), it'll be like this for a while.
So there's really not a big need for overclocking the GPU right now, except for getting higher scores in mobile benchmarks (some of them terribly unoptimized, like GLBenchmark 1.1 and 2.0).
Furthermore, I it seems the first factor to limit the 1st-gen Droids in games will be the RAM amount.
The first UE3-based game for Android is already out, and it requires 512MB of RAM.
So the game runs on Nexus One and not on a Droid/Milestone, which has far superior graphics performance.
(I'm pretty sure this has something to do with the fact that Android doesn't allow graphics buffering in the main memory, though, which could be resolved in future firmware revisions).
Then again, overclocking the GPU would be cool, and I'm pretty sure getting our SGX530 to work @ ~200MHz would significantly increase the gaming longevity of our phones for quite a while.
Thanks for your useful and important reply.
"The Manhattan Project" on Galaxy S Series just made me curious about Droid's gpu oc, because SGS also use a PowerVR gpu. But things isn't easy due to a fact that one is made by TI while another is made by samsung, the structure inside both SoCs may be completely different.
But I still hope someone capable would try something on this.
That's really cool and significantly lengthen the lifetime of our Droid and Milestone.
Thx again for your reply!
PS: I also felt strange why the UI(not games) on N1 is faster than an OCed droid, could it be the optimization problem?
Sent from my Milestone using XDA App
TeroZ said:
PS: I also felt strange why the UI(not games) on N1 is faster than an OCed droid, could it be the optimization problem?
Sent from my Milestone using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Definitely part of the optimization --a fast ROM with a good theme like the Droid X theme on the GOT 2.2.1 ROM has as fast a GUI as I've encountered on Android, even without overclock.
Also take in consideration that all the current 2.1 and 2.2 roms have a cap of 30fps in 2D, perhaps when the final 2.2 update arrives there will be some perfomance gain
Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk
hello guys..i heard that galaxy note and other samsung device are using an outdated GPU (Mali-400MP GPU)...so is it a little "fail" for our note to have an outdated GPU?plss give ur opinion.. thanks guys
..u can read the review about the GPU--> Here
It's so much faster than the sgx540 in the nexus it's ridiculous and since my choice was between those two I'm very happy with it.
Sent from my superior GT-N7000 using Tapatalk
Check out the real world performances. Mali 400 outclasses Adreno 220 easily.
The weakpoint of Mali is geometry performance, but it does not matter much with mobiles until now as mobile games are not geometry heavy.
On the other hand, the OpenGL ES 2.x performance and real world performance of Mali is excellent.
With the clock speed of exynos in Note which actually gives much better real world performance with Mali 400 than even SGS2, it runs circles around Adreno 220 powered devices like sensation and even SGX540 powered devices.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4686/samsung-galaxy-s-2-international-review-the-best-redefined/17
The above review is of SGS2. And mind you the performance of note is much better than SGS2. It is one of the most balanced GPUs on market with great gaming as well as multimedia performance (which actually matters more to someone like me.)
Funkym0nkey said:
Check out the real world performances. Mali 400 outclasses Adreno 220 easily.
The weakpoint of Mali is geometry performance, but it does not matter much with mobiles until now as mobile games are not geometry heavy.
On the other hand, the OpenGL ES 2.x performance and real world performance of Mali is excellent.
With the clock speed of exynos in Note which actually gives much better real world performance with Mali 400 than even SGS2, it runs circles around Adreno 220 powered devices like sensation and even SGX540 powered devices.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4686/samsung-galaxy-s-2-international-review-the-best-redefined/17
The above review is of SGS2. And mind you the performance of note is much better than SGS2. It is one of the most balanced GPUs on market with great gaming as well as multimedia performance (which actually matters more to someone like me.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks for this info sir
although mali has been here for a very long time, it was well ahead of its time. and it still is i guess
anjath said:
although mali has been here for a very long time, it was well ahead of its time. and it still is i guess
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah well Scott Adams is wayyyyyyy past his heyday (heck, even being relevant).... haven't read him since 2007 or so, when he started dabbling in intelligent design woo and sexist claptrap...
for being a heavy mobile gamer
i can assure you that the mali 400 on the note does very well with the latest games (asphalt7, dead trigger to name a few) despite having to compute for a much higher resolution display than other phones...
and with a little overclocking (tegrak app or gl notecore kernel) gpu performance can get sky high.
best phone i ever got :victory:
GAME ON said:
hello guys..i heard that galaxy note and other samsung device are using an outdated GPU (Mali-400MP GPU)...so is it a little "fail" for our note to have an outdated GPU?plss give ur opinion.. thanks guys
..u can read the review about the GPU--> Here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The note was released ten months ago but still its gpu is better than all the others except sgs3 and and maybe one x..
Btw do you even own a note?? Did you every notice any lag in any game??
Whiskeyjack4855 said:
The note was released ten months ago but still its gpu is better than all the others except sgs3 and and maybe one x..
Btw do you even own a note?? Did you every notice any lag in any game??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The NOTE's and SGS3's GPU are the same.
However, the S3 is built on a smaller 32nm die-size, so it means it uses less space and less power for same performance. Samsung uses this advantage to clock the frequency much higher than the NOTE (which is built on a 45nm die).
Also, the S3 implements a new, updated driver for the gpu and squeezes more performance out. This was a same move Samsung made with the SGX540, which is also a very fast gpu. The original SGS was clocked real-low and had outdated drivers... after stealing the driver sources from the LG with OMAP 4440 SoC, the SGS (with 4.0.3) was performing in the same league as the 2011/2012 devices.
Kangal said:
The NOTE's and SGS3's GPU are the same.
However, the S3 is built on a smaller 32nm die-size, so it means it uses less space and less power for same performance. Samsung uses this advantage to clock the frequency much higher than the NOTE (which is built on a 45nm die).
Also, the S3 implements a new, updated driver for the gpu and squeezes more performance out. This was a same move Samsung made with the SGX540, which is also a very fast gpu. The original SGS was clocked real-low and had outdated drivers... after stealing the driver sources from the LG with OMAP 4440 SoC, the SGS (with 4.0.3) was performing in the same league as the 2011/2012 devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know that that both the note and sgs3 has same gpu.. But the one in sgs3 its more powerful cause you said it's overclocked and has better drivers..
Btw do you know why the mali in sgs3 gets so high benchmark scores even wih the 720p screen? I mean is it all due to oc and better drivers?
Whiskeyjack4855 said:
I know that that both the note and sgs3 has same gpu.. But the one in sgs3 its more powerful cause you said it's overclocked and has better drivers..
Btw do you know why the mali in sgs3 gets so high benchmark scores even wih the 720p screen? I mean is it all due to oc and better drivers?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Better drivers + a little O'C makes the overwhelming difference.
I mean the NOTE comes with *only* 2 cores and *slow* gpu... after I customized it, its running toe-to-toe with the HTC One X (Tegra3).
An easier way to understand is to look at the new RIM PlayBook.
It's got the same processor as the Gnex (Galaxy Nexus) however its much much faster, especially in browsing. It decimates it. It even decimates the ASUS Transformer Prime Infinity (O'C Tegra3 + ICS).... or the Nexus7 (U'C Tegra3 + JBean).
You are only as fast as your slowest component. In the case of Android, its the high-level (slow) implemented software.
= Getting a faster soc with more cores and more ram doesn't really increase performance that much.
Some serious thread necromancy going on here!
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
Kangal said:
Better drivers + a little O'C makes the overwhelming difference.
I mean the NOTE comes with *only* 2 cores and *slow* gpu... after I customized it, its running toe-to-toe with the HTC One X (Tegra3).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
By toe to toe with the one x do you mean benchmarks or real life perfomance..
Hey one thing more..aren't you a engadget reader?
Whiskeyjack4855 said:
By toe to toe with the one x do you mean benchmarks or real life perfomance..
Hey one thing more..aren't you a engadget reader?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Both.
But I don't live by the benchmarks. I mean have you tried some of the HD Apps from TegraZone. On stock TouchWizz, the NOTE really struggles. With a custom setup, I don't get much/any problems.
Yeah, I do frequent engadget... also on heaps of other sites.
Kangal said:
Both.
But I don't live by the benchmarks. I mean have you tried some of the HD Apps from TegraZone. On stock TouchWizz, the NOTE really struggles. With a custom setup, I don't get much/any problems.
Yeah, I do frequent engadget... also on heaps of other sites.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Would you be kind enough to educate me about your setup?
Kangal said:
Better drivers + a little O'C makes the overwhelming difference.
I mean the NOTE comes with *only* 2 cores and *slow* gpu... after I customized it, its running toe-to-toe with the HTC One X (Tegra3).
An easier way to understand is to look at the new RIM PlayBook.
It's got the same processor as the Gnex (Galaxy Nexus) however its much much faster, especially in browsing. It decimates it. It even decimates the ASUS Transformer Prime Infinity (O'C Tegra3 + ICS).... or the Nexus7 (U'C Tegra3 + JBean).
You are only as fast as your slowest component. In the case of Android, its the high-level (slow) implemented software.
= Getting a faster soc with more cores and more ram doesn't really increase performance that much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. Even though the Playbook has its many flaws (owned two both with screen/USB issues) it was a powerhouse. Multimedia was outstanding and web surfing was by far the fastest.
But the OS, QNX, is to thank for that. If the Playbook was running android it would be nothing out of the ordinary. As much as I love Android it really is not as efficiant as QNX
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda app-developers app
anything on market today is outdated tommorow
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
Recently I had a doubt about if it's possible to unlock the 2 locked remaining cores in the Galaxy Note N7000? Because I realize that the Note only uses 2 of the 4 GPU cores... It's there a possibility to do this? How?
i think mali 400 is a good GPU because Note1 and Note2 using it. and really nice GPU for gaming