I hope I am wrong or got the wrong phone or maybe the phone just dynamically clocks itself down to 800 mhz instead of the advertised 1000mhz. When I use Quandrant Standard Edition my Captivate is listed at 800 mhz with a max of 1000mhz. But the cpu is ARMv7 Processor rev 2? Is that right? BogoMIPS is 797.9, and hardware is SGH-I897? is is not supposed to be SGS? Please let me know what you all are getting and what Quadrant Score...my friends Droid X destroys my quadrant score with ~1200, I get only 867. The benchmark really drags during the I/O sections. Help please and share your specs, cause I am feeling a little disappointed.
Dynamically clocking down.
nevermind...I just saw the other thread with this issue.
THREAD ENDED
If this processor is similar in it's capabilites as the qualcom Snapdragon than the processor has the ability to slow down if the higher clock speed is not needed. My N1 can switch it's frequency between 245Mhz and 1Ghz (or 1.1Ghz when overclocked with an upgraded kernel).
Or the software you are using is not reading the correct speed.
ronpinoy253 said:
I hope I am wrong or got the wrong phone or maybe the phone just dynamically clocks itself down to 800 mhz instead of the advertised 1000mhz. When I use Quandrant Standard Edition my Captivate is listed at 800 mhz with a max of 1000mhz. But the cpu is ARMv7 Processor rev 2? Is that right? BogoMIPS is 797.9, and hardware is SGH-I897? is is not supposed to be SGS? Please let me know what you all are getting and what Quadrant Score...my friends Droid X destroys my quadrant score with ~1200, I get only 867. The benchmark really drags during the I/O sections. Help please and share your specs, cause I am feeling a little disappointed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No the specifications are right .. i too ran the benchmark and was puzzled yesterday. You can find that thread in this forum.
Check this video. it explains why captivates score is less than Droid X .. In fact as per the video even though the score is less captivate is in fact a faster phone than Droid X and i am inclined to agree watching video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgoQHxy-0mM
----------------
itzz(AN)dRoiD
I bought an Android Tablet running an ARM11 (v6) processor. Not sure what the GPU is. However, I ran the NeoCore benchmark for the GPU and got an average of about 13.2 FPS. I compared this against Droid Incredible (Qualcomm Snapdragon) and Droid X (TI OMAP 3630). Both of which as you know that are Cortex A8 variance. All are running at 1.0Ghz.
I also ran Softweg's Benchmark on those 3 devices.
For my tablet, I got scores of about 98 for the GPU and 936 for the CPU.
For the Droid Incredible I got NeoCore score of 26 FPS and for the X, 42 FPS. However, they only scored 27 & 30 respectively on Softweg's GPU test.
I would believe the NeoCore score as I am sure the GPU is poor on the tablet. Why would Softweg's Benchmark app show higher scores on my GPU versus those more advanced Android phones?
My CPU score is also higher than the phones which is not possible. Thank you.
interesting , but u know what , maybe its that neocore bench renders the same amount of data all the time , and the other bench resizes it to the size of the screen , so if ur tab has resolution lower than 480*800 thats the reason why
Actually the resolution is 1024x600. I could understand why the NeoCore score is low which is what I would expect. However, I do not know why my CPU & GPU scores under Benchmark would be higher than a better Cortex processor.
Decided to start a thread for looking at G Tablet benchmarks by reviewers and ourselves. This can also serve as a point for comparison between updates and different system overlays.
Here is a link to results that came from AnandTech:
http://www.androidpolice.com/2010/12/10/viewsonic-g-tablet-running-tegra-2-benchmarked-against-competition-comes-out-looking-good
They show great performance across the board even while they tested it in the out of the box configuration.
Based on our typical Quadrant results going from 1850ish to 2450ish after flashing with TnT 2.2 or others, it would be interesting to know how much better some of the AnandTech would have been.
10Viewsonic G Tablet Running Tegra 2 Benchmarked Against Competition, Comes Out Looking GoodPosted by Aaron Gingrich in G Tablet, News, ViewSonic
Although we already knew it had some serious potential, AnandTech has pitted the Viewsonic G (running nVidia’s hot Tegra 2 dual-core mobile CPU) against a bevy of other mobile CPUs. The competition: three devices utilizing the Snapdragon (Nexus One, G2, and EVO), the Hummingbird found in the Galaxy Tab, the TI OMAP found in the Droid 2, and the Apple A4 from the iPhone 4. The results: the Viewsonic G tablet and its Tegra 2 CPU pulled heavy wins in 4 out of the 6 tests.
Ran Benchmark Pi and scored 523 which placed my g tablet at #32 of all submissions!
Several other g tablets in the top scores!!!
Android benchmarking app Quadrant Standard gives a raw score, but I'd like to see the breakdown of each section of the test. I know, "stop being cheap and buy the app!"
Dual core vs Single core 1 Ghz tablet CPU war!
The contenders:
Viewsonic G Tablet running CyanogenMod 7 Gingerbread 2.3 scored = 1826
Motorola Droid X running Verizon stock Froyo 2.2 = 1353
{
"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"
}
This proves that the Nvidia Tegra 2 dual core process running at 1 Ghz is actually pulling its load.
The Droid X runs the Texas Instrument single core OMAP 3630, the same CPU as the B&N Color Nook (800mhz) and most of the Archos tablets.
tabletuser.blogspot
My benchmark scores
Thanks for posting these as I have both the DX & the Gtab.
I have the GB on the DX and I regularly get ~1800 without OC'ing. Of course I have the Gtab OC'd to 1.4GHz which gives me even higher #.
I HATE when people put out benchmarks on graphs with such a biased look to them. The graph doesn't start at "0" in that picture, it starts at 1200. In which case, the Droid X only goes a couple hundred points above the starting line. That makes the Gtab look SOOOO much faster just by looking at the bars on the graph, when in fact it's not twice as fast, it's only a few hundred points extra.
Really bad practice if you ask me.
It does not matter where the bars start. The fact is the GTab with stock kernal is still better than the Droid X. It does look skewed but it would look the same even if it started at 0.
Droidx is clocked at 1ghz not 800ghz as the Nook Color, they have different chips. Same company doesn't mean same chip, look at model numbers
Droidx - TI OMAP3630 at 1Ghz
Nook Color -TI OMAP3621 at 800Ghz
Both CPUs are ARM Cortex-A8 though
Two, why compare apples and oranges? Duel core vs single? Tablet vs phone?
Three, my Droidx hits 1600 with stock non-rooted 2.3.3
edit* 1646 to be exact, and i'm sure this will be higher once the official update its available next week.
Tostinuts,
Considering both devices are 1Ghz in speed, we must all agree that a 35% difference in performance is HUGE. Consider price difference when you purchase desktop CPU.
Newegg prices, rounded for your pleasure.
Intel Core i9-970 @ 3.20 Ghz $600
Intel Core i9-974 @ 3.33 Ghz $1000
So I'm paying $400 extra and the cpu frequency is only 133mhz higher? Gtab cpu is no joke, graph proves it.
NOW instead of HATING, why don't your post something relevant we can appreciate as forum tablets readers?!
Citi said:
Droidx is clocked at 1ghz not 800ghz as the Nook Color, they have different chips. Same company doesn't mean same chip, look at model numbers
Droidx - TI OMAP3630 at 1Ghz
Nook Color -TI OMAP3621 at 800Ghz
Both CPUs are ARM Cortex-A8 though
Two, why compare apples and oranges? Duel core vs single? Tablet vs phone?
Three, my Droidx hits 1600 with stock non-rooted 2.3.3
edit* 1646 to be exact, and i'm sure this will be higher once the official update its available next week.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Citi,
Thanks for the update on cpu info. I only have the Droid X and G tablet and its really not a comparison, I agree. I did like the see the difference in how the same browsers perform with 1 Ghz cpus. I am look forward to Droid developing a dual core phone. Right now for the price I think the Gtab is awesome, just like I think my Droid X is awesome. Based on your scores I need to update my Droid X to 2.3 Gingerbread since I'm still on stock 2.2.1 Froyo.
zack407 said:
It does not matter where the bars start. The fact is the GTab with stock kernal is still better than the Droid X. It does look skewed but it would look the same even if it started at 0.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe stock kernal but not stock rom, so it's about as 'stock' as stock car racing. If this test was done with OEM TnT the results may not be as impressive, and if the Droid X were running a custom ROM it might have a better showing.
I agree that the performance advantage is impressive.
cesar33 said:
Tostinuts,
Considering both devices are 1Ghz in speed, we must all agree that a 35% difference in performance is HUGE. Consider price difference when you purchase desktop CPU.
Newegg prices, rounded for your pleasure.
Intel Core i9-970 @ 3.20 Ghz $600
Intel Core i9-974 @ 3.33 Ghz $1000
So I'm paying $400 extra and the cpu frequency is only 133mhz higher? Gtab cpu is no joke, graph proves it.
NOW instead of HATING, why don't your post something relevant we can appreciate as forum tablets readers?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are not making an intelligent argument at all sir. Thanks for the dig at my name by the way, very mature.
First of all, what the heck is an "i9" cpu? Do you mean Core i7?
And the reason Intel can price their chips at whatever the hell they want to! They have ALWAYS marketed their "top of the line" chip at the $1000 price point, and it doesn't matter if a newer gen mid-range chip, that is faster than the old top of the line is released, it will still stay near that $1000 price point.
How this is relevant to the benchmarks you were showing... I have no idea. 35% difference isn't huge at all, it is two different generation chips and there will be a difference in performance.
By the way, I don't care what any of you say about this matter, benchmark charts done in that way are misleading, and are often used (by hardware review sites) to support whoever their bias is. It is just bad practice.
In conclusion, you are an a-hole, go eff yourself.
-Tostinuts
Hate to throw my hat in the ring on such a hot topic, but my DX hits around 2000 on quad pretty consistently. It is as stock as the G Tab in the above comparison. It is running the GB leak with an overclock set at 1.2GHz. Video comparison is no where close as the G Tab blows it out of the water. Can't wait to see the quad scores on the DX2.
My gtab overclocked to 1500 just got a score of 2608
Tostino said:
You are not making an intelligent argument at all sir. Thanks for the dig at my name by the way, very mature.
First of all, what the heck is an "i9" cpu? Do you mean Core i7?
And the reason Intel can price their chips at whatever the hell they want to! They have ALWAYS marketed their "top of the line" chip at the $1000 price point, and it doesn't matter if a newer gen mid-range chip, that is faster than the old top of the line is released, it will still stay near that $1000 price point.
How this is relevant to the benchmarks you were showing... I have no idea. 35% difference isn't huge at all, it is two different generation chips and there will be a difference in performance.
By the way, I don't care what any of you say about this matter, benchmark charts done in that way are misleading, and are often used (by hardware review sites) to support whoever their bias is. It is just bad practice.
In conclusion, you are an a-hole, go eff yourself.
-Tostinuts
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tostino,
Thanks for the correction on i7. Considering the operating system, and application are the same then its fair to compare CPU.
10" tablets running the TI OMAP 3630 vs the NVIDIA Tegra2
7" tablets running the TI OMAP 3630 vs the NVIDIA Tegra2
mobile phones running the TI OMAP 3630 vs the NVIDIA Tegra2
I would believe the CPU scores would be inline with each other and screen size wouldn't be as relevant to CPU score.
My hard earned money says buy the Tegra2 CPU tablet/device. I'm sure that you can conclude that from the chart, even a visually bias chart.
Performance comparison between competing chips is a staple to hardware reviews. AMD vs Intel
so...
TI vs Nvidia
Again, do you have anything intelligent to offer this forum, or just here to hate?
weaselman said:
My gtab overclocked to 1500 just got a score of 2608
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sweet! How stable is it overclocked? My Droid X wasn't stable and couldn't benchmark about 1,200.
cesar33 said:
Sweet! How stable is it overclocked? My Droid X wasn't stable and couldn't benchmark about 1,200.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LINPACK for Android
Viewsonic Gtablet MFLOPS 36.529
Motorola DroidX MFLOPS 13.836
Precision on both 2.22...
Viewsonic G Tablet scores aren't listed on website, post your scores. I'm running CM7.0.0-Harmony aka 2.3.3 Gingerbread.
cesar33 said:
Tostino,
Thanks for the correction on i7. Considering the operating system, and application are the same then its fair to compare CPU.
10" tablets running the TI OMAP 3630 vs the NVIDIA Tegra2
7" tablets running the TI OMAP 3630 vs the NVIDIA Tegra2
mobile phones running the TI OMAP 3630 vs the NVIDIA Tegra2
I would believe the CPU scores would be inline with each other and screen size wouldn't be as relevant to CPU score.
My hard earned money says buy the Tegra2 CPU tablet/device. I'm sure that you can conclude that from the chart, even a visually bias chart.
Performance comparison between competing chips is a staple to hardware reviews. AMD vs Intel
so...
TI vs Nvidia
Again, do you have anything intelligent to offer this forum, or just here to hate?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh no, I am not saying that the TI chip is in any way a better buy. I completely agree that as of right now, Tegra 2 is where it's at (well, maybe Samsung's new chip has it beat, but I haven't seen any benchmarks so far). I was just voicing my opinion on charts with bias. It wasn't hate, it was an opinion which I voiced clearly, and without taking your character into question.
Btw: 3446 on quadrant and 53 mflops in linpack running BC @1.5 (using libsqlite.so mod)
Wi-Fi
Who knows how to set up Wi-Fi on Linux.
Shall describe the step by step please.
I can't make up my mind between the two phones!
The difference is 30
I jest, in all honesty I'd get the razr. Motorola likely has the best build quality of any android oem.
The Nexus dissappointed me (5 MPix, plastic, no sexy curve, no SD)
I'm thinking RAZR too
PS: The RAZR uses the same TI OMAP 4460 as the Nexus
Source
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/Motorola-RAZR_id6503
As per the Motorola Developers info page, the RAZR comes with a TI OMAP 4430 processor.
http://developer.motorola.com/products/droid-razr-xt912/
OMAP 4430 GPU 304MHz
OMAP 4460 GPU 384MHz
Mobile processor comparison: http://mobilebenchmark.net/cpumark_chart.html
Sent from my unrooted DroidX using Tapatalk from GetJar
Looks like the only difference is that the GPU (SGX540) is clocked higher.
That should give better graphics performance, to a certain point at least.