Database Info

Quadrant scores dropped after pershoot/VegaN install

Folks,
I was originally running the stock kernel + TnT Lite (latest) and using quadrant standard was achieving benchmark scores in the 2400's - now after installing pershoot kernel (latest with no modules) and the latest VegaN I am now seeing a score of just over 1700 - is this something I should be particularly concerned about? Are there, for lack of a better term, optimizations that are missing either from this ROM or kernel that are coming in the future?

Stock kernel and vegan tab 5.1 gets me mid 2400's

CPU governor
I believe this is because pershoot uses the ondemand cpu governor instead of performance. Gives better battery, but benchmarks are lower. In daily use you really shouldn't see a difference as the cpu will ramp up when you need it.

that totally makes sense... thanks...

I have a custom compiled ROM from ejhart in #tegratab and I get 2000 in Quadrant but I run Dungeon Defenders flawlessly, so I could give two s**ts about Quadrant

TheJesus said:
I have a custom compiled ROM from ejhart in #tegratab and I get 2000 in Quadrant but I run Dungeon Defenders flawlessly, so I could give two s**ts about Quadrant
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I too don't necessarily care about break-neck speed results in Quadrant but what I do care about is if lower scores are being caused by bleeding-edge drivers that may cause problems for me down the road vs. power saving techniques being employed by the kernel - hence my original question.
But at the end of the day, if what you need runs smoothly, then its all moot

Rumbleweed said:
Stock kernel and vegan tab 5.1 gets me mid 2400's
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am running VEGAn 5.1.1 with the stock kernel also but I am getting scores of 1800-1900 with Quadrant Standard
How can I figure out why I am not seeing a higher level of performance? Thanks.
Jay

Just ran it and got 2559 - Vegan 5.1.1 - Clemsyn Kernel and libsqlite.so and plenty of stuff running.
I'm pretty sure it has always been around 2100+ on any ROM or stock kernel I have tried.
That is strange..

[Q] Smartbench gpu scores higher on stock than cm7?

Am i the only one that has noticed my score is about 500 points lower for gaming when i'm on CM RC1 compared to Stock 2.3.2?
RC1 gives me a score of about 2600 while stock gives 3k+ while using Smartbench.
I wonder if this is due to the video drivers not being fully up to date or optimized on the CM builds?
I have also noticed that quadrant scores do not seam to be affected whether on CM or Stock. My experience with the N1 was CM helped with performance a lot.
What do you guys think about this? Have you experienced the same?

TheRiceKing said:
Am i the only one that has noticed my score is about 500 points lower for gaming when i'm on CM RC1 compared to Stock 2.3.2?
RC1 gives me a score of about 2600 while stock gives 3k+ while using Smartbench.
I wonder if this is due to the video drivers not being fully up to date or optimized on the CM builds?
I have also noticed that quadrant scores do not seam to be affected whether on CM or Stock. My experience with the N1 was CM helped with performance a lot.
What do you guys think about this? Have you experienced the same?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I normally run at 1.4GHz and get about 3.3-3.4k on the games index. (Just got 3232). I don't really ever run on stock so its hard to say but I can say that I've hit 1800/3700 at 1.6GHz before.

Quadrant scores?

I know that quandrant is not a good benchmark because the results depends on the hardware installed (CPU qualcomm or samsung or TI OMAP), but my question is:
Desire S in quadrant advanced reach a score of 3000 in the CPU section; the xperia arc, with the same CPU reach a score of 5500 in the cpu section. They are both on gingerbread....so why this difference?
Also the desire HD with froyo and the same Qualcomm CPU reach a 5500 score...
I can't uderstaind!
sorry 4 my english

My wife just got her Des S, and Mega jump is lagging
Quadrant score is 1000-1200
how can it happen with an Adreno 205 inside?
it has 1.28.401.1 ROM on it. do you experience it with other ROMs too?

liljom said:
My wife just got her Des S, and Mega jump is lagging
Quadrant score is 1000-1200
how can it happen with an Adreno 205 inside?
it has 1.28.401.1 ROM on it. do you experience it with other ROMs too?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i've got no lag at all....

ilbulgaro89 said:
i've got no lag at all....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no lag on Mega jump? not even when you pick up a rocket?

liljom said:
no lag on Mega jump? not even when you pick up a rocket?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no lag at all in this game

ilbulgaro89 said:
no lag at all in this game
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
and what is your Quadrant score?

liljom said:
and what is your Quadrant score?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
around 1240

ilbulgaro89 said:
around 1240
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah, that is the max I can get too
the funny thing is, that my Desire HD with a Desire S port performs better; same CPU, GPU and screen resolution; and no lag in megajump :/

liljom said:
yeah, that is the max I can get too
the funny thing is, that my Desire HD with a Desire S port performs better; same CPU, GPU and screen resolution; and no lag in megajump :/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah, I also do not explain the differences in benchmark scores with this 2 devices

i gave my opinion of why the lower scores in this thread here:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1036668
basically there has been a general trend on most phones that gingerbread performs lower than froyo on benchmark tests and performance. this is certainly been my experience. and since the desire s is running gingerbread, while the desire HD is running froyo (i think, right?), that is your answer right there...

Since the Desire S is the "first" device from HTC dressed in Gingerbread...can we safely say that it wasn't an optimized Gingy version that HTC brought up?
If all the Desire family get their Gingerbread update (Classic, HD, Z) and did perform well in benchmarking, that would leave Desire S...????

RogerPodacter said:
i gave my opinion of why the lower scores in this thread here:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1036668
basically there has been a general trend on most phones that gingerbread performs lower than froyo on benchmark tests and performance. this is certainly been my experience. and since the desire s is running gingerbread, while the desire HD is running froyo (i think, right?), that is your answer right there...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you are right
I run Gingerbread on my DHD, and the Quadrant is lower
I thought it's because we don't have the gingerbread sources for DHD, and we don't have the right drivers
but still, DHD has 1500-1600 in Quadrant (compare to 1200) with DS 1.28 port :/ and that's a big difference with the same CPU, GPU

liljom said:
you are right
I run Gingerbread on my DHD, and the Quadrant is lower
I thought it's because we don't have the gingerbread sources for DHD, and we don't have the right drivers
but still, DHD has 1500-1600 in Quadrant (compare to 1200) with DS 1.28 port :/ and that's a big difference with the same CPU, GPU
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i ask it in this thread for this reason: dhd has an higher results with desire s gingebread porting......a my friend has in test a developer version of incredible s with gingerbread 2.3.3 and his quadrant score is 1450 (higher than desire s...but with same hardware)

ilbulgaro89 said:
i ask it in this thread for this reason: dhd has an higher results with desire s gingebread porting......a my friend has in test a developer version of incredible s with gingerbread 2.3.3 and his quadrant score is 1450 (higher than desire s...but with same hardware)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
2 things can save us:
-we find the way to root DS
-we get a good update from HTC

DS is relatively still a "baby"
we'll get there eventually

ilbulgaro89 said:
i ask it in this thread for this reason: dhd has an higher results with desire s gingebread porting......a my friend has in test a developer version of incredible s with gingerbread 2.3.3 and his quadrant score is 1450 (higher than desire s...but with same hardware)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well maybe your friend's incredible s is overclocked, or he has some other type of customization that you are not aware of. because what i am trying to say is that, stock 2.2 vs stock 2.3, there is a performance and quadrant drop, significantly. stock 2.3 may get around 1250 quadrant, and stock froyo may get around 1650 quadrant. i get 1200 on 2.3, but i can over clock to maximum and get 1400. but somethign still isnt right, because i could over clock on 2.2 and get 1700.
also, people say quadrant scores are meaningless. but this has gotten mis interpreted on the web. quadrant scores are meaningless BETWEEN DIFFERENT PHONE MODELS. but quadrant definitely has meanign within the same device. so if your device runs 1600 on 2.2, then 1200 on 2.3, that is a meaningful piece of data. benchmark shows the ability of your phone to do various tasks like scroll a list, load some html or javascript, or parse a bunch of data. so it annoys me when others (not in this thread) say quadrant is meaningless. what the original statement meant was that lower device A could be optimized very well to be smooth, while higher device B could be better hardware, but optimized poorly to not be smooth, and a benchmark would not tell this story. i agree wtih that. but not within the same device i dont
i also see slower choppy scrolling in 2.3, for example tapatalk threads and lists were smooth in 2.2, but choppy and chunky in 2.3, etc. and the benchmark seems to agree with that.

RogerPodacter said:
well maybe your friend's incredible s is overclocked, or he has some other type of customization that you are not aware of. because what i am trying to say is that, stock 2.2 vs stock 2.3, there is a performance and quadrant drop, significantly. stock 2.3 may get around 1250 quadrant, and stock froyo may get around 1650 quadrant. i get 1200 on 2.3, but i can over clock to maximum and get 1400. but somethign still isnt right, because i could over clock on 2.2 and get 1700.
also, people say quadrant scores are meaningless. but this has gotten mis interpreted on the web. quadrant scores are meaningless BETWEEN DIFFERENT PHONE MODELS. but quadrant definitely has meanign within the same device. so if your device runs 1600 on 2.2, then 1200 on 2.3, that is a meaningful piece of data. benchmark shows the ability of your phone to do various tasks like scroll a list, load some html or javascript, or parse a bunch of data. so it annoys me when others (not in this thread) say quadrant is meaningless. what the original statement meant was that lower device A could be optimized very well to be smooth, while higher device B could be better hardware, but optimized poorly to not be smooth, and a benchmark would not tell this story. i agree wtih that. but not within the same device i dont
i also see slower choppy scrolling in 2.3, for example tapatalk threads and lists were smooth in 2.2, but choppy and chunky in 2.3, etc. and the benchmark seems to agree with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my friend's incredible s is a stock phone updated to Gingerbread via OTA today...without any type of hack...incredible s is not rooted!

My understanding was that Gingerbread is quite a bit slower than Froyo in Quadrant tests.
In real use though, it seems fine.
I suppose we'll have more idea when 2.3.3 upgrades become available for devices currently running 2.2.x.

njd said:
My understanding was that Gingerbread is quite a bit slower than Froyo in Quadrant tests.
In real use though, it seems fine.
I suppose we'll have more idea when 2.3.3 upgrades become available for devices currently running 2.2.x.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Desire HD came out with 2.2, and now it runs 2.3, and yes, the Quadrant went down

njd said:
I suppose we'll have more idea when 2.3.3 upgrades become available for devices currently running 2.2.x.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On htc-hero score was equal on 2.2 and 2.3 (both overclocked CM-ROMs)
On my NexuS with 2.3 I have scores about 2500 @ 1GHz (and crazy >3000 @ 1,4GHz)
On the DesireS I only get 1200 @ 1Ghz (equal performance gov or ondemand)
Wired is the totaly different fps: desireS has 50fps at the "planet3D" where Nexus has only 20fps; in the "doom3D" it is vice versa
But in everyday use there is no big difference - I tend to sell the NexuS, but really not sure wich phone I should keep..

G2x Benchmark Comparison

This thread is meant to be a comparison of changes over time for the G2x and not really a 'me too' benchmarks thread. The idea is to see unequivocally how various changes or versions impact our hardware over time. Benchmarking is something I enjoy and take very seriously. At this time I do not plan to run any custom ROMs and I will be holding off on OC/UV kernels until they have matured.
Feel free to suggest additional tests but please be realistic in what you're asking for.
Completed Tests
G2x 2.2 Stock
G2x 2.2 Rooted + Frozen Apps
G2x 2.3 Stock + Frozen Apps
G2x 2.3 Rooted
G2x 2.3 Stock + faux123 SV Kernel
G2x 2.3 Stock + faux123 OC Kernel @ 1.1
G2x 2.3 Stock + faux123 OC Kernel @ 1.4
G2x 2.3 Stock + faux123 OC Kernel @ 0.5
G2x ROM Benchmarks
G2x CM 7.1 RC vs Nightly 124 (2.3.5) vs Nightly 154 (2.3.7) Benchmarks
Planned Tests
???
Testing Methedology
All tests are run on freshly booted phones
Airplane mode is enabled for tests not involving the internet
First runs are ignored for caching purposes
Each test is run 10 times and averaged
Erroneous data points are ignored (values that +/- the norm of other tests excessively)
Revisions
2011.05.05 - Initial Release: G2x Stock vs G2x Rooted + Frozen Apps
2011.07.26 - Second Release: G2x 2.2 Stock vs G2x 2.2 Rooted vs G2x 2.3 Stock
2011.08.30 - G2x 2.3 Rooted vs Faux123 Kernels
2011.08.30 - G2x 2.3 Faux123 Kernels @ 500 MHz vs G1 @ 614 MHz
2011.09.07 - G2x ROM benchmarks

2011.05.05 - G2x Stock vs G2x Rooted + Frozen Apps
Higher Resolution Images
This test demonstrates the rooting and then using an application to freeze apps that are running. I did not freeze MyAccount or Tegra Zone since I use them.
AppPack
logmein.rescue
logmein.rescuesecurity
EA Games
NFS Shift
Nova
Polaris Office
SmartShare
T-Mobile TV
TeleNav
Video Chat (qik)
Wi-Fi Calling
Zinio Reader
As can been seen from the attached graph the there was a noticeable bump in performance in all tests performed on the phone. SmartBench 2011 showed a larger gap than Quadrant because a couple of its tests are SMP aware and probably benefited more from the extra overhead on the two cores. The gain of ~250 in Quadrant for comparison is the value a stock G1/MT3G gets by itself in Quadrant. SunSpider performs extensive small javascript tests that I did not expect to see much gain from since it is more implementation bound than CPU bound where SmartBench however performs much more CPU intensive visual browser tests.
2011.07.26 - G2x 2.2 Stock vs G2x 2.2 Rooted vs G2x 2.3 Stock
Higher Resolution Images
I've updated my G2x via the LG update software to the GB 2.3 that was released for it. I did not unroot/unfreeze prior so I lost root but my frozen apps stayed frozen post update. As can be seen from the graph the Gingerbread tests show it performing within 2% of the results of the previous FroYo 2.2 rooted phone. I will not be able to perform a true stock test until I re-root the phone and unfreeze applications. The SunSpider test shows a decent 5% gain in speed which is not unexpected since browser performance was a touted feature of 2.3 on phones.
The lack of overall performance gain though was expected for this update before I ran the tests.
FroYo was the performance release version of the 2.x series of versions where 2.3 was a feature release. The addition of new features will typically garner a drop in overall performance unless additional time is spent focusing solely on performance increases. Google has already stated that the next phone oriented performance release will be Ice Cream Sandwich (4.0?) which will merge in the multi-core enhancements of the Honeycomb 3.x series.
This release of 2.3 is still running the 2.6.32.9 kernel version # as the previous 2.2 version was. This DOES NOT mean it is the same kernel, but it does indicate a lack of major changes, just primarily bug fixes and tweaks were done. The kernel controls task switching and various other base level processes, without a significant change at this level there will not be significant changes at the upper levels.
2011.08.30 - G2x 2.3 Rooted vs Faux123 Kernels
Higher Resolution Image
After running my updated 2.2 Rooted + Frozen to 2.3 Unrooted + Frozen I felt there was something wrong with it as some things felt slightly off. My belief is the freezing process removes the permissions from an application required to read/write/execute it which in turn may have prevented specific items from being updated during the LG Updater process. I decided to do the GB root process and flashed the stock rooted GB file onto my phone which being a ROM flash and not an updater over wrote the frozen applications. Afterwards with everything running the phone just behaved more as I expected than the previously frozen version. Benchmarks attached show this as everything increased (except for SunSpider).
A note on SunSpider I was reporting results wrong previously as I forgot lower scores in SunSpider mean better results. Which in terms of the 5% variance is still not much of a change.
Now being rooted again I decided to start working with kernels to see how they changed things.
Faux123 SV (Stock Voltage & Frequencies) - This kernel showed higher values in some tests but lower in others. The main disadvantage is the memory compression in my opinion as it actually sacrifices bandwidth for capacity. The thing is though even with our ~380mb of RAM it's still more than enough for daily use. If you use the System Stats Live Wallpaper with memory listed you'll see that even with the most taxing applications this phone never reaches capacity. The decrease in bandwidth is noticeable with larger applications like games as they take longer to load and to switch between large maps and other data sets.
Faux123 OC/UV @ 1.1 - The slight bump in frquency provides the extra benefit to push the memory bandwidth past the hurdle created by compcache. This kernel provides an all around (except in 3D applications) performance increase making it very worth while even at this slight MHz bump.
Faux123 OC/UV @ 1.4 - Everything else before this was in single digit % of increase. The bump to 1.4 GHz on both cores provides significant increases as the graph shows. If your phone can run stable at these speeds then I say go for it. For me 1.4 GHz was as high as I could go and stay stable, 1.55 GHz would crash my phone on boot.
2011.08.30 - G2x 2.3 Faux123 Kernels @ 500 MHz vs G1 @ 614 MHz
Having been an Android user from the start with a T-Mobile G1 & MT3G I still actively use that phone for testing and playing around with. When I actively used it we were always trying to find various tricks just to get smidgens more performance from it. So I decided to underclock the G2x down to 500 MHz and overclocked the G1 to 614 MHz running CS-DOS (GB 2.3.4) with everything tweaked for the fun of it.
This comparison shows the difference in terms of an ARMv6 versus an ARMv7 Cortex9 architecture and is just a fun informative bit. While being 100 MHz slower the G2x still was able to outperform the tweaked G1 by the following.
Quadrant - 72% faster
SmartBench - 79% faster
BrowserMark - 27% faster
SunSpider - 61% faster
2011.09.07 - G2x ROM benchmarks
High Res Image
I've completed my various ROM comparison testing and below are my numerical findings. I averaged the overall results and as listed in the order below are the highest to lowest scoring ROMs in terms of performance. In terms of numerical, graphical, & I/O performance they're all very close to each other. However it becomes very clear that either the stock ROM's web browser has been modified or the Android 2.3.4/2.3.5 web browser has had some significant performance optimization done to it as BrowserMark & SunSpider both return values nearly twice as fast as the 2.3.3 based versions. I believe that CompCache settings on the Faux123 kernel used in the Faux123 ROM result in its lower CF-Bench scores as it impacts memory bandwidth. With Miui it has a different/modified web browser in place and it shows as it has the worst of the browser benchmark scores.
CM7.1-RC1
CM7 Nightly 124 (2011.08.31)
Eagles Blood 1.08
Faux123 1.3.1
G2x 2.3 Root
Stock Tweaked 1.2.2
Miui 1.8.26
Weapon G2x 2.4 (0823)
2011.09.30 - G2x CM benchmarks
With the release of G2x Nightly 154 the codebase is now Gingerbread 2.3.7 so I decided to do a CM benchmark comparison to see how it handled compared to the others. Of not since the 14x series of nightlies EXT4 was also enabled by default.
As 2.3.6/2.3.7 were mainly Sprint Nexus S updates along with Google Wallet feature additions I am not surprised from the results to see the numbers are fairly close to each other. The 2.3.7 eeked out slightly ahead in CF-Bench but lagged behind in SunSpider by about 500 milliseconds making it's score larger (ie slower) than 2.3.5 however those values are still much better than 2.3.3 based browsers.

Performing benchmarks with the newly installed GB version on my G2x now, results to follow. I was rather surprised to see that all of the apps I had frozen while rooted are still frozen now post installation even though my phone is no longer rooted.

my quadrant score
my quadrant score on a g2x ..

This isn't meant to be a showoff type thread but a scientific analysis. If you want to contribute I suggest following the guidelines I set out in the OP along with providing detailed information about your setup and settings.

I've updated the first 2 posts with the same information.
2011.07.26 - G2x 2.2 Stock vs G2x 2.2 Rooted vs G2x 2.3 Stock
Higher Resolution Images
I've updated my G2x via the LG update software to the GB 2.3 that was released for it. I did not unroot/unfreeze prior so I lost root but my frozen apps stayed frozen post update. As can be seen from the graph the Gingerbread tests show it performing within 2% of the results of the previous FroYo 2.2 rooted phone. I will not be able to perform a true stock test until I re-root the phone and unfreeze applications. The SunSpider test shows a decent 5% gain in speed which is not unexpected since browser performance was a touted feature of 2.3 on phones.
The lack of overall performance gain though was expected for this update before I ran the tests.
FroYo was the performance release version of the 2.x series of versions where 2.3 was a feature release. The addition of new features will typically garner a drop in overall performance unless additional time is spent focusing solely on performance increases. Google has already stated that the next phone oriented performance release will be Ice Cream Sandwich (4.0?) which will merge in the multi-core enhancements of the Honeycomb 3.x series.
This release of 2.3 is still running the 2.6.32.9 kernel version # as the previous 2.2 version was. This DOES NOT mean it is the same kernel, but it does indicate a lack of major changes, just primarily bug fixes and tweaks were done. The kernel controls task switching and various other base level processes, without a significant change at this level there will not be significant changes at the upper levels.

I've updated the first 2 posts with the same information.
2011.08.30 - G2x 2.3 Rooted vs Faux123 Kernels
Higher Resolution Image
After running my updated 2.2 Rooted + Frozen to 2.3 Unrooted + Frozen I felt there was something wrong with it as some things felt slightly off. My belief is the freezing process removes the permissions from an application required to read/write/execute it which in turn may have prevented specific items from being updated during the LG Updater process. I decided to do the GB root process and flashed the stock rooted GB file onto my phone which being a ROM flash and not an updater over wrote the frozen applications. Afterwards with everything running the phone just behaved more as I expected than the previously frozen version. Benchmarks attached show this as everything increased (except for SunSpider).
A note on SunSpider I was reporting results wrong previously as I forgot lower scores in SunSpider mean better results. Which in terms of the 5% variance is still not much of a change.
Now being rooted again I decided to start working with kernels to see how they changed things.
Faux123 SV (Stock Voltage & Frequencies) - This kernel showed higher values in some tests but lower in others. The main disadvantage is the memory compression in my opinion as it actually sacrifices bandwidth for capacity. The thing is though even with our ~380mb of RAM it's still more than enough for daily use. If you use the System Stats Live Wallpaper with memory listed you'll see that even with the most taxing applications this phone never reaches capacity. The decrease in bandwidth is noticeable with larger applications like games as they take longer to load and to switch between large maps and other data sets.
Faux123 OC/UV @ 1.1 - The slight bump in frquency provides the extra benefit to push the memory bandwidth past the hurdle created by compcache. This kernel provides an all around (except in 3D applications) performance increase making it very worth while even at this slight MHz bump.
Faux123 OC/UV @ 1.4 - Everything else before this was in single digit % of increase. The bump to 1.4 GHz on both cores provides significant increases as the graph shows. If your phone can run stable at these speeds then I say go for it. For me 1.4 GHz was as high as I could go and stay stable, 1.55 GHz would crash my phone on boot.

2011.08.30 - G2x 2.3 Faux123 Kernels @ 500 MHz vs G1 @ 614 MHz
High Res Image
Having been an Android user from the start with a T-Mobile G1 & MT3G I still actively use that phone for testing and playing around with. When I actively used it we were always trying to find various tricks just to get smidgens more performance from it. So I decided to underclock the G2x down to 500 MHz and overclocked the G1 to 614 MHz running CS-DOS (GB 2.3.4) with everything tweaked for the fun of it.
This comparison shows the difference in terms of an ARMv6 versus an ARMv7 Cortex9 architecture and is just a fun informative bit. While being 100 MHz slower the G2x still was able to outperform the tweaked G1 by the following.
Quadrant - 72% faster
SmartBench - 79% faster
BrowserMark - 27% faster
SunSpider - 61% faster

I find this thread very interesting and informative. Thanks for this
Sent From My G2x EB 1.07

Thanks!
I've started performing ROM benchmarks now. This is my intended set of ROMs to evaluate using the same testing patterns. I chose ROMs that are actively being worked on and used.
CM7.1-RC1
CM7 Nightly 124 (2011.08.31)
Eagles Blood 1.08
Faux123 1.3.1
Miui 1.8.26
Stock Tweaked 1.2.2
Weapon G2x 2.4 (0823)

2011.09.07 - G2x ROM benchmarks
High Res Image
I've completed my various ROM comparison testing and below are my numerical findings. I averaged the overall results and as listed in the order below are the highest to lowest scoring ROMs in terms of performance. In terms of numerical, graphical, & I/O performance they're all very close to each other. However it becomes very clear that either the stock ROM's web browser has been modified or the Android 2.3.4/2.3.5 web browser has had some significant performance optimization done to it as BrowserMark & SunSpider both return values nearly twice as fast as the 2.3.3 based versions. I believe that CompCache settings on the Faux123 kernel used in the Faux123 ROM result in its lower CF-Bench scores as it impacts memory bandwidth. With Miui it has a different/modified web browser in place and it shows as it has the worst of the browser benchmark scores.
CM7.1-RC1
CM7 Nightly 124 (2011.08.31)
Eagles Blood 1.08
Faux123 1.3.1
G2x 2.3 Root
Stock Tweaked 1.2.2
Miui 1.8.26
Weapon G2x 2.4 (0823)

2011.09.30 - G2x CM benchmarks
With the release of G2x Nightly 154 the codebase is now Gingerbread 2.3.7 so I decided to do a CM benchmark comparison to see how it handled compared to the others. Of not since the 14x series of nightlies EXT4 was also enabled by default.
As 2.3.6/2.3.7 were mainly Sprint Nexus S updates along with Google Wallet feature additions I am not surprised from the results to see the numbers are fairly close to each other. The 2.3.7 eeked out slightly ahead in CF-Bench but lagged behind in SunSpider by about 500 milliseconds making it's score larger (ie slower) than 2.3.5 however those values are still much better than 2.3.3 based browsers.

bilalrashid said:
my quadrant score on a g2x ..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah! Run that script that inflates your score! Quadrant so useless. Informative post.

zetsumeikuro said:
Yeah! Run that script that inflates your score! Quadrant so useless. Informative post.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As a comparison between various users and phones I agree, but it still functions well at least for testing performance gains or losses on the same phone.

Eaglesblood 2.4 , Dragon 1.51, o/c'ed @1.4g
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium

mustangtim49 said:
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Post details such as cpu speed, etc.

More than that, the data lacks relevance. You have no baseline, no definition of testing process, just one benchmark from one application that does not correlate to the ones I've already presented so there is no way to compare these numbers to any others provided.

I'm running tsugi 2.3.4 oyasumi 2.6.32.9 gb kernel running @ 1400 MHz quadrant average 3784 fresh boot ten tests. Antutu reboot ten test average 6420
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium

I would recommend using different colors. The All-Orange makes it hard to compare the key to its corresponding graph.

But orange is my favorite color!
I'm going to add in AnTuTu benchmark to my testing set as it seems to be fairly popular now. I'm also going to do some additional tests soon including the latest nightly kang builds of 7.2 RC0 along with some updated Faux kernels. I'm rather excited about nVidia finally making the Tegra2 resources available so hopefully upcoming CM 7.x builds & CM 9 builds will have full true hardware support.

[APP] 3DMark Android Edition - Post your scores

Finally released... :thumbup:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.futuremark.dmandroid.application
Downloading now!
Dont know if this should be here or in General...

I have only something around 1100 on the default test. Very poor result. Kernel Hydracore, newest JB stock. What can be wrong ? Someone has an idea ?

What are you running it on?
If this version of 3d Mark is anything like the PC version, the tests won't necessarily give you a 'real world' result.
3D Mark doesn't scale down effects to suit devices, it will throw the full array of OpenGL v2 effects to give a baseline score.
Unless you've got a top of the range powerful device, expect low scores.
This benchmark software is bloated to say the least, there are better benchmarkers that will do a great job giving scores for bragging rights, AnTuTu is a reliable one with good features in it's free version.