i just want to ask if its normal to only be getting 1000 ~ 1100 gpu score on antutu benchmark???
mali 400, adreno 220 and the ulp on my one x all get atleast 1300 ~ 1600 score
what bothers me is that the adreno 220 should have a lower clock speed than the ulp on the tegra 2 but still gets higher marks...
i get around 1115~ but still it does make sense that the tegra 3 in a one x is more powerful
and clock speed is not everything at all. Efficency and architecture matter a lot in determining the power of a gpu
Eg an i7 clocked at 4ghz will be a huge ammount more powerful than a phenom II clocked at 4ghz
Related
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.
Looking back, when I switch phones it is usually when there is a better device out with a significant improvement over my current device. My first smartphone was the Tmobile MDA (HTC Wizard), which I bought roughly 5 years ago. The next phone was the Tmobile Wing (HTC Atlas), with a much smaller form factor and faster CPU the device was a great improvement.
My next device was my first real HTC marketed phone, the Touch Diamond. The diamond, was a complete overhaul from the other two HTC phones I used. I loved every little part of it. But going from the Diamond to the glamorous HD2 was even more amazing, the screen, the size everything was perfect.
Now the question I have is that it is almost a year that the HD2 has been out and I ready to get a new phone, but I am wondering about what things I should consider.
I dont think that the Droid X, or the Galaxy S smart phones are really all that much better than the HD2, so I am more interested in the Cortex-A9 phones that are slowly trickling into the market.
The CPUs that will have Cortex-A9 dual core tech are as follows:
Nvidia
Tegra 2
1Ghz
Custom High Profile Graphics
(Motorola Olympus, LG Star)
Qaulcomm
Snapdragon 3rd Gen
1.2GHz/1.5GHz
Adreno 220
Verizon HTC Phone
Samsung
Orion
1GHz
Mali 400
(Nexus S)
Texas Instruments
OMAP 4
1GHz+
PowerVR SGX 540
(Pandaboard)
Marvell
Armada 628
1.5GHz + Custom 624MHz DSP
Custom High Profile Graphics
ST-Erricson
U8500
1.2GHz
Mali 400
So basically what should I do? Wait for all of them to come out and then decide, or get which one comes first.
I want the best processing power with the greatest graphics, and was thinking on Tegra 2 but found that Open GL ES benchmarks have low values for the Tergra2 platform lower than the SGX 540.
Galaxy Tab Results:
http://www.glbenchmark.com/phonedetails.jsp?D=Samsung GT-P1000 Galaxy Tab&benchmark=glpro11
Folio 100:
http://www.glbenchmark.com/phonedetails.jsp?D=Toshiba Folio 100&benchmark=glpro11
Are these a result of poor drivers or is Tegra really weaker than the SGX 540, (and thus weaker than the Mali 400)?????
Is the Nexus S a better choice than the Motorola Olympus, or should I wait for HTC's addition to the game with a 3rd gen Snappy. Will the adreno 220 GPU out power the Tegra 2 and Mali 400. What do you guys think, and what do you plan on doing.
Well firstly better hardware means nothing if the software is the bottleneck. Secondly, we've seen often the grunt of the cpu is more contributive to performance of programs than the gpu in Android OS. Thirdly, you're going to have to wait, see, buy, test these platforms to know which ones are superior... but here is what I've discovered during the course of 2010.
SoC's for 2011:
(listed in what I believe is the best to the worse)
+ ARM Sparrow: Dual-core Cortex A9 @2.00GHz (on 32nm die), unspecified GPU
+ TI OMAP 4440: Dual-core Cortex A9 @1.5GHz, SGX 540 (90M t/s)
+ Apple A5 (iPad2): Dual-core Cortex A9 @0.9GHz, SGX 543MP2 (130M-150M t/s)
+ Qualcomm MSM8660 (Gen IV Snapdragon): Dual-core Cortex A9 @1.5GHz, Adreno 220 (88M t/s)
+ TI OMAP 4430: Dual-core Cortex A9 @1GHz, SGX 540 (90M t/s)
+ ST-Ericson U8500: Dual-core Cortex A9 @1.2GHz, ARM Mali 400 (50-80M t/s)
+ Samsung Orion: Dual-core Cortex A9 @1GHz, ARM Mali 400 (50-80M t/s)
+ Nvidia Tegra 2: Dual-core Cortex A9 @1GHz, nVidia ULP-GeForce (71M t/s)
+ Qualcomm Scorpion (Gen III Snapdragon): Dual-core Cortex A8 @1.2GHz, Adreno 220 (88M t/s)
Notes: The SGX530 is roughly half the speed as the SGX535. The SGX540 is twice as fast as the SGX535. The Adreno 205(41M tri/sec) is supposedly faster than the SGX535 but slower than the SGX540 (thus, is likely to be in the mid). The Adreno 220 is twice the speed of the Adreno 205 but it is slightly slower than SGX540(88M vs 90M tri/sec). Samsung claims ARM Mali 400 to be 5 times faster than its previous GPU (S3C6410 - 4M tri/sec), about on par (80M tri/sec) with the Adreno 220, but few leaks benchmarked it to be only slighlty faster than the SGX535 (40M tri/sec). The gpu used in the Nvidia Tegra2 has been quite contained (little known). I estimated the Tegra2 has 71M t/sec (Tegra 2 Neocore=27fps/55fps=Galaxy S Neocore, x62% disadvantage of screen resolution, x 90Mt/s of SGX540 = 71M t/s). And recently some inside rumors via fudzilla actually confirmed this exact figure, so therefore the gpu-chip inside the Tegra2 is roughly equivalent to the MALI 400.
All of these details are based on officially announced, rumors from trustworthy sources and logical estimations, so discrepancies can be existent.
Last thoughts: As you can see there is some diversity in the next-gen chips (soon to-be current-gen), where the top tier (OMAP 4440) is roughly 1.5 times more powerful than the low tier (Tegra 2). However drivers and software will play a lead-role in determining which device could squeeze out the most performance. And this factor may alone favour the iPad2, Playbook or even MeeGo tablets to be better than the Honeycomb tablets which are somewhat bottleneck-ed by the lack of hardware accelaration and post-transcription through the Dalvik VM. I think we've hit the point where we could have some really impressive high definition entertainment, and even emulating the Dreamcast at decent/fullspeed.
edit2: Well, Apple's been boasting over x9 the graphical performance over the original iPad. There are 2 articles on anadtech, one in Geekbench and a processor-specific details from imgtech (I dug up from 12months ago). It has been found that its a modified Cortex A9, 512MB RAM and the SGX543MP2. Everything points to the SGX543MP2 being significantly faster than the SGX540, and the given number was 133 Million Polygons per second (theoretical) for SGX543MP4 which is double SGX543MP2 performance. The practical figure is always less. Imgtech said the SGX540 is double the grunt of the SGX535, benchmarks show the SGX543MP2 is (on average) five times the grunt as the iPad (SGX535). So going by imgtech (the designer of sgx chips), the theoretical value that I list above, should be 70M t/s ... going by Apple's claim it should be 200M t/s ... going by benchmarks it should be roughly 130 M t/s. Imgtech's value is definently wrong since they claimed its faster than the SGX540 valued at 90M t/s. Apple's claim also seems biased, they take only the best possible conditions and exaggerate it even more. It seems to be somewhere in between, and wouldn't you know it, the average of the two "false" claims is equivalent to the benchmarked value
edit3: The benchmarks are out for the 4th-gen QSD, which confirms everything prior. It's competing for top place against the 4440 and A5. I've changed the post (only updated chip's name).
If one were to choose between the processor of the A5 and the OMAP4440, they'd be really pressed to choose between more cpu grunt or more gpu grunt.
Just re-edited the post.
Apple's A5 details are added in, its looks to be one of the best chips for the year.
If I had to choose between the OMAP4440 and A5, I probably would be reduced to a head-tail coin flip!
Update:
The benchmark results of the Snapdragon MSM8660 are in.... and it goes further to support the list.
MSM660 = Dualcore A9 + Adreno 220 + Qualcomm modification (for better/worse).
Hi, I mainly want to know this because I was looking at a custom ROM for my Liquid Metal today and I saw that one had an app to overclock the Adreno 205 to 384mhz. So what is the Adreno 205 usually? and what is the frequency of some of the higher end chips? Adreno 220, 225 etc.
Thanks
Adreno 220 runs at 266 Mhz.
Adreno 225 runs at 400 Mhz.
Adreno 205 runs probably around 200-300 Mhz range.
Overall, clock speeds mean very little in terms of graphics performance. With each new Adreno GPU, the overall technology of the chip is upgraded so that it will perform much better. Overclocking it will give it only a little performance boost.
Hello, I'd like to know if there's any difference between snapdragon 600 and 800, without taking the GPU,
To be more clear, I want to know the difference between the CPU Speeds so, my question is.
Let's say I have a Snapdragon 800 running at 2.1 Ghz and I have a Snapdragon 600 Overclocked with a kernel running at 2.1 Ghz, are they gonna be the same? or Snapdragon 800 is gonna be faster even if it's clocked at the same speed as the 600?
You can't compare the snapdragon 800 @ 2.3 Ghz to a first gen i7 920 Intel running at 2.4 Ghz, of course the i7 is a lot faster.
An Snapdragon 800 running at 2.1 Ghz is as fast as a 600 running at 2.1 Ghz?
My english isn't the best and I hardly can explain what I want to know in my native language so, thanks for taking your time to read this thread and sorry about my broken English/Bad explaination.
Snapdragon 800 is not a CPU. Its a SoC. The CPU within the 800 is a 2.3 krait 400 and within the snapdragon 600 is a 1.9 krait 300
If both CPU run at 1.9, they will be the same speed. The architecture is the same only designed for lower output. That is the only difference.
The reason an i7 and krait 400 cannot be compared us because they are completely different.
Now if you could overclock a krait 300 to match 2.3 on krait 400, theoretically its same speeds but of course overheating and stability will probably mean the real world performance will not be as good
-----------------------
Sent via tapatalk.
I do NOT reply to support queries over PM. Please keep support queries to the Q&A section, so that others may benefit
Hi,
Both clocked at 2.26 Ghz (so with a S600 overclocked) the S800 will always be faster, or both at 2.1 Ghz if you want... In short and for raw performance. This is not only the CPU frequency that is important...
http://www.qualcomm.com/snapdragon/processors/800
http://www.qualcomm.com/snapdragon/processors/600
You can search also for Krait 300/400 for the difference, etc...
also don't forget that the GPU is not the same, the S800 GPU (Adreno 330) is a lot better than the S600 (Adreno 320)
rootSU said:
Snapdragon 800 is not a CPU. Its a SoC. The CPU within the 800 is a 2.3 krait 400 and within the snapdragon 600 is a 1.9 krait 300
If both CPU run at 1.9, they will be the same speed. The architecture is the same only designed for lower output. That is the only difference.
The reason an i7 and krait 400 cannot be compared us because they are completely different.
Now if you could overclock a krait 300 to match 2.3 on krait 400, theoretically its same speeds but of course overheating and stability will probably mean the real world performance will not be as good
-----------------------
Sent via tapatalk.
I do NOT reply to support queries over PM. Please keep support queries to the Q&A section, so that others may benefit
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I just wanted to know if the S800 is faster only because it's clocked higher or there's more (besides the GPU)
viking37 said:
Hi,
Both clocked at 2.26 Ghz (so with a S600 overclocked) the S800 will always be faster, or both at 2.1 Ghz if you want... In short and for raw performance. This is not only the CPU frequency that is important...
http://www.qualcomm.com/snapdragon/processors/800
http://www.qualcomm.com/snapdragon/processors/600
You can search also for Krait 300/400 for the difference, etc...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I looked at s600/s800 at qualcomm's website but I found they have the same CPU, just the s800 clocked higher, I thought s800 would be faster than the S600 if both run at the same clock due to better architecture
DarknessWarrior said:
also don't forget that the GPU is not the same, the S800 GPU (Adreno 330) is a lot better than the S600 (Adreno 320)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ye, I know the GPU on the S800 is better but I was curious about the CPU
Sooooooo if both run at the same clock speed they're the same? (ignoring the heat)
So, the S800 is faster because it can be clocked higher due to krait400, so it only is faster than S600 at clock speed (ignoring the GPU)
Nice to know, I thought there were more differences besides the clock that made the S800 faster than S600 in CPU wise.
Thanks for the replies
PunkOz said:
I looked at s600/s800 at qualcomm's website but I found they have the same CPU, just the s800 clocked higher, I thought s800 would be faster than the S600 if both run at the same clock due to better architecture
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Re,
Nope they are not exactly the same, it's not only an history of CPU freq, look closely
PunkOz said:
Yeah, I just wanted to know if the S800 is faster only because it's clocked higher or there's more (besides the GPU)
I looked at s600/s800 at qualcomm's website but I found they have the same CPU, just the s800 clocked higher, I thought s800 would be faster than the S600 if both run at the same clock due to better architecture
Ye, I know the GPU on the S800 is better but I was curious about the CPU
Sooooooo if both run at the same clock speed they're the same? (ignoring the heat)
So, the S800 is faster because it can be clocked higher due to krait400, so it only is faster than S600 at clock speed (ignoring the GPU)
Nice to know, I thought there were more differences besides the clock that made the S800 faster than S600 in CPU wise.
Thanks for the replies
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well not just heat. The Krait 300 CPU is designed to be run at 1.9 whereas the krait 400 is designed to be run at 2.3. Running both at 2.3, they obviously run the same amount of cycles, but the quality of the materials / construction and the design will mean that the krait 300 will not be able to maintain that amount of cycles for long, may drop some cycles etc. Theoretically a cycle is a cycle, in practice getting all those cycles to work properly is different
Plus the difference about memory, L2 cache, etc... For all the differences Google should be your friend, after it's too technical
viking37 said:
Plus the difference about memory, L2 cache, etc... For all the differences Google should be your friend, after it's too technical
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I actually googled and the CPU is about the same, same L2 cache accordign to Qualcomm's website, 28 nm, just the S800 is clocked higher, I always Google before making a thread but I couldn't find an answer to my question or maybe I didn't ask Google properly.
I know the S800 supports USB 3.0, has a faster charging etc etc, I just wanted to know if it would be running as fast as a S600 if they have the same clock speed.
in conclussion, S800 is faster because it runs cooler than S600 so it lets the S800 reach a higher frequency + better materials used on S800 architecture etc makes it run cooler and cooler means more stable under high load + reaching higher clock.
Thanks for the help guys correct me If I'm wrong but I think I got this
Hi,
Qualcomm will not reveal all on their site
The L2 cache is faster than the S600, memory access (Memory controller?) too it's on a bunch of sites... 28mm, right, but one is LP and the other is HPm...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6568/qualcomm-krait-400-krait-300-snapdragon-800
The thing we need is the internal hardware stuff, source and documentation from Qualcomm, for sure there is another things . Maybe some kernel devs could have good information too?
Maybe if you did not find anything more is that there is nothing else to find...
But if you got it, it's fine and I think that all is said :good:
Rank the following according to gaming performance only:
*Snapdragon 600 + Adreno 320 400 Mhz (Xiaomi Mi2S)
*MTK6592 + Mali 450-MP4 700 Mhz (Jiayu J5S)
*Exynos 5 Octa 5410 + PowerVR SGX544MP3 533 Mhz (Meizhu MX3)
I'm pretty much sure that the Adreno 320 is the best among these, but what I'd like to know is how much are the rest lagging behind?
I'm only interested in high-end gaming.
pgchelsea said:
Rank the following according to gaming performance only:
*Snapdragon 600 + Adreno 320 400 Mhz (Xiaomi Mi2S)
*MTK6592 + Mali 450-MP4 700 Mhz (Jiayu J5S)
*Exynos 5 Octa 5410 + PowerVR SGX544MP3 533 Mhz (Meizhu MX3)
I'm pretty much sure that the Adreno 320 is the best among these, but what I'd like to know is how much are the rest lagging behind?
I'm only interested in high-end gaming.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsungs Exynos is pretty good, little behind snapdragon, so is the powerVR, though not as great as adreno. MTK and Mali are terrible. they try to lock people in with the high numbers and "Octa" cores. its not bad cpus/gpus they just lag far behind exynos and snapdragon.