So after reading nearly 5 hours and spending my time in the wee hours of morning, I finally did all the "stable" mods for the phone... If you haven't been reading, make sure you guys check out the stuff in the development forum.
After all modifications, I was able to get 2701 points in quadrant benchmark. What mods did I do?
-i9000 eclair flash (JM5)
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=734871
-Alternative mimocans lag fix
(one click installer http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=749495)
-One click root (googled it for i9000)
-Overclock kernel 1.0Ghz to 1.2Ghz
(http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=746343)
This stuff really does help out your phone folks. Bench it now with quadrant, then take a peak at the other stuff and make magic happen. If anyone needs any additional help setting up their captivate, I'm more than happy to help.
I agree those fixes help speed a lot. But the quadrant score is meaningless. the speed hack creates an io loopback. The loopback just tells quadrant what it wants to hear.
Does your BT work on the european ROM. For me all people hear is a gargeled mess on there end?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk
Can you post the results of these tests:
Neocore
Linpack
CPU Benchmark
I keep hearing about this quadrant, does it actually improve real world performance? Or is just for the sake of scores?
jhego said:
I keep hearing about this quadrant, does it actually improve real world performance? Or is just for the sake of scores?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quadrant is just benchmarking software that takes the cpu, gpu and memory read/write speeds into account. It runs a series of tests and spits a score number out at the end, so you can compare your device to others (like comparing boner sizes, but less gay).
It doesn't actually do anything to speed up the device though.
modest_mandroid said:
Quadrant is just benchmarking software that takes the cpu, gpu and memory read/write speeds into account. It runs a series of tests and spits a score number out at the end, so you can compare your device to others (like comparing boner sizes, but less gay).
It doesn't actually do anything to speed up the device though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is correct and to be honest there is way to much weight in the I/O tests. That is the only reason that the stock Droid X bests the Gal X. It has more weight than cpu and gpu so you can't put to much into those scores. They really don't mean anything more than bragging rights. What I am interested in is real world usage.
Real world use with the hack provides amazing speed gains opening and switching apps. Io heavy apps are very much improved while open too. It's finally as fast as the iphone.
Whats your battery life like after the overclock?
The score ended up getting lower and lower every time i used quadrant. 2701 is the highest I was able to get so far, but that's with a fresh install of the rom and all the stuff before I started loading on apps. Everytime I ran the benchmark, I of course killed the apps beforehand.
The battery life is the same- to be honest. This is me comparing a rooted stock ROM to the somewhat fresh install of the eclair i9000. The phone is very snappy. I came from an iPhone 4 and one of the biggest eye sores to me was the less-fluidness of changing programs, response to buttons (homescreen-back button) and pinch to zoom. After all these changes, it's a whole different story. Browsing is very appealing, especially since pinch to zoom isn't jagged or slow. The smoothness of this functionality is on par to an iPhone. And there is no waiting when I press the home button or back button.
True, maybe these numbers aren't considerably accurate (as far as the lag fix and EXT2) but at least it shows raw computing capability in it's current state... meaning, the usage of a virtual EXT2. Never the less, the phone is still all around faster, even if it isn't exactly the proper way of going about it.
The only problem I've seen so far is that it likes to randomly shut off. Won't respond to anything unless if I soft reset it. I haven't really found what causes it, since the consistency of it happening goes about in a non set pattern.
I didn't see any real world increase .. so I reverted back in about 4 hours.... I'd rather have the memory than a number that don't transfer to real world speeds...
I have an overclocked Samsung Epic and it the improvement in speed in everyday use is significant. Because the processor voltage is set lower than stock there is no sacrifice in battery life. With the Asus Transformer do you get a definite and significant benefit from overclocking? I am not talking about test bench scores but real world noticeable responsiveness. When I skim through the forums it is difficult for me to tell? Some people swear by sticking with stock. I would appreciate others perspectives.
Thanks
The improvements from overclocking vary on the application.
Home screen switching is choppy regardless of overclocking simply because the launcher lacks optimization. Browser performance is improved a little bit, but mainly remains unchanged as well. Games run noticeably smoother, especially Fpse. Task switching gets a small boost, as some applications will be able to load faster.
If you're a big gamer, overclocking is definitely worth it. For everything else, it won't make much of a difference.
I haven't played too many games (mostly Stardunk and Stupid Zombies) on my TF, but I haven't noticed any issues with them. I have also played high profile 720p video with absolutely no stuttering or artefacts.
In other words, I haven't felt the need to overclock yet. But if you are doing heavy gaming and/or video processing of some kind, it might be worthwhile.
For me, there's hardly any need to OC. It all depends on what you wanna do. To many people who play a lot of games on their TF, they report increases in performance (especially with emulators) but on other things I never really noticed any difference. I'm currently underclocking my TF, and have been for about a week, with no noticable stutters or performance issues and have great battery life.
And it's not really an "effort" to flash a new kernel... the hardest thing is waiting for your device to boot up again...
I have a transformer, galaxy tab 10.1, and a xoom. I've used just about every kernel that can be overclocked for each one of them, and to be honest I haven't really seen any improvements from them. I don't really play many games on my tablets though, so maybe there really is some benefit in that area.
Galaxy's screen
How do you rate the screen of the Galaxy Tab 10.1? Is it as good as the Super AmoLED (+)'s from Samsung mobiles?
droidx1978z4 said:
I have a transformer, galaxy tab 10.1, and a xoom. I've used just about every kernel that can be overclocked for each one of them, and to be honest I haven't really seen any improvements from them. I don't really play many games on my tablets though, so maybe there really is some benefit in that area.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This seems so counter-intuitive to me. If you overclock a PC CPU there is a very direct correlation with performance. There are always limiting factors such HD acess, etc., but there is a definite and noticeable difference across applications. What is even more surprising is that we are talking about very large % increases vs what people can do in the PC world. People are overclocking these CPUs by 50% plus...You would think you would see a very noticeable improvement but that doesn't seem to be the case.
My main interest is in browser performance. For example, XDA forum pages load extremely slow in all browsers I have tried (stock, Opera, Dolfin) with 5-6s to refresh vs instant on desktop browser. Also flash video tends to freeze and stutter some times. My internet connection is over 20Mb/s down and 5Mb/s up. I was hoping that I would find overclocking safe and provide a noticeable improvement.
earlyberd said:
The improvements from overclocking vary on the application.
Home screen switching is choppy regardless of overclocking simply because the launcher lacks optimization. Browser performance is improved a little bit, but mainly remains unchanged as well. Games run noticeably smoother, especially Fpse. Task switching gets a small boost, as some applications will be able to load faster.
If you're a big gamer, overclocking is definitely worth it. For everything else, it won't make much of a difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So for web page loading you haven't noticed much of a difference? How about flash video?
Thanks.
Overclocking can be a bit like collecting .. 'string' , because it is mostly done for the sake of itself, kind of like the many Ham Radio fans who talk about their "rigs", etc etc.
Yeah, of course if you can get, like in the old old days, a celeron 300 that overclocks to 450, and is dead stable, it was noticeable, and if you had a droid 1, which overclocked (many did) with ease from 500 to 1000+ , then it was again, noticeable, just not a staggeringly 2 times increase, because there are too many other factors.
The number of bus errors, and retries and slowness of the original bus speeds, and other components makes for a not-quite-as-expected by the numbers 'increase'. I would still mess with it, but not for the obvious reasons. I like under-volting more, and over-clocking only the slightest bit where nothing ever crashes or FCs. The moment you overclock, you really shouldn't be asking questions about 'Why does blah blah netflix crash?' because it crashes because you overclocked, and nothing else matters until you stick a kernel back at stock in there.
The other thing I love about alternate kernels is that you've got control of what modules you either compile in or compile and load as .ko files. cifs, tun, ntfs, whatever, it is all very useful, so there are lots of good and not-as-good things about it.
One thing I hate is when a dev insists on creating a kernel that has a 'default' speed greater than stock so that you've instantly got an ordeal if you've got one of the many gizmos that will not overclock to his default (like 1.6 to pick a number out of a hat).. Just make them all start at default, then allow us , the users, to setup overclocking via testing with setcpu or some such thing. Much easier than basically bricking things right off.
I sometimes look at those guys that overclock 'seriously' (by 3-4 times) using a container of liquid nitrogen that lasts for ~5 minutes and it is all for bragging rights, setting records , etc and think they're insane, but that is also part of it. Some are happy if they can just post here that they got 9,000 mF on some test despite not being able to do anything else reliably.
hachamacha said:
Overclocking can be a bit like collecting .. 'string' , because it is mostly done for the sake of itself, kind of like the many Ham Radio fans who talk about their "rigs", etc etc.
Yeah, of course if you can get, like in the old old days, a celeron 300 that overclocks to 450, and is dead stable, it was noticeable, and if you had a droid 1, which overclocked (many did) with ease from 500 to 1000+ , then it was again, noticeable, just not a staggeringly 2 times increase, because there are too many other factors.
The number of bus errors, and retries and slowness of the original bus speeds, and other components makes for a not-quite-as-expected by the numbers 'increase'. I would still mess with it, but not for the obvious reasons. I like under-volting more, and over-clocking only the slightest bit where nothing ever crashes or FCs. The moment you overclock, you really shouldn't be asking questions about 'Why does blah blah netflix crash?' because it crashes because you overclocked, and nothing else matters until you stick a kernel back at stock in there.
The other thing I love about alternate kernels is that you've got control of what modules you either compile in or compile and load as .ko files. cifs, tun, ntfs, whatever, it is all very useful, so there are lots of good and not-as-good things about it.
One thing I hate is when a dev insists on creating a kernel that has a 'default' speed greater than stock so that you've instantly got an ordeal if you've got one of the many gizmos that will not overclock to his default (like 1.6 to pick a number out of a hat).. Just make them all start at default, then allow us , the users, to setup overclocking via testing with setcpu or some such thing. Much easier than basically bricking things right off.
I sometimes look at those guys that overclock 'seriously' (by 3-4 times) using a container of liquid nitrogen that lasts for ~5 minutes and it is all for bragging rights, setting records , etc and think they're insane, but that is also part of it. Some are happy if they can just post here that they got 9,000 mF on some test despite not being able to do anything else reliably.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great post!
+1
Very philosophical ! ;-)
I guess what I am getting at is if you overclock to 1.2Ghz-1.3Ghz on the Transformer can you have a stable system that shows an appreciable improvement in responsiveness? Moving from hypothetical to actual...have you done this? Any specific kernel?
The engineer in me is looking for a definitive answer. ;-)
Thanks.
sstea said:
Very philosophical ! ;-)
I guess what I am getting at is if you overclock to 1.2Ghz-1.3Ghz on the Transformer can you have a stable system that shows an appreciable improvement in responsiveness? Moving from hypothetical to actual...have you done this? Any specific kernel?
The engineer in me is looking for a definitive answer. ;-)
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I've done this, just not on the TF yet. I'm working on a kernel right now that doesn't have OC built-in and activated at boot, so that we can use setcpu to screw around with it and find that 'sweet spot' that works for us, also under-over-volting. What I'd really like is to build in all the modules I like, setup over/under-clocking-volting and have it boot at 1 G. I mean, a dual-core 1G is nothing to sneeze at, and then try to ramp it up without screwing with over-volting immediately. I never like other peoples ROMs or Kernels because they have made their own crazy judgement calls. I like my own crazy judgement calls
Here's what I've noticed: When you have 'up-to-date' technology , as we do, in the TF, then overclocking that is totally stable makes a difference and it is noticeable. For me it's the FC's that kill the deal, but this chip and box appear to have plenty of headroom so I'm guessing that 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 are all good possibilities.
Example: My HTC Incredible phone has been overclocked to 1.1 from 1.0G for ~a year or so, and it doesn't FC, and it is faster, noticeably than at 1. It's only a 10% increase and yet it feels much quicker, so go figure. Those things are also subjective, so grain of salt... Example2: A stock droid1 is one I took to a double overclock, 550 to 1000, and yes it was faster at some things, but the underlying infrastructure didn't really support the faster CPU so I really never noticed a 100% increase that matched the clock speed. I left it that way for a year without any damages and it still boots up fine at 1 G.
In another post I started, I was asking what keys were required to boot 'safe mode' which exists in android OSs, and if I knew that, I'd try one of the OC'd kernels right now. IF not, I don't feel like unbricking again.
If you're interested, here's a good link for building your own: (generic android, not TF really:
http://www.droidforums.net/forum/rescue-squad-guides/31452-how-compile-your-own-kernel.html
Thanks for the response. With such a large community of Transformer users I am hoping to find a solid, conservative kernel that I can overclock with. Creating one myself is beyond my current technical capabilities.
My Charge is routinely running 275 - 300 MB of RAM even when "idle" and I receive a LOT of warnings that my memory is running low when I'm using Tasker or Evernote. While I use Linux at home on my personal computer, I'm by no means a professional in any real sense of the word. But my layperson's understanding of RAM is that, generally speaking, more is better and allows for a machine to run, boot, etc... faster and more reliably. I've read that the Charge is a RAM wannabe and I know there are phones with much more than is available with this device but does that mean anything for this phone? Should I be using something that will clear more RAM for me or is that just a pipe dream and I have to deal with the lack of RAM by buying a new phone at some later time?
I'm using Tweaked 3.1 and have to say that Dwitheral has made this phone one I'm happy with - my fiancee has the Charge as well and is paranoid about rooting / ROMing, so she is totally stock. Needless to say, her phone sucks eggs and mine doesn't. I'm looking for a replacement but will not do so until Black Friday next year - then I can get a device that's a little "older" for less than $50 that will be a huge improvement over the Charge. In the meantime, with Tweaked 3.1, a Hyperion 3500 mha extended life battery and Tasker, this phone is serviceable. But the high RAM usage nags at me and I'm wondering if this is really an issue and, if so, is there anything to do about it? When I look at running applications in task manager, it is usually none or one, maybe, on occasion, two running applications.
Can someone clarify this for me? Do I need to be concerned and, if so, is there a solution that doesn't start with "Upon entering the Verizon store, ask where the new DNA is located...."
Thanks in advance!
Forget what you know about RAM in Windows, because this isn't Windows. In Linux (and by extension in Android), unused RAM is generally considered to be wasted. The Android low memory killer (LMK) will take care of killing apps and freeing when it needs to make space for other things, and artificially killing stuff is going to make your phone perform worse and use more battery. You need enough free for apps to have room to start without waiting, but not so much that it kills background apps that you want there. You can tweak the LMK, but 275-300MB used (75-100MB free) is pretty close to the sweet spot for this phone.
I guess it is from since of the tweaks I am running, but I usually have an extra 50-80 MB from what you described.
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2
Hi all,
I've had my Surface Pro 2 256/8 since release and all has been fine until (possibly) the firmware update.
Turbo Boost was working fine and the CPU was going up to its maximum of 2.6Ghz but it is now seemingly capped at 2.23Ghz.
I've checked in PC Settings, Task Manager and CPU-Z, the maximum that the CPU ever reaches is 2.23Ghz, as indicated.
Anyone else experienced this? I have tried all power profiles (Performance, balanced, Power Saver and there's no difference).
Thanks!
EDIT: Having used HWiNFO64 on the High Performance profile I can see that the core is limited to x23 which is producing the 2.3Ghz clock speed. It occasionally indicates x26 (2.6Ghz) for a millisecond before ThermMon shows that it is being throttled back to x23. So it appears it's not reaching maximum speed to keep the heat lower, why this has happened is still inconclusive..
Have you tried to change the CPU maximum utilization in power settings?
Sent from CM10.1 U9200
>I've had my Surface Pro 2 256/8 since release and all has been fine until (possibly) the firmware update.
You've answered your own question. One reason to cap speed is for battery life. That's what the latest firmware update provides. You've found the downside.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/4/5064026/microsoft-surface-pro-2-battery-life-firmware-update
So they cap turbo mode to increase battery life, given the SP2 is advertised as having an Intel i5 CPU with no mention of speed on the MS site I think they'll get away with it...
e.mote said:
>I've had my Surface Pro 2 256/8 since release and all has been fine until (possibly) the firmware update.
You've answered your own question. One reason to cap speed is for battery life. That's what the latest firmware update provides. You've found the downside.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/4/5064026/microsoft-surface-pro-2-battery-life-firmware-update
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, in that case, the CPU shouldn't be capped when NOT running on battery power, should it?
There is also cooling to consider regardless of if it is on battery or mains. Although was heat particularly problematic pre-update?
>Well, in that case, the CPU shouldn't be capped when NOT running on battery power, should it?
As another noted, SP2 slicks never said CPU would be running at max spec.
PCs are normally more configurable. But if you enter SP2's UEFI setup, the only thing you can change is Secure Boot. MS is emulating Apple in more ways than one.
The cynics among us (guilty as charged) would say that MS handled this just right: Release the device with uncapped speed to get the best possible performance for reviews. Then afterward, cap the speed to claim "improved battery life" as well. If MS had capped the speed to start with, SP2 would be no faster than SP, and would get slammed hard. SP2 is already slammed as having minimal improvements over SP.
Reviewers aren't going to take the trouble to revise their reviews, and even if they did, not many people will re-read them. So, with this method, you can indeed have your cake and eat it too. Think of it as a more "legal" form of juicing performance tests without the explicit cheating that Samsung and others resorted to.
e.mote said:
> SP2 is already slammed as having minimal improvements over SP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Anyone thats knows the difference between the CPU's will know that theres not a huge speed increase though, the only thing they should of done was stick a decent SSD in there, I've got an unused PX-256M5M sat on my desk that reads/writes at near on full sized 2.5" SSD speeds where as the mSSD's have always had half decent read and poor write.
Other than that what else is there to improve on, the camera perhaps as per the Surface2, battery life, check, the only other thing the Pro/Pro2 needs imho is more accesories, yes they are coming but should of been ready at launch imho, I'm crying out for a dock...