Ummm... is that the right link to show SGS2 info? What am I missing?
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
GL benchmarks of the 3D's Processor...
- Thread starter Spdy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- htc evo 3d
ebolamonkey3
Android Enthusiast
SG2 uses Mali MP400, not SGX 543.
ArmageddonX
Android Expert
Quadrant & Smartbench scores on the Wirefly review of the Evo3D were a little concerning. He does mention it's a 2.3 issue, but still. Nevertheless, it was still a really good score. I just thought they'd be higher for the specs the Evo3D is packing. Only really important to people who care about benchmarking. Wont matter in day-to-day use. He also mentions it's a "pre-production sample". That might play into the scores as well.
Now, what does this mean? Pretty much nothing. The scores the Evo3D got are fantastic and 99% of people will never notice a difference in speed between the two devices. Lets not fool ourselves however, these two devices are going to be in hot contention for #1 & compared to each other a lot over the summer. In much the same way as the Epic/Evo were last year.
I always say that benchmarking scores are for those who are into benchmarking... but still, it's something that I was disappointed by in this review. I hope that the scores there are flawed for a reason yet unknown because I really though by the technical specifications of the Evo3D alone that it would score much higher.
I am concerned with it's Quadrant and Smartbench scores too. He said in the review it was a pre-production device and that the 2.3 scores have been lower across the board. However you see right on the screen after he runs Smartbench that the S2 scored much higher.
Now, what does this mean? Pretty much nothing. The scores the Evo3D got are fantastic and 99% of people will never notice a difference in speed between the two devices. Lets not fool ourselves however, these two devices are going to be in hot contention for #1 & compared to each other a lot over the summer. In much the same way as the Epic/Evo were last year.
I always say that benchmarking scores are for those who are into benchmarking... but still, it's something that I was disappointed by in this review. I hope that the scores there are flawed for a reason yet unknown because I really though by the technical specifications of the Evo3D alone that it would score much higher.
Vanquished
Android Expert
One thing the benchmark scores currently don't take into account is the qHD screen (rendering 30% more pixels can be taxing), which several people who have tested the Sensation have stated. This is why actual performance of these devices needs to be done head to head with real world tasks.
ArmageddonX
Android Expert
Ohh, that's true Vanquished. Thank you. I didn't even think about that.
That would truly explain it from a hardware perspective alone. Higher resolution requires more processing power.
That would truly explain it from a hardware perspective alone. Higher resolution requires more processing power.
ebolamonkey3
Android Enthusiast
1. yea, really excited about the screen and the camera.
2. I'm wondering about this as well. My Atrix gets 2500-2600 on Quadrant and 2600/2500 on Smartbench. All run w/o being plugged in btw. Same resolution as the 3vo and it's only got a 1ghz Tegra 2.
I know benches don't mean anything in real world, but what's the reason for the really low score? SGS II is also on 2.3, but its scores are off the charts.
3. 3D is just for the camera when taking stills and videos. Doesn't not affect games which will come in 2D or 3D as designed by the creator.
ArmageddonX
Android Expert
This is the same thing I was thinking. Something just isn't right, there's no way its scoring lower than some other devices that are less powerful from a technical perspective alone. I'm not knowledgeable enough about this type of stuff but those scores don't make any sense to me.
You're right though; benchmarks mean nothing when we're talking about real world usage. That's why I am not that concerned about it.
OK, we don't have enough benchmark threads? Guess not....
Fair warning - this is all redundant to what's been hashed and rehashed here, so most of it's likely to get moved to the relevant threads.
Fair warning - this is all redundant to what's been hashed and rehashed here, so most of it's likely to get moved to the relevant threads.
ArmageddonX
Android Expert
Apologies; that's the last of it from me. Could somebody please direct me to a more appropriate place to discuss that specific topic? Thank you.
Edited several posts of mine to re-sort them into the appropriate topics. Thank you for moving the posts.
Edited several posts of mine to re-sort them into the appropriate topics. Thank you for moving the posts.
xXSecretAgentXx
Newbie
lets not forget that evo 3d has a different dual core chip aswell. Its asynchronous so both cores aren't active 100%. What it does NOT have however is usb OTG which the galaxy s 2 has in its arsenal 
Healthy skepticism when it comes to benchmarks is always appropriate, but in this case, all signs point to the dual core Snapdragon not being as competitive as some of its brethren. Generally, if you want that kind of information, you need to head to AnandTech (and here... and the meaty part here), where they are very serious about the art of performance testing.
The number of cores and the processor clockspeed are not the only indicators of performance, and the CPU architecture plays a large role in the computing efficiency of the processor. The nVidia Tegra 2, Samsung Exynos, Apple A5 (?), and Texas Instruments OMAP 4 dual core processors use a more recent and improved ARM Cortex A9 architecture. The Qualcomm Snapdragon, while not quite using the prior Cortex A8 architecture, is using something that generationally falls somewhere between the A8 and A9.
In short, even though the Tegra 2 runs at 1Ghz, it is not a huge surprise that it is either competitive with or somewhat exceeds a Snapdragon 1.2 Ghz SoC. There are questions as to preproduction units, optimization, and increase dual core software optimization, but we shouldn't delude ourselves too much as to what potential benefits they may bring.
The results are admittedly somewhat disappointing and Qualcomm needs to step up their SoC game a bit, though this isn't necessarily the first time us Evo owners have been in this position. Even upon release, the original Snapdragon was recognized to have terrible 3D performance (sigh Adreno 200) and the PowerVR SGX GPU in my year old Palm Pre was a stronger performer. Subsequent releases with the Samsung Hummingbird processor only further served to show how much we were lacking in the GPU department.
That said, I think the conclusion is that even when the Evo 3D launches, we will definitely not have the fastest horse in the stable, for the people for which it matters. However, the overall performance increases from the original Evo should be quite significant, and that will hopefully be enough for all of us.
(Personally, I'm keeping an eye out for comparisons with the current single core Hummingbird -- that thing has continued to impress me and I hope the Snapdragon gains over it are more than marginal).
lets not forget that evo 3d has a different dual core chip aswell. Its asynchronous so both cores aren't active 100%. What it does NOT have however is usb OTG which the galaxy s 2 has in its arsenal
Asynchronous dual cores isn't a performance issue, though it is notably a power consumption one. With the Tegra 2, both cores are running at the same clock, so if you need the performance, it's full blast. However, with the new Snapdragon and async cores, the amount of power is better tailored to each core's individual load. The power consumption should be better on the Snapdragon (though the fab processon the snapdragon is 45nm versus 40nm on the Tegra...)
...OTG is pretty cool, but it's not a performance issue, is it?
ArmageddonX
Android Expert
What a great concise explanation of how everything breaks down. I really appreciate it. While the scores are still good scores; It is disappointing to know they are probably going to be lower than other 1.2ghz dual core smartphones headed to the market & aren't going to go up much from here.
What are your thoughts on the higher resolution screen possibly lowering the test scores? Do you think that's a factor?
What are your thoughts on the higher resolution screen possibly lowering the test scores? Do you think that's a factor?
ebolamonkey3
Android Enthusiast
Only when compared against the SGSII, and not other dual core phones like the Atrix.
TBH, the SGSII is an anomaly in terms of benchmarks right now. Nothing else scores even in the same ballpark.
ArmageddonX
Android Expert
Interesting... That is very strange but good to know. Does anyone know why this anomaly exists?
I'm glad to hear the Evo3D is definitely in-par with other competitors. I thought to myself the scores were good. I appreciate you guys being patient with me. I'm fairly new to the Android world and these posts have been extremely informative.
Vanquished
Android Expert
I've probably missed some of your other posts, but what do you plan on using the phone for? Everyone says the E3D and the Sensation both run like butter with Sense (imagine what it can do without it). If you are just using it as a cell phone, internet, photos and what not, then you can't go wrong. If you plan on using it mainly for playing graphically intense games then you taking a look at all of the competition is not a bad thing at all. Even with games it should still run really well. It really just boils down to what the main use of the phone will be.
Yes, resolution plays an important role, and for sure comparisons are best made between devices of the same resolution. The Moto Atrix for example is running a 1 Ghz Tegra 2 at qHD resolution, so it's a prime target for comparison, although it's still running Froyo so at the moment we're still a little jammed up in terms of direct comparisons.
Also (unless I'm mistaken), GPU load scales linearly with the increase in pixels, so you can roughly estimate the handicap or advantage resolutions have between devices.
You should really check out the AnandTech articles I linked to, they are packed with information. I'll leave you with this quote.
However, these predictions were made before the Exynos came around, and even then, the rumor is that Galaxy 2 was originally spec'd to have a 1 Ghz processor, but then surprised everyone with a 1.2 Ghz unit. It's no surprise to me that between it having the most recent ARM architecture and a 1.2 Ghz clock, it is the fastest beast we have tested thus far. It seems that the true battle of champions will be between the Exynos and Tegra at 1.2 Ghz.
ebolamonkey3
Android Enthusiast
How well do they OC? Wasn't the MSM8660 originally a 1.5ghz unit that got scaled back to 1.2ghz for the phones?
ArmageddonX
Android Expert
Interesting.... The Motorola "Photon" is rumored to have a 1.2ghz Tegra 2. Correct?
Android News and Rumors: Motorola Photon 4G
EDIT:
Finally finished reading the first page of this thread. Incredibly interesting & informative.
Android News and Rumors: Motorola Photon 4G
EDIT:
Finally finished reading the first page of this thread. Incredibly interesting & informative.
Yeah, the msm8660 definitely runs at 1.5Ghz, though it's not clear to me why HTC opted for the 1.2 Ghz variety. Anandtech tested the 1.5 Ghz version (though on an WVGA screen):
AnandTech - Dual Core Snapdragon GPU Performance Explored - 1.5 GHz MSM8660 and Adreno 220 Benchmarks
My best guess is a cheaper price based upon better yields for a lower clock frequency part. It's too bad though. Only time will tell if the actual parts inside the Evo 3D have the physical capability of scaling up to 1.5 Ghz, or if the parts are so low quality that they max out a 1.2. It's also unclear to me whether HTC will retroactively apply its bootloader policy, which might hamper efforts to bring an overclocking kernel.
Jackietreehorn
Android Enthusiast
I guess I always just assumed that it was a battery life issue, as the higher clock would presumably offer lesser battery life. We all know smartphones aren't the most battery conscious devices to start with, so they are trying to strike a balance between performance and longevity. Just what I kind of thought...
As far as the bootloader policy, we'll see, but it's been specifically noted that the Evo 3D WILL be unlocked...it just remains to be seen whether it was pre or post launch. I suppose they could always renege on it, but I'd very much doubt it at this point.
Note also the difference in codec support - 8660 > Tegra-2.
ArmageddonX
Android Expert
Dare I ask... Codec support?
I'm on the run, sorry to NOT provide link - there's a thread here asking about the Tegra-2 and so forth on games benchmark. I think it was there that another poster pointed out the differences in native codec support.
Codec = (in our case, what we care) built-in support on the processor to deal with all that alphabet soup you see at the end of media file names - .mp3, mp4, etc etc etc etc.
The 8660 has more codec support - not saying that beats raw horsepower - am saying simply don't overlook all factors, not just specific benchmarks, when decided on the processor-in-phone right for you.
There's no one right answer - give me the Exynos, 8660 and Tegra-2 (or OMAP) in a good design, I'm one of those guys that would likely be mighty happy.
Your mileage may vary, always good to check it all out.
Codec = (in our case, what we care) built-in support on the processor to deal with all that alphabet soup you see at the end of media file names - .mp3, mp4, etc etc etc etc.
The 8660 has more codec support - not saying that beats raw horsepower - am saying simply don't overlook all factors, not just specific benchmarks, when decided on the processor-in-phone right for you.
There's no one right answer - give me the Exynos, 8660 and Tegra-2 (or OMAP) in a good design, I'm one of those guys that would likely be mighty happy.
Your mileage may vary, always good to check it all out.
Emmexx
Well-Known Member
Traditional caveat here: I am not an expert on this subject, so if someone has experience/facts to help me out, I would appreciate it.
The Asynchronous portion of the dual cores is somewhat intriguing to me. During the benchmarking we have seen, I am wondering if one core doesn't simply shut down or minimize itself doing relatively trivial tasks. By just having one core focus on the benching, along with the GPU, could that result in the lower scores?
I suppose my main point is this: All viewing, tasks and experiences indicate things are flowing perfectly. The interface is rock solid, no hesitation, no choppiness, smooth transition. The E3D appears to handle everything thrown at it powerfully and without issue. For lack of better terminology, this appears to be a real life benchmark and it is fantastic, IMO. The video play was smooth, game didn't hesitate at all. I am not sure what more I could personally ask for on a phone.
Long and short of it is, I think the Async Dual cores will be a great balance of power usage and permormance. I can't wait for real life tests to see how true this is.