Develop Bugs

[Q] Benchmark low - how to push the benchmark higher?

Hello!
So, I have a DHD with the Revolution HD ROM (2.0.8) and the Buzz Sense kernel. I have locked the CPU to min/max 1516MHz Perf. scaling and, upon running the AnTutu System Review 1.2("System Benchmark" under Market) I get a score of 1879.
Yet in the Rankings I see that the #2 device is a DHD with 2.2 @1516MHz with a whopping score of 2774!!!!!
So, how could I reach those heights? The only thing I can think of is the slow SD card that came with the mobile (read/write scores: 34/117), but other than that what could be holding me back?
Cheers
T

I have reached pretty high scores while testing, but then the overall rom smoothness has pretty much sucked. It is normal that synthetic benchmarks give lower results when you use a custom rom, the optimizations that ensure general smoothness and usability cause it. One big reason is CPU scheduling, in custom rom (custom kernel) cpu time is divided for each task in a different way, thus reducing the overall benchmark score.

jkoljo said:
I have reached pretty high scores while testing, but then the overall rom smoothness has pretty much sucked. It is normal that synthetic benchmarks give lower results when you use a custom rom, the optimizations that ensure general smoothness and usability cause it. One big reason is CPU scheduling, in custom rom (custom kernel) cpu time is divided for each task in a different way, thus reducing the overall benchmark score.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Aha... but then this means that this or the other ROM do not let a specific app (say, a heavy 3D game) take the phone to its full potential...

Incorrect, it is just the synthetic benchmark that suffers. Games will run fine, faster than stock.

Jkoljo's right.The overall system speed is much better,performance is better,but it sucks a little in benchmarks.If you are so desperate to see high benchmark scores(I was once too! )try kamma's 1.4 kernel.Quadrant 3200.Need I say more?

tolis626 said:
Jkoljo's right.The overall system speed is much better,performance is better,but it sucks a little in benchmarks.If you are so desperate to see high benchmark scores(I was once too! )try kamma's 1.4 kernel.Quadrant 3200.Need I say more?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really? 3200? Wow. Just out of curiosity, what scores are you getting with other kernels?
Well, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter - I haven't seen an app or game that runs slow or choppy or whatever. It's just for the heck of it

krakout said:
Really? 3200? Wow. Just out of curiosity, what scores are you getting with other kernels?
Well, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter - I haven't seen an app or game that runs slow or choppy or whatever. It's just for the heck of it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh yeah,I know what tou mean!
Anyway,with Lee's and Apache's kernels I get about 2500-2600 in Quadrant.CPU clocked all the way up to 1.5 GHz of course!

[Q] Benchmark questions!

First off I'm fairly aware of the fact that benchmarks are not accurate representations of the day to day real life usefulness of the handset.
That said, I used both linpack and quadrant standard edition for the first time tonight while testing another kernel with my current rom (which is cm7, ggingerbread-6).
At the conclusion of my testing it was very obvious that one kernel completely outclassed the other in a benchmarking situation, however something else became apparent that leads to this post.
If I follow and believe everyone else's benchmark scores, even those posted an hour earlier in the same kernel thread, then I might have the slowest Evo on planet earth.
I see other users of the same rom and kernal posting scores which are never below 1500 in quadrant, I saw one instance of 1300 but nonetheless, even overclocking to 1075 I can barely break 1100 and usually fall just below that. Sadly enough on the "slower" of the 2 kernals I was barely surpassing 900.
Now on the linpack side of things I don't have any comparative scores to judge against, but ill post what I received anyhow for information's sake. On the "faster" of the two kernels (the one that came prebuilt into the rom) I was getting between 33-34, on the new kernel I was testing I was getting between 19 and 22, these are all "mflops" of course, whatever that may be.
Someone give me some information or advice here! Do I just happen to have a slow evolution, or are others either exaggerating or using some trick/mod/tweak I'm royalty unaware of??
Thanks in advance!

some people brag, some people cheat, most have low scores, few have high, there isn't a very good baseline and the benchmark programs dont scale very well at all, I have run 1800 scores and I have run 600 scores, guess what. both roms were smooth and you wouldn't have been able to tell a difference, what does that mean? do we believe the benchmark programs? are they spitting a random number at us? who knows! dont believe them, be satisfied with how your evo is running and if it's not running very well then try a different kernel or rom, keep trying new ones until your satisfied, only then will some benchmark program output not mean a thing

Most of my Quadrant benchmarks with aftermarket ROMS+kernels have been in the 1100-1400 range, using VaelPak and various kernels to get most of the better scores there. The highest I've had was CM7RC1 with the SnapTurbo kernel, got an 1821. It was unusable, though.
I've come to the conclusion that the benchmarks aren't as important as battery life, especially with the Evo.

Biggest reason for the huge difference in numbers? Different versions of the app. The dev changed how it rates phones.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

Thanks!
Explained. I knew they were totally not concurrent with the outward performance and usability of the device, and for what its worth while I've only ever flashed a total of 3 roms, this one is perfect for me and I seem to be one of the rare few with no problems whatsoever, everything works exactly as I would expect it to. So yes, l never feared my device was suddenly slower now that I knew the all knowing superultrabenchmark number.

Quadrant: Worse than you thought

As we all know quadrant is no reliable measure for speed. At least I knew this for a while now and it was repeated and quoted many times.
This article tells anybody with a functioning brain (that is used of course) that quadrant means pretty much nothing.
I can't help to run it from time to time anyway
So I sat on the to... in my room in front of my computer with my phone. I9000 with supersonic ROM and the remount script from adrenaline shot 7. I sat there and said to myself "how hight can you score in quadrant LOL"
I started quadrant up and ran the benchmark: 2309
Then I opened the task manager-> Exit all & Clear memory
Then via long press homebutton back to quadrant to run the benchmark again score: 2453
But since I am a programmer and can imagine all kinds of optimizations and caching I pressed the back button and just ran it again just after it finished
Score: 2675
How the hell could anyone call that a benchmark?^^
just to be sure could anyone confirm that behavior? And does anyone know of a mor reliable alternative? I'd like to collect that knowledge in this thread.
TL;DR: quadrant sucks, you know anything better or want to flame away: do it here
Those are not the actual numbers from my first experiment, I repeated the scenario just now and took the numbers from those runs.
Additional runs scored 2775, 2907 and 2820, that's just silly

I think this behaviour is well known and has to do with JIT optimizations or something like that

allotrios said:
I think this behaviour is well known and has to do with JIT optimizations or something like that
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The reason is irrelevant. The fact it doesn't provide a reliable benchmark is.

no benchmark is precise if you don't use it as intended. Quadrant produces a reliable comparative benchmark when used as designed: run it five times, remove the lowest and highest scores and average the remaining 3 -- that is your benchmark. You may not like it, but that is how it is designed to be used.
Now if you want to be pedantic, you could reasonably test again, by running quadrant 5 times, removing the outliers and average your 3 remaining scores. Repeat 10 times and then tell me how your average scores do or do not vary: they will in fact be within a narrow range, your actual benchmark.
Alternatively, tell us which benchmark produces the same score each run, as that appears to be the sum total of your objection to quadrant.
There are other benchmarks, such as Caffiene Mark, AnTuTu and NenaMark, but they are all apps just as Quadrant is and all require several runs and averaging to produce a comparable benchmark.
Moreover, the primary use of any benchmark is to compare firmware (kernel and rom) builds on the same phone to see relative performance gain and drop.

A benchmark is supposed to give way of comparing the capabilities of a given device. This means that a device with a high average score implies a better device than a lower score.
But the Quadrant score does nothing of this sort! In a competition with a friend I achieved an average Quadrant score of about 4300, with a peak of 4462. According to Quadrant my device is a lot better than the OP! Which is just not true.
Quadrant is unreliable as a benchmark, no matter how it is "designed to be used".
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

whaave said:
But the Quadrant score does nothing of this sort! In a competition with a friend I achieved an average Quadrant score of about 4300, with a peak of 4462. According to Quadrant my device is a lot better than the OP! Which is just not true.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're doing it wrong.
lgsshedden said:
Moreover, the primary use of any benchmark is to compare firmware (kernel and rom) builds on the same phone to see relative performance gain and drop.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Quadrant scores are useless. I've used custom roms with scores of 2500+ but they aren't as smooth as stock roms, which only have scores of 1600-1800.

Antutu is indeed quite reliable imho. My results never fluctuate more than +-5% on the same config. That's an acceptable range, considering I don't set cpu governor to performance before running my tests.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

upichie said:
You're doing it wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
w00t?
Quadrant does not reflect performance, and therefore can not be used as a comparison parameter.

It can't be much worse than I thought.
My phone with 2.1 and 'lag fix' scored 2200 and lagged so bad I wanted to throw it against a wall multiple times a day.
With stock 2.3 quadrant can be ~1000 but the phone runs much smoother.
Other than the obvious file systems I/O 'cheats' that resulted in the above, there is also the frame rate cap that makes the GPU tests useless as well.

if your trying to measure height with a scale , u wont get your answer .
The only benchmark tool that ever reflected how the phone felt in my hands , in real life usage is linpack .
changing OC / kernel is mainly the only thing that will affect linpack if your trying to use it to compare roms ill efer you to my first statement .
In order to have a good feel of a rom / set up on the phone , use some apps that will use lots of ressources , for example TW4 launcher , go in there scroll a lot open gallery (if you have many pics) scroll thru them and repeat ... Any benchmark tools will basically tell you the 'ability of your device ' ( comparing 2 different models like an inspire and an sgs2 for example will be accurate )

ZioGTS said:
Antutu is indeed quite reliable imho. My results never fluctuate more than +-5% on the same config. That's an acceptable range, considering I don't set cpu governor to performance before running my tests.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I recently tried Passmark Mobile. Still a beta version, but I like it. Test results reflect real performance improvement and degradation pretty closely, particularly for what concerns I/O and memory speed.

Smartbench 2011

Didn't see a thread for this in here anymore so I thought I'd post. I know synthetic benchmarks don't mean a lot but I'm curious of what other people are scoring since mine seems to be lower than others tested.
My phone is a Telus SGH-T989D with a rooted stock rom with SetCPU running the system at 1.5 and have the V6 Tweak setup.
I find it interesting others have scored over 4000.

I was going to ask this same question. I tried smart bench on stock rom and the score was always between 2500 and 3400 when i see results of over 4000... I now have the Bombaridier v1.3 Rom and still get the same low results?
Is this normal score or could our phones have some cpu problems? Im thinking on going to T-Mobile and exchange the phone since it also has the camera pink spot problem and minor screen lines and spots on low brightness in dark colors...

finally had some time to sit down and enjoy my phone

Why are we getting our clock cleaned by so many other SGII models?

I don't know if this is a contributing factor, but they're using 2.3.3
We're using 2.3.5
To further this pattern, from what I understand, ICS is causing qudrant scores in the low 2000's and below on good phones..
The more advanced the OS version, the more it taxes the phone.. Just an observation.

I understand that it's fun to see your phone on top, but aren't these "benchmark" tests pretty irrelevant to performance and satisfaction? Is your phone laggy? Do you have any problems or is everything buttery smooth and running well? If it is then I wouldn't worry about arbitrary test results to be honest. You can run benchmarks over and over and get a different score every time. You can cheat on them. In the end just find a ROM/Kernel with the settings and features you like and enjoy it!

Yes that's true but every upgrade in OS uses more resources, so you're bound to see more lag on ICS than our current ROM
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium

I guess not that many people use this one.

Wildly variable benchmark scores

I know, I'm sorry, benchmarks, who needs them? The reason I'm testing is because I bought this phone used and I want to make sure that it's not broken in some way. I have a friend who is flipping HTC 10's and he's been doing benchmarks on each one that comes across his desk, and it seems like they're quite a bit different than mine.
On the stock rom my Antutu score has ranged from 108,000 to 152,000. Each time there's up to a 20,000 point difference. In my experience, your benchmark scores shouldn't change much unless you change something, so why the 45K range in scores? Not only that, but in Lineage 14.1 my scores drop significantly, down to 72,000, with the highest at 98,000.
I performed a RUU today and my scores are still flexing between 108 and 118K.
GeekBench 4 is a similar issue, my multicore performance has ranged from 1700 to 4100, and my single core from 1100 to 1700.
On a regular basis my Droid turbo (from 2014, running Lineage 14.1) is beating my HTC One in both tests. Do I have a bad phone, or is this normal behavior for the Sprint 10?
My buddy gets about 4000/1700 in geekbench and about 118K in Antutu, and his scores don't seem to change very much. He's running Lineage 14.1.

thunder2132 said:
I know, I'm sorry, benchmarks, who needs them? The reason I'm testing is because I bought this phone used and I want to make sure that it's not broken in some way. I have a friend who is flipping HTC 10's and he's been doing benchmarks on each one that comes across his desk, and it seems like they're quite a bit different than mine.
On the stock rom my Antutu score has ranged from 108,000 to 152,000. Each time there's up to a 20,000 point difference. In my experience, your benchmark scores shouldn't change much unless you change something, so why the 45K range in scores? Not only that, but in Lineage 14.1 my scores drop significantly, down to 72,000, with the highest at 98,000.
I performed a RUU today and my scores are still flexing between 108 and 118K.
GeekBench 4 is a similar issue, my multicore performance has ranged from 1700 to 4100, and my single core from 1100 to 1700.
On a regular basis my Droid turbo (from 2014, running Lineage 14.1) is beating my HTC One in both tests. Do I have a bad phone, or is this normal behavior for the Sprint 10?
My buddy gets about 4000/1700 in geekbench and about 118K in Antutu, and his scores don't seem to change very much. He's running Lineage 14.1.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Perhaps it's thermal throttling?
Nougat update improved things on that front. Are you on Marshmallow? Also you can try going into developer option and setting High Performance mode and then doing your test to see if you get improved scores.

Tarima said:
Perhaps it's thermal throttling?
Nougat update improved things on that front. Are you on Marshmallow? Also you can try going into developer option and setting High Performance mode and then doing your test to see if you get improved scores.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you're probably right on the thermal throttling side of things. I'm on Lineage 14.1 now, and if I run a benchmark after the phone has been idle for a while it's in the 138K range where it's supposed to be. Overclocked on stock is where I'm getting closer to 145K. I think I was doing too many tests, and when they were bad, I'd flash to another ROM (while charging) which didn't help with the thermal side of things.
Thermal throttling also would explain why if you do one test, then immediately repeat it the phone will score worse, which happens every time I try it.
I'm not on MM, I did a RUU to the latest version of N and then unlocked from there.