[gTen]

Originally Posted by BlackDynamite

Wrong again. When you create an Android app, the SDK absolutely DOES specify the resolution(s) that the app will run at. Again, I am trying to decide if you are just misinformed and incorrectly stating your opinion as fact, or if you are blatanly lying in order to "win" an internet debate.

First of all..I don't lie to win debates, you can ask anyone..hence whenever I found information one way or the other I put up the information. It is irrelevant what SDK has set to a resolution! I can have a blank white screen and a million processes running in the background..unless the benchmark/app makes use of the display elements its irrelevant what resolution it runs in..

Display is absolutely relevant. If a device is running at it's optimal resolution, it is going to perform better than the next device which is wasting CPU power to emulate a different resolution.

If I have a monitor thats 1920x1200 resolution and a monitor at 1600x1080 resolution..if I lower the 1920x1200 monitor to 1600x1080 and benchmark a game..it will benchmark THE SAME!

So what. The point of the test is to test performance, correct? That is the whole reason for running the test. So when I see a device finish significantly faster, i know it performs better. If the score says otherwise, then the score is wrong.

More excuses. The Sensation finished first. Why it finished first doesn't matter.

So your saying because student A finished a test faster and got a score of 30 he is smarter then a student who finished a bit later and got a score of 60? its a speed/quality thing...unless the sensation finished the test 2x faster, it has no reason to quantify having 2x less FPS...

Bull. Like I have said a million times now, the Sensation was running at a significantly higher resolution. Lower FPS is expected with a higher resolution. If the devices were running the same resolution and one had a higher fps, then you might have a point. But to keep harping on the higher fps on the device with a lower resolution is ridiculous.

Yes, lower FPS is expected at higher resolution yes..but that just means the GPU is not powerful enough to support a phone with such resolution..simple as that...

Quadrant is flawed, yes. But smartbench is too. And no, I'm not making excuses for it. I said from the beginning that I didn't take any of those benchmarks too seriously. You are the one who said the Galaxy S 2 clearly had the hardware advantage and started referencing bench tests as this clear proof. So I was merely pointing out that some of these bench tests actually show the Sensation as the faster device. You are saying you don't take those tests seriously, I am saying I don't hold smartbench on some mythical higher level. It has its flaws too, even if you liek to pretend they don't exist.

none of the benchmarks showed higher scores for sensation except linpack which showed a higher score by like 1%..if not less...which falls within margin of error of manufacturing quality..and this is on a benchmark that tests only 1 thing being floating point math...

Smartbench and GL Benchmark are better then the others because they are the only ones actually still being developed and improved upon. In smartbench case it is developed by a community effort...hence why it adapted to multiple cores and higher resolutions while the others didn't..

What a bunch of bull. We both know darn well that any time you increase resolution, your fps WILL drop. For you to say resolution is irrelevant is just complete crap. Here is what we can say- the Galaxy S 2's GPU is "too weak" to support the qhd resolution. I don't care what fps it achieves at a lower resolution. What's next- you tell me 480i (sd on a tv) is better than 1080p (full hd on a tv) because 480i runs at 30 fps, while most 1080p only runs at 24 fps?

Actually samsung issued a statement on that, its mostly because they were not able to achieve qHD on AMOLED technology yet..but you can make an SGS2 render at qHD if you want using kernel hacks..

Well let me ask you this..whats better 720p at 24fps or 1080p at 12fps? (I am not using 480i to 1080p because thats not the difference here)

Why do you think people were complaining on EVO when things were locked to 30fps? it makes a difference for many...

Or we can just agree that at best you don't know what you're talking about and like to pretend you do, or at worst you sre just full of crap and blatantly lying. Your call. And again, I said quadrant was flawed from the start. You honestly don't remember me saying the Sensation finished first and somehow still scored lower? This is why I am done replying to you. You know darn well i said quadrant was flawed, and there is not one post where I said otherwise. Yet you say crap like that. Again, for the record, ALL of those bench tests are flawed in some way.

Just because I don't say things you want to hear does not mean I am lying...

Every benchmark has flaws yes, but there are good benchmarks and bad benchmarks..good benchmark= one that adapts, bad benchmark= one that doesnt adapt..

Quadrant for example you can still cheat on using I/O..and its been 1-2 years since that has been known and they still haven't fixed it!!!! hence why I have been asking you to ignore Quadrant since the beginning of the convo!

Smartbench updates on a daily bases hence is a more trust worthy benchmark...