[gTen]

Originally Posted by BlackDynamite

Until you get past this totally INCORRECT position, I can't continue this discussion with you. The FACT here, is whatever is running in the background affects the processing power of the device. So if you are testing the processing power of a device, then the stuff running in the background ABSOLUTELY influences that test. If one device is emulating a resolution, then whatever is making it emulate that resolution is absolutely affecting the processing power. So if only one device is doing that extra processing, then the test is flawed. It's like comparing internet speeds while one device is streaming a video and the other isn't. Even though the speed test isn't testing the video stream, that video stream still affects the speed test.

This is a false analagy. The test is NOT lowering the resolution of the monitor. It emulating a lower resolution.

Emulating is not the right word for it..more accurately its rendering it in set resolution..I have a ViewSonic gTablet which is even higher resolution the qHD, it does the same thing with all apps with a set forced resolution. its a native thing equivalent to changing monitor resolutions..

No, I'm not saying that at all. That is a horrible analogy. I am saying that if this test is supposedly rating the performance of the 2 devices, then the device that finished first, even though it was running at a higher resolution, is obviously faster.

That is obviously not how the benchmark works..it did not make up numbers out of thin air...finishing a test faster is irrelevant unless its done with the same quality. And again it only finished the test faster because the SGS2 got stuck on I/O for a bit.

Sensation: 3:20 started gpu -> 3:54 end
SGS2: 3:26 started gpu ->3:59 end

See so GPU test was THE SAME TIME! the thing that made the difference was getting stuck on I/O for 6 extra seconds...

every other test it finished at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME...

No, that is not what it means. It means the Galaxy S2 is not powerful enough to run at the higher resolution. Simple as that.

Well the processor was running on a 1080p resolution just fine on that reference board..so its definitely powerful enough..

There were 2 benchmark tests performed. First, quadrant- the Sensation finished significantly faster, yet somehow scored lower. Then, linpack, the Sensation actually scored higher. Then smartbench- the Sensation was obviously running at an emulated resolution and scored lower.

Quadrant as I showed earlier finished same time actually and won 2x fold...linpack was less then 1% difference and smartbench it won 2x fold

So? That doesn't mean anything. Maybe someday it will run at native resolution if it is still being improved. But right now, today, it does not.

as I said you can render at a certain resolution..it makes no difference..heck Playstation did this when they rendered at a smaller resolution and rescaled 2x higher.

Good, so show me these tests with the devices running at the same resolution before you start talking about fps.

They were running at same resolution on smartbench..dont confuse "displaying" and "Rendering"

Nobody runs either of those resolutions at those fps you listed. However, 480i IS 30 fps standard, and 1080p IS 24 fps standard. So that is a perfect example of higher resolution still being better than lower resolution even though the fps is lower. Like you kept saying, this is not rocket science.

Last I checked the difference between 480i and 1080p is a MUCH larger gap then WVGA and qHD...hence why its a bad example..nto to mention there is a big difference in interlaced being 'i' and 'p'...

Nobody was saying the Evo was worse than any lower resolution device. They were comparing the Evo to other wvga devices. Yes, fps makes a difference, but most people understand that a higher resolution will mean a lower fps.

In the demo it dipped to lows as low as 14fps..thats not acceptable for gaming...

No, not at all. But when you say things that are blatantly false, it means either you don't know what you are talking about or you are lying.

but so far you only stated I am false because you don't accept what I say..you have yet to provide any evidence..

Just because it adapts doesn't mean it is the end all be all. I don't care if a particular benchmark is supported by the community. That doesn't mean the test is 100% accurate. If the device is emulating a resolution while it runs the test, then the results are flawed.

Rendering..not emulating...

And I have been saying I ignore ALL of those benchmarks, not just quadrant. But if you are going to say the Galaxy S 2 is clearly the better hardware, and cite benchmarks as your clear and undeniable proof, then I will point out that some other benchmarks, that I consider just as flawed as the ones you are using, indicate the Sensation is the faster device.

There have been evidence put down to show that Quadrant is flawed..all flaws in smartbench were quickly fixed..there is always room for improvement but its right now the "standard" for benchmarking...as far as performance goes benchmarks are the only thing we can use to quantify processing power..

I don't care how often it updates. If it emulates a resolution one device, and runs at native resolution on the other device, then the test is flawed. Period.

See I think your confusing "display" with "Rendering"..there is a big difference...an example would be say you watch 480p content..on a 1080p screen...you have options on monitor to watch it at 480p, or re-scale it to fit screen(default)..the content is still 480p..and thats what happens in smartbench it renders them all fairly..