Evo 4g/Evo 3D

[gTen]

Originally Posted by BlackDynamite

Smartbench is no better than linpack. Smartbench runs at a resolution not compatible with qhd devices. Period. Whatever has to be done to make the Sensation think it's only wvga, does not have to be done on the Galaxy S 2. Period. There is no debating this and it's funny that you keep trying. Also it's no coincidence that this is the one benchmark where the Galaxy S 2 is faster, and it's the only one you give any credence. I don't see any reason why smartbench is any better than linpack. I don't put much stock in either of them, but at least linpack is running at the proper resolution on both devices.

um..what?!?!?! linpack isn't running at any resolution..it doesn't measure the GPU, it measures the CPU...CPU benchmarks do not matter on the resolution, in linpacks case its a floating point math. (read up on how linpack works)

I did not only give credit to Smartbench, I also gave credit to GLbenchmark..and so you know I have been advocating Smartbench and GL Benchmark back in the day when they first came out.

Linpack went faulty on the 2.2 update and Quadrant was faulty since day 1. Notice I constantly was telling you Quadrant is flawed even though it shows SGS 2 completely destroying the sensation?

Smartbench enforces resolutions on both phones...you don't notice this on wvga as its wvga but both are effected. Think of gaming benchmarks done on a PC, they try out different resolutions to see which performs better. Smartbench benched them both in same resolution as you would on a PC, which seems fair.


If you feel smartbench is incorrect, feel free to contact the developer of smartbench at xda (username: Acei ), he is always willing to work with people to improve his benchmark, smartbench has been a community effort to improve upon tested on many devices.

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by gTen

um..what?!?!?! linpack isn't running at any resolution..it doesn't measure the GPU, it measures the CPU...CPU benchmarks do not matter on the resolution, in linpacks case its a floating point math. (read up on how linpack works)

I did not only give credit to Smartbench, I also gave credit to GLbenchmark..and so you know I have been advocating Smartbench and GL Benchmark back in the day when they first came out.

Linpack went faulty on the 2.2 update and Quadrant was faulty since day 1. Notice I constantly was telling you Quadrant is flawed even though it shows SGS 2 completely destroying the sensation?

Smartbench enforces resolutions on both phones...you don't notice this on wvga as its wvga but both are effected. Think of gaming benchmarks done on a PC, they try out different resolutions to see which performs better. Smartbench benched them both in same resolution as you would on a PC, which seems fair.


If you feel smartbench is incorrect, feel free to contact the developer of smartbench at xda (username: Acei ), he is always willing to work with people to improve his benchmark, smartbench has been a community effort to improve upon tested on many devices.

man, yes, Linpack absolutely DOES run at some resolution. Anything running on the display is running at SOME resolution. So get your "facts" straight.

Smartbench is clearly tinkering with the resolution and the way the qhd device interprets that resolution. The same is NOT being done on the wvga device. Period. This is not debatable. Watching the video will clearly show you video proof of this.

And, again, get your "facts" strait. The Galaxy S 2 did not "destroy" the Sensation in the Quadrant. The Sensation finished the test considerably faster, yet somehow rated lower. Morons who only looked at the final score assumed this meant the Galaxy S 2 was faster (which is what the bench is supposedly testing) but anyone who watched it saw the Sensation complete the test significantly faster. Yes, you have a bunch of excuses, like FPS. But the bottom line is the Sensation was running at a higher resolution, so lower fps is expected. And it finished the test significantly faster.

I don't care to contact the makers of any bench tests. I saw the sensation clearly finish the quadrant faster, and clearly score higher on the only test that didn't use the resolution at all. You chose to say that isn't valid in your own opinion, and I chose to say no other bench is any more valid, in my opinion. at the end of the day, there is NOT this clear evidence that the Galaxy S 2 has a better processor, or a better performance. When you claimed that was the case, you were either mistaken or just making crap up. Because looking at the time it took each device to finish the quadrant, and the score of each device on the linpack, both indicates the Sensation is the faster device (even with less RAM).

[gTen]

Originally Posted by BlackDynamite

man, yes, Linpack absolutely DOES run at some resolution. Anything running on the display is running at SOME resolution. So get your "facts" straight.

no it doesn't...math has no resolution..your assuming that all things must have a display, that is not how programming works. In programming everything has no resolution, its just code, then that code is sent to the display driver and rendered at set resolution. Linpack has none of that...its a pure CPU benchmark, it even exists outside of cellphones and strictly measures CPU.

Smartbench is clearly tinkering with the resolution and the way the qhd device interprets that resolution. The same is NOT being done on the wvga device. Period. This is not debatable. Watching the video will clearly show you video proof of this.

It tinkers with resolution on both..its similar to using the "depth app" or setting resolution on your pc desktop...display is irrelevant, whats most important is at what resolution its rendered at.

And, again, get your "facts" strait. The Galaxy S 2 did not "destroy" the Sensation in the Quadrant. The Sensation finished the test considerably faster, yet somehow rated lower. Morons who only looked at the final score assumed this meant the Galaxy S 2 was faster (which is what the bench is supposedly testing) but anyone who watched it saw the Sensation complete the test significantly faster.

First of all you have to realize that they are using Quadrant, not Quadrant Pro...the score from Quadrant is an overall score...things that go into Quadrant score is CPU, memory, GPU 2D, GPU 3D....

Second of all the SGS 2 hanged on the I/O which caused it to start later then the Sensation on the GPU test.

Third of all, finish faster is pointless unless it achieves it at the same FPS, if it finishes faster at a lower FPS means its frame skipping..and if you look at the video, frame skipping is apparent...tats why I even looked at the FPS in the first place, because I saw frame skipping...

Yes, you have a bunch of excuses, like FPS. But the bottom line is the Sensation was running at a higher resolution, so lower fps is expected. And it finished the test significantly faster.

and what your saying is not an excuse? can we just call it a day and say Quadrant is flawed..its a well known fact...

I don't care to contact the makers of any bench tests. I saw the sensation clearly finish the quadrant faster, and clearly score higher on the only test that didn't use the resolution at all. You chose to say that isn't valid in your own opinion, and I chose to say no other bench is any more valid, in my opinion. at the end of the day, there is NOT this clear evidence that the Galaxy S 2 has a better processor, or a better performance. When you claimed that was the case, you were either mistaken or just making crap up. Because looking at the time it took each device to finish the quadrant, and the score of each device on the linpack, both indicates the Sensation is the faster device (even with less RAM).

Ok..so you want to play it like that..then we can both agree that the GPU in the Evo3d and Sensation is "too weak" as it was not able to achieve 60 fps....it is irrelevant which one has higher resolution or lower resolution because when you are playing a game or using your GPU it has to perform at 60fps to get a smooth lag free experience...

or we can agree that Quadrant is flawed..your call...

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by gTen

no it doesn't...math has no resolution..your assuming that all things must have a display, that is not how programming works. In programming everything has no resolution, its just code, then that code is sent to the display driver and rendered at set resolution. Linpack has none of that...its a pure CPU benchmark, it even exists outside of cellphones and strictly measures CPU.

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.

Originally Posted by gTen

It tinkers with resolution on both..its similar to using the "depth app" or setting resolution on your pc desktop...display is irrelevant, whats most important is at what resolution its rendered at.

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.

Originally Posted by gTen

First of all you have to realize that they are using Quadrant, not Quadrant Pro...the score from Quadrant is an overall score...things that go into Quadrant score is CPU, memory, GPU 2D, GPU 3D....

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.

Originally Posted by gTen

Second of all the SGS 2 hanged on the I/O which caused it to start later then the Sensation on the GPU test.

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

Originally Posted by gTen

Third of all, finish faster is pointless unless it achieves it at the same FPS, if it finishes faster at a lower FPS means its frame skipping..and if you look at the video, frame skipping is apparent...tats why I even looked at the FPS in the first place, because I saw frame skipping...

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.

Originally Posted by gTen

and what your saying is not an excuse? can we just call it a day and say Quadrant is flawed..its a well known fact...

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.

Originally Posted by gTen

Ok..so you want to play it like that..then we can both agree that the GPU in the Evo3d and Sensation is "too weak" as it was not able to achieve 60 fps....it is irrelevant which one has higher resolution or lower resolution because when you are playing a game or using your GPU it has to perform at 60fps to get a smooth lag free experience...

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?

Originally Posted by gTen

or we can agree that Quadrant is flawed..your call...

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.

[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...

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by gTen

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..

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.

Originally Posted by gTen

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!

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

Originally Posted by gTen

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...

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.

Originally Posted by gTen

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...

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.

Originally Posted by gTen

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...

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.

Originally Posted by gTen

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..

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.

Originally Posted by gTen

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..

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

Originally Posted by gTen

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)

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.

Originally Posted by gTen

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

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.

Originally Posted by gTen

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

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.

Originally Posted by gTen

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

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.

Originally Posted by gTen

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!

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.

Originally Posted by gTen

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

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.

[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..