Evo 4g/Evo 3D

[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..

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by gTen

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..

I was not going to reply to you (again) but I had to set this point straight. This blatant falsehood seems to be what you are basing your whole flawed argument on.

Yes, if you have a 1080p tv you can absolutely watch a 480i program. And yes, you can convert it to 480p, or stretch it to fill the whole screen. But if you think the tv does this without using any extra processing power, you're crazy. Native resolution will ALWAYS get a better performance. Maybe it's enough for you to notice, maybe it isn't. But if you are testing the raw processing power on 2 devices for comparison purposes, then it isn't fair to have that extra processing running in the background on one device and not the other.

[gTen]

Originally Posted by BlackDynamite

I was not going to reply to you (again) but I had to set this point straight. This blatant falsehood seems to be what you are basing your whole flawed argument on.

like the flawed argument that quadrant finished faster when in reality it didn't?

Yes, if you have a 1080p tv you can absolutely watch a 480i program. And yes, you can convert it to 480p, or stretch it to fill the whole screen. But if you think the tv does this without using any extra processing power, you're crazy. Native resolution will ALWAYS get a better performance. Maybe it's enough for you to notice, maybe it isn't. But if you are testing the raw processing power on 2 devices for comparison purposes, then it isn't fair to have that extra processing running in the background on one device and not the other.

TVs hardly have any processing power..on an LCD screen it is irrelevant as all pixels are on all the time via back lighting..then a color is displayed via liquid crystals and color filter...



Now the only thing that requires anything extra is "rescaling" as re-scaling is not done..its the same thing....

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by gTen

like the flawed argument that quadrant finished faster when in reality it didn't?

It absolutely did too finish faster. You're the one making excuses saying to exclude certain parts of the test in order to make it seem like it didn't finish faster. But anyone who watches it can easily see that it finished significantly faster.

Originally Posted by gTen

TVs hardly have any processing power..on an LCD screen it is irrelevant as all pixels are on all the time via back lighting..then a color is displayed via liquid crystals and color filter...



Now the only thing that requires anything extra is "rescaling" as re-scaling is not done..its the same thing....

You are totally wrong. If you change the resolution, the tv absolutely has to process it. That's why not all tv's can even do it.

[gTen]

Originally Posted by BlackDynamite

It absolutely did too finish faster. You're the one making excuses saying to exclude certain parts of the test in order to make it seem like it didn't finish faster. But anyone who watches it can easily see that it finished significantly faster.

Quadrant does CPU test, memory test, 2D GPU test, 3D GPU test, I/O test..which test did it finish faster?

I timed the tests myself and you can check it yourself..the difference was on the I/O test taking 6 seconds longer (prob because there is more a lot more rom, but thats irrelevant)..I am not telling you to exclude anything I am telling you to separate and judge each test individually..

This is called flat out denial of the truth...as the evidence is there..no excuses...the only test that finished faster is I/O..all other tests they finished equally but the SGS 2 had higher FPS and a higher overall score..the end..

You are totally wrong. If you change the resolution, the tv absolutely has to process it. That's why not all tv's can even do it.

ummm tvs include a certain amount of pixels..you cant do 1080p if the physical pixel count isnt there..that doesnt mean you cant play 1080p content it will just be rescaled to 720p physical resolution.

If I display 720p on a 1080p TV without rescaling..and 720p on a 720p TV the processing is equal..TVs only lately have had atom chips put in..so far they have been pretty dumb machines with little/no processing power...

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by gTen

Quadrant does CPU test, memory test, 2D GPU test, 3D GPU test, I/O test..which test did it finish faster?

I timed the tests myself and you can check it yourself..the difference was on the I/O test taking 6 seconds longer (prob because there is more a lot more rom, but thats irrelevant)..I am not telling you to exclude anything I am telling you to separate and judge each test individually..

This is called flat out denial of the truth...as the evidence is there..no excuses...the only test that finished faster is I/O..all other tests they finished equally but the SGS 2 had higher FPS and a higher overall score..the end..

One of the devices finished significantly faster, yet the device that didn't finish any of the tests faster scored higher. Period. If we're measuring performance, the faster device was not the one that scored higher.

Originally Posted by gTen

ummm tvs include a certain amount of pixels..you cant do 1080p if the physical pixel count isnt there..that doesnt mean you cant play 1080p content it will just be rescaled to 720p physical resolution.

If I display 720p on a 1080p TV without rescaling..and 720p on a 720p TV the processing is equal..TVs only lately have had atom chips put in..so far they have been pretty dumb machines with little/no processing power...

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance on this subject and continue to pass it off as a fact. I have an old Mitsubishi HDTV collecting dust in my garage right now that does 1080i and 480p, but does NOT do 720p. It obviously has the pixels if it can do 1080i, it obviously has the fps if it does 480p. Yet it can't do 720p. Please explain how this is possible if it does not require any additional processing power...

[gTen]

Originally Posted by BlackDynamite

One of the devices finished significantly faster, yet the device that didn't finish any of the tests faster scored higher. Period. If we're measuring performance, the faster device was not the one that scored higher.

Do you even know how quadrant works? see..this is why I say your in denial of facts..stop trying to change reality to your own liking..fact of matter is..they finished the test at SAME SPEED..only I/O was slower..but since I/O is not very important the SGS scored a higher score.

So while I would agree that the resolution had an effect on the quadrant score (for 2d and 3d scores, not cpu, I/O and memory scores)..the time it finished is irrelevant...stop trying to make something out of something that isn't there...

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance on this subject and continue to pass it off as a fact. I have an old Mitsubishi HDTV collecting dust in my garage right now that does 1080i and 480p, but does NOT do 720p. It obviously has the pixels if it can do 1080i, it obviously has the fps if it does 480p. Yet it can't do 720p. Please explain how this is possible if it does not require any additional processing power...

Must we really get into a lengthy discussion on the difference between 'p' and 'i'? but for kicks is it an LCD or an DLP?

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by gTen

Do you even know how quadrant works? see..this is why I say your in denial of facts..stop trying to change reality to your own liking..fact of matter is..they finished the test at SAME SPEED..only I/O was slower..but since I/O is not very important the SGS scored a higher score.

So while I would agree that the resolution had an effect on the quadrant score (for 2d and 3d scores, not cpu, I/O and memory scores)..the time it finished is irrelevant...stop trying to make something out of something that isn't there...

The bottom line is they started at the same time, and the Sensation was done significantly faster. For a test that is supposedly measuring performance, that should be it. Period.

Originally Posted by gTen

Must we really get into a lengthy discussion on the difference between 'p' and 'i'? but for kicks is it an LCD or an DLP?

I fully undertstand the difference between progressive and interlaced. And this is a rear projection tv.

Liek I said, the tv supports 480p just fine, so the "p" isn't a problem. It also supports 1080i just fine, so the pixels aren't a problem. If your theory is correct and there is absolutely no change in processing, then it should easily support 1080p. After all, the 1080p/24 is only 24 fps, 1080i is 30 fps. And since it does 480p, we know it doesn't have a problem with progressive.

And by the way, there are plenty of tv's out there that do 1080 but won't do 720 resolutions.

If it did not require any processing, then any 1080p tv would be able to do 3D since in the end, the 3D is running at the same 1080p or 720p resolution.

None of that matters though. Anyone who knows the first thing about resolutions will immediately tell you that it absolutely does matter if you are testing the processing power. You want a fair test- crank that Galaxy S 2 up to qhd (since you said it supports it with a kernel flash, which I doubt, but whatever) and then run that test with the devices running the same resolution.

[gTen]

Originally Posted by BlackDynamite

The bottom line is they started at the same time, and the Sensation was done significantly faster. For a test that is supposedly measuring performance, that should be it. Period.

Translation: You don't like the facts and are making an excuse. IF you time the video for each test its exactly the same except the I/O test..which taks longer due to the large rom..

I fully undertstand the difference between progressive and interlaced. And this is a rear projection tv.

Liek I said, the tv supports 480p just fine, so the "p" isn't a problem. It also supports 1080i just fine, so the pixels aren't a problem. If your theory is correct and there is absolutely no change in processing, then it should easily support 1080p. After all, the 1080p/24 is only 24 fps, 1080i is 30 fps. And since it does 480p, we know it doesn't have a problem with progressive.

And by the way, there are plenty of tv's out there that do 1080 but won't do 720 resolutions.

If it did not require any processing, then any 1080p tv would be able to do 3D since in the end, the 3D is running at the same 1080p or 720p resolution.

rear projection is dlp...

I don't even see the point of this discussion as I said earlier because rendering something at a resolution and displaying at a certain resolution are different things!

None of that matters though. Anyone who knows the first thing about resolutions will immediately tell you that it absolutely does matter if you are testing the processing power. You want a fair test- crank that Galaxy S 2 up to qhd (since you said it supports it with a kernel flash, which I doubt, but whatever) and then run that test with the devices running the same resolution.

I don't have an SGS2 to test with..either way once those benchmarks are out and if SGS2 beats the Evo 3d, will you deny the facts again just like the above quadrant thing? or actually accept it?

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by gTen

Translation: You don't like the facts and are making an excuse. IF you time the video for each test its exactly the same except the I/O test..which taks longer due to the large rom..

lol, like I said, you're a real piece of work. I point out that the Sensation finished significantly faster in a performance test, yet still scored lower. You, after arguing that the test is not valid, continue to argue why this test IS valid, and make a bunch of excuses for why this happened, and then say i'm the one making excuses. The bottom line is- the Sensation finished the quadrant bech test significantly faster than the Galaxy S 2. Period. Now you trying to justify that is not ME making excuses, but rather it is YOU making excuses as to WHY it happened.

Originally Posted by gTen

rear projection is dlp...

I don't even see the point of this discussion as I said earlier because rendering something at a resolution and displaying at a certain resolution are different things!

I know it is different. Never said otherwise. Doesn't change a thing. The bottom line is if you are testing the processing power on a device, it isn't a fair test if one is emulating a different resolution.

Originally Posted by gTen

I don't have an SGS2 to test with..either way once those benchmarks are out and if SGS2 beats the Evo 3d, will you deny the facts again just like the above quadrant thing? or actually accept it?

You are the one denying the facts here. But carry on making up your own world to live in. I'm done wasting time on you.