well? What do you guys think? I personally am GLAD to see it beating out the competition (albet it is clocked at 1.5 GHZ). I thought the new proc would be slower than others considering last years competition (although that snapdragon was still good just not for gaming). Glad to see me being wrong. Also cant WAIT to play games on it now!..just another pro for us dEVOtees...see what I did thar?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Spdy For This Useful Post:
I wonder how easy it'll be to overclock up to the 1.5 range. Apparently the Thunderbolt has a bit of extra headroom for overclocking...reportedly oced to 1.8 ghz.
This was the 1.5GHz chip; the Evo 3D will have the 1.2 GHz chip which means that its scores will be lower.
Higher resolution.
I'm pretty sure the chip is the 1.2GHz and it is OCed to 1.5GHz.
Quote:
The EVO 3D’s chipset is clocked at 1.2GHz and we didn’t really have enough time with it to run benchmarks on it. Qualcomm seems to be able to clock the thing to 1.5Ghz, though.
Given the current state of apps, there will be no big difference between the 1.2 and 1.5 in regular use. By the time the apps start to drop that start to weed out slower CPU's we'll be closer to the next Evo in 2012.
Apple has the software and apps to really show off what it can do on the iPad2 for example.
Android still lags in this regard.
On the upside, because the Evo3D hardware has outpaced apps, it should be a screamer, and be a relevant phone for at least 18 months.
Last edited by viber; April 1st, 2011 at 04:36 AM.
yes..there is something odd / wrong with this test and scoring.
iphone4 is at the bottom, but the iphone 3gs is higher...
the chart is interesting, but I dont give too much credit.
It's because that particular benchmark is running at the native resolution -- the 3GS has a low resolution screen, so it gets a sizeable speed bump. Most of the phones tested have a more comparable resolution. Point being, the Adreno 220 is definitely not going to disappoint.
While it is ocd to 1.5ghz it is still the same chip so performance scores should be similar...and the reason the 3gs is doing better than the iPhone 4 is because it is at lower resolution..I also remember the developers at Qualcomm or HTC stating that the ego 3d quo be overclockable to at LEAST 2.0ghz..they said that they wanted to "future proof " it as much as possible.
This will be worth more to me once we see the scores of products that are actually on market with everything (on both ends) properly optimized for each.
__________________
"A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than you love yourself" - Josh Billings
The problem isn't hardware, it's software, because really, Android games are awful compared to iOS games. In addition, android still lacks hardware acceleration, which is why it looks and feels laggy compared to WP7 and iOS.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to viber For This Useful Post:
Supposedly, the GPU will be 2 times stronger than the Tegra 2 to begin with, although more than likely the EVO3D will produce weaker results to the Adreno 220 tested in that picture, due to the EVO3D having a higher resolution, as well as being clocked lower at 1.2 GHz as opposed to 1.5.
Either way, it should still be fairly impressive and definitely up to snuff for the near future.
I believe the phone tested also had an 800x480 resolution, and not the 960x540 the EVO3D will have, so the score will likely drop a bit. It will still be impressive though, and notably more powerful than the Tegra 2.
Supposedly, the GPU will be 2 times stronger than the Tegra 2 to begin with, although more than likely the EVO3D will produce weaker results to the Adreno 220 tested in that picture, due to the EVO3D having a higher resolution, as well as being clocked lower at 1.2 GHz as opposed to 1.5.
Either way, it should still be fairly impressive and definitely up to snuff for the near future.
People are getting all twisted up on benchmarks, but can't seem to grasp the software isn't there to expose the differences.
Furthermore, in those benchmarks the iPhone4 scores horribly, but iOS performs buttery smooth, and it has games that look as good as anything on Playstation2, while android is stuck with Fruit Ninja
People are getting all twisted up on benchmarks, but can't seem to grasp the software isn't there to expose the differences.
Furthermore, in those benchmarks the iPhone4 scores horribly, but iOS performs buttery smooth, and it has games that look as good as anything on Playstation2, while android is stuck with Fruit Ninja
True, but Android is progressively getting better. Case in point, a game like Dungeon Defenders, out for both devices.
Now we just need our own version of Infinity Blade to take us a step further.
Though the problem is, anything based on Adreno 200 or 205 could not handle a game like that, but for reference, pretty much any Galaxy S phone should be able to handle a game like Dungeon Defenders or Infinity Blade just as well as the iPhone if not better.
The Following User Says Thank You to Android 17 For This Useful Post:
The chart having the iPhone 3GS leaps and bounds ahead of the iPhone 4 has me a bit worried... (in the sense that these charts obviously aren't everything)
haha nice one earlymon...definitely putting that in the quote book...and yes i know benchmarks arent completely accurate vs real world use...just pointing this out is all...nonetheless still excited as ever for the 3d ^^.
Surpasses your Galaxy S, as the next gen will surpass this.
I'm not sure by how much though, Adreno 220 does look faster but it has a 1.5GHz Dual core CPU backing it up in these benchmarks which won't even be in the Evo 3D, that will be clocked at 1.2GHz.
The next generation is almost upon us, SGX543MP2 and Mali 400 MP, i've seen benchmarks for both showing simalar performance.
Yes I'm aware of the Anandtech results, that was not the final verison
I say that the Evo 3D will be at about 25-35. Next to the Optimus. Even if it's lower then that, it will be fairly fast. Because the original Evo is almost at the bottom, but to me, it's fairly fast.
*Edit:
While benchmarks don't mean much in the real world, it's interesting to see (for me) anyways. Multiplying the Evo 3D's score by 1.35 to "normalize" the scores to an 800x480 display resolution, I get the following:
GLBenchmark 2.0 Egypt - 28.35fps
GLBenchmark 2.0 Pro - N/A (over the 60fps cap)
Does anyone have the numbers for these 2 benches for the Samsung GS2?
Note, the Evo 3D scores higher than the Atrix in both of these tests, but it's 2.3 vs 2.2, so I'm not sure how much of the performance advantage comes from the software.
*Edit 2
It seems that Anandtech will only be doing the review for the Sensation, and not the Evo 3D
*Edit 3
Now I really wish HTC had made the back of the Evo 3D like the Sensation's...
Last edited by ebolamonkey3; June 3rd, 2011 at 10:29 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to ebolamonkey3 For This Useful Post:
sadly no galaxy s2 benchmarks. Odd but the evo 3d was consistently a hair faster than the sensation. Last but least he noted the 3d hardware layering use a bit of power; wonder what this does for battery life under 2d.
sadly no galaxy s2 benchmarks. Odd but the evo 3d was consistently a hair faster than the sensation. Last but least he noted the 3d hardware layering use a bit of power; wonder what this does for battery life under 2d.
It does have 256mb more RAM, that probably explains the difference.
The Following User Says Thank You to ebolamonkey3 For This Useful Post:
Last but least he noted the 3d hardware layering use a bit of power; wonder what this does for battery life under 2d.
I interpreted his statement that the parallax barrier uses almost no power. "Single digit mA" means less than 10mA on a 1700+mAH battery; shouldn't be a big enough impact to explain the need for a larger battery alone. He ends with speculation that the larger battery is thus because of the WiMAX power usage.
FWIW - The Anandtech article also did the normalizing in the opposite direction: scaling from previous results about 23 fps were expected, but 21 was measured.
In the Nenamark2 example, the Sensation got 26 fps on average, so it's right in that same ballpark - whereas the SGS2 is reported at 46 fps.
Look at the big difference in variability of results, tho - that could be interesting.
Shouldn't matter unless access speed is different or the application is memory constrained (not so likely I would think).
We have no clue how much Sense junk is auto-running and waking and sleeping in the background while these "tests" went on.
More memory very well _may_ mean less management cycles stolen by Android.
Likely, it was out of the box, install the app, run it, publish the numbers. I see no caveats about configuration control in the article, only that it's a first look.
Yea I saw those benchmarks a while ago what I don't know is how optimizaed the benchmark they are running for a particular architecture. As we know optimization can easily result in a factor of 2x or 3x improvement if it means the differences of using decided hardware that is otherwise not used or reordering pipelines (I really don't know much about these processors and their architecture. I.e, are they heavily dependent on pipeline and accurate branch prediction as well as having special hardward instructions for matrix operations and similar ????)
It would be also interesting to see the results of a galaxy s2 with a tegra processor thrown into the mix. Surprise we don't see them showing up in the benchmarks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlyMon
I'll expect the SGS2 to do better in these particular benchmarks but we'll just have to see.
I base that on an interesting fps benchmark that Shocky noted elsewhere here in the forums - but it was for the Nenamark2 ... ah, here's the link:
FWIW - The Anandtech article also did the normalizing in the opposite direction: scaling from previous results about 23 fps were expected, but 21 was measured.
In the Nenamark2 example, the Sensation got 26 fps on average, so it's right in that same ballpark - whereas the SGS2 is reported at 46 fps.
Look at the big difference in variability of results, tho - that could be interesting.
At this point in the thread, I want to give the same caution I gave in the SGS2 and Sensation forums where claims of optimized or deficient benchmarks arise:
The benchmarks attempt to measure and show how hardware responds to a specific set of app calls to an OpenGL software library, usually made in some stressful way (if the benchmark is worth anything).
It's tempting to explain away unfavorable results, but in truth, if some app you need or want is coded in any way similarly to the benchmark in question, then that app is likely to run less well on your phone.
In the end, looking at all benchmarks is a good idea - but the best use of the graphics benchmarks are for app developers to choose which OpenGL calls to make to serve their audience - because there's more than one way to do about anything in graphics programming.
The way to not use the benchmarks is like results of a horse race.
There is no mystery whatsoever as to what the hardware can do. Sign a non-disclosure agreement with SoC maker as a recognized member of the hardware industry with a need to know and you can get the raw chip benchmarks straight from the horse's mouth. I absolutely promise that Qualcomm and Samsung and TI know precisely the performance of their graphics cores measured on bare metal.
At one time not long ago, they usefully published that in the open on the web. My favorite was the blog-published benchmark showing that Hummingbird could do more millions of triangles per second than Samsung measured and spec'd - by a wide margin. IOW - what the blogs reported was flatly unpossible for one particular measurement by one particular benchmark.
So - yep - it's a fine line. Look for benchmarks that exaggerate and through them out - but consider unfavorable benchmarks carefully because you might get an unfavorable app some day.
This whole rant goes back to my common claim - benchmarks have to correlate to the real world - and that ain't easy when you think about it.
Anyways - I promise if I had the answers, I'd tell you.
Last edited by EarlyMon; June 3rd, 2011 at 12:04 PM.
Yea but in a way you didn't answer. What you said is true; but conversely the only thing required to improve the global graphics performance when using openGL is improve the openGL implementation for the device. So a converse question would be (and what we (or I) sort of want to know is how close are the results for the various devices with the NenMarks to what the devices are capable. It might very well be that the drivers are better optimized on the sensation/evo3d and the galaxy s2 is capable of doing significantly better
So do you know much about the raw hardware architecture that you can share (i.e, not under NDA) and how much room exist for improvement ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlyMon
At this point in the thread, I want to give the same caution I gave in the SGS2 and Sensation forums where claims of optimized or deficient benchmarks arise:
The benchmarks attempt to measure and show how hardware responds to a specific set of app calls to an OpenGL software library, usually made in some stressful way (if the benchmark is worth anything).
It's tempting to explain away unfavorable results, but in truth, if some app you need or want is coded in any way similarly to the benchmark in question, then that app is likely to run less well on your phone.
In the end, looking at all benchmarks is a good idea - but the best use of the graphics benchmarks are for app developers to choose which OpenGL calls to make to serve their audience - because there's more than one way to do about anything in graphics programming.
The way to not use the benchmarks is like results of a horse race.
There is no mystery whatsoever as to what the hardware can do. Sign a non-disclosure agreement with SoC maker as a recognized member of the hardware industry with a need to know and you can get the raw chip benchmarks straight from the horse's mouth. I absolutely promise that Qualcomm and Samsung and TI know precisely the performance of their graphics cores measured on bare metal.
At one time not long ago, they usefully published that in the open on the web. My favorite was the blog-published benchmark showing that Hummingbird could do more millions of triangles per second than Samsung measured and spec'd - by a wide margin. IOW - what the blogs reported was flatly unpossible for one particular measurement by one particular benchmark.
So - yep - it's a fine line. Look for benchmarks that exaggerate and through them out - but consider unfavorable benchmarks carefully because you might get an unfavorable app some day.
This whole rant goes back to my common claim - benchmarks have to correlate to the real world - and that ain't easy when you think about it.
Anyways - I promise if I had the answers, I'd tell you.
The Following User Says Thank You to you2 For This Useful Post:
Yea but in a way you didn't answer. What you said is true; but conversely the only thing required to improve the global graphics performance when using openGL is improve the openGL implementation for the device. So a converse question would be (and what we (or I) sort of want to know is how close are the results for the various devices with the NenMarks to what the devices are capable. It might very well be that the drivers are better optimized on the sensation/evo3d and the galaxy s2 is capable of doing significantly better
Exactly true on all points - in the end, it all comes down to final integration, because you don't run an SoC.
We run apps inside the Dalvik Virtual Machine that call underlying Linux services that thread through the kernel (and drivers/infrastructure code) that interfaces with a lot of important silicon on the motherboard (including the SoC) as well as the touchscreen display.
Any number of chip choices, board layouts, other hardware integrations and then - finally - kernel/infrastructure code could make or break letting the capabilities of the SoC shine through.
Quote:
So do you know much about the raw hardware architecture that you can share (i.e, not under NDA) and how much room exist for improvement ?
I post SoC teardowns, functional block diagrams, manufacturer data sheets, and insider analyses wherever and whenever I find them on the open web. One of our members here is a handset maker and he commented often that I had published more data here than he was seeing anywhere else, and in many cases, even before he saw it through his means.
Sadly, even some of the links I published last year are dead now, with no replacements. Have no doubt - if they slip up and open the doors just a crack, I'll have it first, and you'll have it next.
I'm not some great insider with all of the answers, but I do know a few and I do my best to share what I can.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
Well the entire point of my post and question is that while evo3d is 1/2 the speed of the galaxy s2 for rendering; the software is very new for both platforms. It sounds like from your comment we have no clue if things will get better or are as good as they are going to get when updates to the software arrive for either platform (i.e, if huge room for improvements exist using the andriod/opengl layering). That's really all I'm trying to ask. It could very well be that the evo3d layer is highly optimized and there is very small room for improvement and the galaxy s2 is highly unoptimized and will show significant improvement as revisions are pushed to the device. Right ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlyMon
Exactly true on all points - in the end, it all comes down to final integration, because you don't run an SoC.
We run apps inside the Dalvik Virtual Machine that call underlying Linux services that thread through the kernel (and drivers/infrastructure code) that interfaces with a lot of important silicon on the motherboard (including the SoC) as well as the touchscreen display.
Any number of chip choices, board layouts, other hardware integrations and then - finally - kernel/infrastructure code could make or break letting the capabilities of the SoC shine through.
I post SoC teardowns, functional block diagrams, manufacturer data sheets, and insider analyses wherever and whenever I find them on the open web. One of our members here is a handset maker and he commented often that I had published more data here than he was seeing anywhere else, and in many cases, even before he saw it through his means.
Sadly, even some of the links I published last year are dead now, with no replacements. Have no doubt - if they slip up and open the doors just a crack, I'll have it first, and you'll have it next.
I'm not some great insider with all of the answers, but I do know a few and I do my best to share what I can.
We run apps inside the Dalvik Virtual Machine that call underlying Linux services that thread through the kernel (and drivers/infrastructure code) that interfaces with a lot of important silicon on the motherboard (including the SoC) as well as the touchscreen display.
Small point: this benchmark, along with most non trivial 3D games, are not running through the Dalvik VM. They are running through the NDK which is as close as you can get to "coding on the metal" in Android.
Well the entire point of my post and question is that while evo3d is 1/2 the speed of the galaxy s2 for rendering; the software is very new for both platforms. It sounds like from your comment we have no clue if things will get better or are as good as they are going to get when updates to the software arrive for either platform (i.e, if huge room for improvements exist using the andriod/opengl layering). That's really all I'm trying to ask. It could very well be that the evo3d layer is highly optimized and there is very small room for improvement and the galaxy s2 is highly unoptimized and will show significant improvement as revisions are pushed to the device. Right ?
Yeah, I get it now - I wasn't trying to be evasive. I was perhaps unclear on questions before.
Quote:
Right?
Almost.
My point of view -
Yes, only time will tell if the 3vo is as good as it gets as to be delivered. The Qualcomm development platform for the 8660 suggests strongly there's still room for some improvement compared to the HTC delivery, maybe as much as around 10% at the present clock speed.
Until more benchmarks are in, we won't know if the 3vo is 1/2 rendering speed of SGS2. So far, we believe the SGS2 is faster by some possibly significant amount.
HTCs tend come out of the box sluggish until properly configured by the user.
Independent kernel devs usually improve performance of any of the great phones, therefore establishing the history that neither the HTC nor Samsung kernels are likely performance optimized - if anything, we expect them to be over-cautiously designed and verified for stability as the prime directive. Note: kernel changes can make huge performance differences without changing voltages or clock speeds, and more if you add those in. We have no idea, the true upper-bound clocking rates for either device yet.
The tug of war with OpenGL and the makers gpu preferences will never end and usually only improve - only Swammi knows if those changes are on the near horizon or if the maker/carriers will be involved for any updates on any of those components. My expectation again, because both maker claim to adhere to unlocked bootloaders, is that higher-performance roms will also come from the independent dev communities for both the SGS2 and 3vo.
Unless we know that game apps will need these potential OpenGL changes, I'd care more about the right kernel and user configurations than anything like that.
I am not a hardcore gamer but I do know that hardcore gamers complain at rates below 90 fps on PCs, so I don't know the true expectation for hardcore gamers on phones.
I guess I focused before on more of a different direction - everyone that touches either device is reporting great results regardless of benchmarks, except for that one naggingly-bad browser showing on the Sensation compared to the SGS2.
FWIW - one UK owner of a well-running Desire HD (kinda like a Thunderbolt) with Gingerbread noted his new Sensation ran like the previous phone, just a little bit smoother overall. Note again, the DHD running full Sense 2, while the Sensation pulled that off running full Sense 3.
Am I helping and answering or still babbling?? Please feedback.
The Following User Says Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
I think the bottom line is only time will tell. As for games well my limit is somewhere between 24 and 30 fps; but there is a lot more than games. browsing is usually limited by javascript/flash/transfer speed as well as some complex rendering and is very subjective to layering; but video dependent on encoding can be rather cpu intensive so a fast device can help there (and I do use these devices for vod). Anyways I guess I should try to dig around for some architecture description if i care about that stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlyMon
Yeah, I get it now - I wasn't trying to be evasive. I was perhaps unclear on questions before.
Almost.
My point of view -
Yes, only time will tell if the 3vo is as good as it gets as to be delivered. The Qualcomm development platform for the 8660 suggests strongly there's still room for some improvement compared to the HTC delivery, maybe as much as around 10% at the present clock speed.
Until more benchmarks are in, we won't know if the 3vo is 1/2 rendering speed of SGS2. So far, we believe the SGS2 is faster by some possibly significant amount.
HTCs tend come out of the box sluggish until properly configured by the user.
Independent kernel devs usually improve performance of any of the great phones, therefore establishing the history that neither the HTC nor Samsung kernels are likely performance optimized - if anything, we expect them to be over-cautiously designed and verified for stability as the prime directive. Note: kernel changes can make huge performance differences without changing voltages or clock speeds, and more if you add those in. We have no idea, the true upper-bound clocking rates for either device yet.
The tug of war with OpenGL and the makers gpu preferences will never end and usually only improve - only Swammi knows if those changes are on the near horizon or if the maker/carriers will be involved for any updates on any of those components. My expectation again, because both maker claim to adhere to unlocked bootloaders, is that higher-performance roms will also come from the independent dev communities for both the SGS2 and 3vo.
Unless we know that game apps will need these potential OpenGL changes, I'd care more about the right kernel and user configurations than anything like that.
I am not a hardcore gamer but I do know that hardcore gamers complain at rates below 90 fps on PCs, so I don't know the true expectation for hardcore gamers on phones.
I guess I focused before on more of a different direction - everyone that touches either device is reporting great results regardless of benchmarks, except for that one naggingly-bad browser showing on the Sensation compared to the SGS2.
FWIW - one UK owner of a well-running Desire HD (kinda like a Thunderbolt) with Gingerbread noted his new Sensation ran like the previous phone, just a little bit smoother overall. Note again, the DHD running full Sense 2, while the Sensation pulled that off running full Sense 3.
Am I helping and answering or still babbling?? Please feedback.
1) Device being tested is running on at a higher clock than the Evo 3D -- 1.5 Ghz versus 1.2 (everyone knows this)
2) Device being tested is running at a lower resolution than the Evo 3D -- WideVGA 800x480 instead of qHD 960x540.
The only question is if there have been any further hardware or software optimizations since the development of the MDP, but with the OMAP 4430/SGX 540, Tegra 2, and 1GHz Hummingbird doing as well as they do, it looks like the Evo 3D will only be as fast or slightly faster.
Sprint continues their EVO line of Android Phones with what is certainly a first for them - a 3D phone. The HTC EVO 3D boasts 3D technology on a beautiful 4.3-inch screen and get this: you don't even need glasses to enjoy the 3D experience!
B... Read More
GL benchmarks of the 3D's Processor...
