Lets all benchmark our XDA (MDA etc) . . . .
Then lets see how we can make them quicker!
Options:
- Registry Hacks?
- Overclocking Software?
- Etc . . . .
Surely somebody here has to be thinking along the same lines as me?
After all if you use something a lot, you want it better....
Can we clock this baby to 300Mhz + . . . .
MADmanFREE
:twisted:
I'm fairly certain anything over around 225-230 would exceed the refresh time for the memory and cause a hard reset. If it is even possible to manipulate the clock in the XDA by software.
Can someone explain
There is a large community devoted to overclocking. I have to ask why.
Is it really worth compromising the stability (and possibly integrity) of the hardware just for a few extra percent of speed?
These chips were designed to run at a certain speed (with a small margin to maintain stability). These chip designers know what they're on about, why do so many people think they know better?
I have to admit, i used to overclock my 486's, and it caused me so much trouble. Also a large high street retailer I worked for at the time used to overclock PC's and sell them as a higher spec - the amount of support calls we used to get!!!
By all means, if you want to try it, do so, but I have no problem with the speed of my phone.
Interesting so far.
Will have to get a poll going.
Just to see how much installing the extra software slows these things down...
MmF
JS's ipaqclock works, but i do not recommend oveclocking....
Related
Ok so how in the world are these people getting such a high overclock? I've been doing some research and I just cant figure it out.
Check this link: http://www.greenecomputing.com/apps/linpack/linpack-by-device/ and scroll down to the eris section. There is one guy in there who actually pulled off a 864MHz Overclock. I know thats a hard thing to do because the highest I've ever got was 760MHz and that lasted like 30 seconds before my Eris just gave up. I've accedintly put my phone in the 800MHz range and it just froze instantly. So far the highest stable range has been 748MHz.
Does anybody now something I dont? Is there a trick to getting that high of an overclock with the Eris?
From what I understand, there's a range in the stable clock cycle range that any chip/processor can run at. When the Eris was built, the "sweet spot" (stable) speed was apparently 528MHz (although this certainly could have been selected for marketing purposes too).
Most, but not all, Erii can run safely at 710MHz and be stable. However, we have seen instances where folks have installed ROMs that were overclocked to 710MHz as a default and their phones would not complete booting-up.
Others have indeed "pushed the envelope" by running in the high 700s and even in the high- to mid-800s as you've reported. However, there is usually a cost associated with doing this in terms of decreased life-span of your CPU. That being said, there are some members that have reported having a stable phone running 800MHz or higher. Your mileage will vary, as you have seen -- it really depends on your phone.
Cheers!
I can run 806 just fine, but most of the time I just choose to run at 767 or even 748, mainly because I don't need *that* much speed versus the larger battery drain at such high speeds.
Flashing GB has recently given me the ability to OC to 806, haven't tried any further.
Well, there are two things going on.
The first is that your phone hardware is like any other macroscopic object in the universe - they have variable characteristics. Go to the store and look carefully at the apples they have for sale - pick a given variety, and you'll notice that every one of them is just slightly different from the next.
If you were to zoom in and have a look with a good microscope at the transistors in your processor chip - you would first notice that: (a) there are millions of them!, and (b) they all look very similar, but are not exactly identical. That's just the nature of things - the manufacturing processes have some amount of (hopefully well controlled) variations.
But, when it comes to computer chips executing software instructions, we definitely want them to all behave identically. So, what to do? The answer is, run them all at a sufficiently low enough speed (and a large enough voltage) that the small natural variations from transistor to transistor never make a difference in how the outputs from those transistors are interpreted.
You've heard the expression "timing is everything", yes? Nowhere does this expression apply better than in computer chip design. I'll use a stupid analogy to illustrate how this works.
Suppose you had a marching band ... not like the ordinary kind, but instead, a band full of morons. So stupid, in fact, that you teach them to play songs like this:
"You nearest two neighbors will hand you a note just before each beat of the kettle drum, and you will decide based on those notes what note to play yourself after you hear the next kettle drum beat - and then you will hand that note to your neighbor".
In this analogy, each (transistor) logic gate in the chip is a moron band member, and the kettle drum is like the system clock.
Well, each moron (transistor logic gate) in the band will need to take some time to decide what note to play next. And it is plainly obvious, that if the moron's neighbors (other morons/gates) don't hand their notes off by the time the kettle drum beats, the wrong decision will be made. Chip designers call this "setup time".
Also, since we presume that the band members are morons, they actually need to some amount of time to stare at the notes from their neighbors to make up their mind - sometimes so slowly that the beat of the kettle drum has already been heard some time ago before they make up their mind. If the neighbor moron band members were to "yank their notes away too quickly", the receiving moron band member (logic gate) might again make the wrong decision. Chip designers call second sort of timing measurement "hold time".
So, this is a very simplistic view of chip design: the designer needs to make sure that the inputs (notes) to every gate (moron band members) arrives well enough ahead of the clock (kettle drum beat), and stay stable for a short period of time after the clock (kettle drum) beat. And they also have to consider how slowly each gate (moron) can "make up his mind" - because of course, that introduces delay in passing off information to other gates (morons) at the next beat of the clock (drum).
If you followed this analogy closely, the question might have also occurred to you, "what happens if the morons in the band don't all hear the kettle drum beat at precisely the same time?" In the analogy to chip design, this is the problem of clock distribution - because at each moron (gate), the decisions are made when they individually hear the kettle drum (clock) beat. So, there could be some major trouble if a moron (gate) was supposed to receive notes (signals) from other morons (gates) that were hearing the kettle drum (clock) either much to early, or much too late, compared to their neighbors.
Now, marching bands are only a little bit like this, especially since we said in our example that only nearby neighbor morons (gates) were involved; but in chip design, both clocks and signals may need to be passed great distances away, not just to nearest neighbors.
A major part of chip design revolves around exactly these concepts: trying to compute exactly what the "setup", "hold", and "delay" time min/max values are for millions and millions of gate and signal paths in the chip, and also knowing exactly how long it will take for the signals and clocks to travel from their source to destination(s).
If only a single one of the millions of morons (gates) gets this wrong, the whole song is ruined.
So, it should be clear that if you run the system clock really, really slowly, you generally won't bump in to any setup or delay hazards (hold is a little trickier, but we can ignore that). The clock beats so slowly that signals have plenty of time to reach their destinations, and also the amount of delay through each gate is negligible compared to the long amounts of time that using a slow clock grants you.
But as you increase the clock faster and faster, you start shaving away available time for signals to get to their destinations, and come closer and closer to one of these hazards - a "setup" or "hold" violation. Not only that, but the delays across the chip - which are negligible for a slow clock - start to become really important.
Now, I spent a lot of words up there to illustrate something: the timing problem only very weakly depends what software is running on the phone, it is a function of the hardware alone. You can't "install some software" to make this problem go away. Your microprocessor will run flawlessly up until a certain clock speed, and then disaster!.
And that disaster could be the fault of a single transistor out of tens of millions - generally, a transistor which for some reason, is "weaker" than most of it's neighbors - or it has to push a signal through a line which is oddly more resistive than it should be - and therefore slower.
The second thing to be aware of is that these benchmarks are being run on a multitasking operating system - if you run them 5 times in a row, you will see that you get a different benchmark value each time you run them - because other activities on the phone and the kernel's scheduler conspired to give your benchmark app slightly less or slightly more total attention during the elapsed (wall) clock time of the benchmark.
So, since that website records the "best of the best" - make sure you run your benchmark twenty to fifty times, see if you can diddle the oom_adj value of your process while it is running, and delete all other applications from your phone so that it is the only thing running.
To illustrate that there's no "magic" going on here, I'll give you a concrete example. Two days ago I ran that Linpack app on my Eris. Here's what I did:
OS: GSB v1.2
min cpu = 748 Mhz
max cpu = 748 Mhz
governor = performance
JIT on
killed off most idle apps
And I got linpack scores that varied from 4.8 to 5.1 over two or three runs.
Now, let's compare (the best of) those results to the ones reported in the Benchmark results, but scaled to a different frequency:
(844 Mhz / 748 Mhz) * 5.1 = 5.75
Note that this is plenty close the the value reported at 844 Mhz.
If you want to convince yourself that your phone is fine, set the cpu speed min=max = whatever. Then run the benchmark a couple of times, and compare your result
(844 Mhz / whatever ) * your_best_result
And you will see that your phone is no "different" than the best Eris out there - except that it can't run at 844 Mhz. That latter part is just the luck of the draw.
bftb0
Not all CPUs are created equal. Some are stable at higher frequencies than others. This because many of the steps in CPU production rely on chemical processes. Doping, silicon wafer growth, electroplating, etc. Manufacturers use a technique called CPU binning to help them sort out the better chips.
Where I learned this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/514-intel-cpu-processor-core-i7.html
@bftb0...that was beautiful...
If you're going to try higher rates, leave logcat running and watch for errors.
I love that analogy. Mostly because it's fun to make fun of morons, and the more the better!
bftb0, could I have your permission to repost that (up through "and therefore slower.") on FaceBook? I will note before the quote that this applies to any kind of computing device, but I wouldn't change anything you said. I would, of course, also give a linked credit to you, this thread, and XDA.
I was going to ask you in a PM, so I didn't put you on the spot in public, but you must have used to get way too many PMs since you disabled that.
I won't be offended if you say no, just thought I'd ask.
Actually most of those are faked.
There used to be 1ghz scores for the eris. They're quite easy to fake. While some phones can get quite high due to the way CPUs are processed... the linpack website is incredibly easy to fool.
roirraW "edor" ehT said:
could I have your permission to repost that (up through "and therefore slower.") on FaceBook? I will note before the quote that this applies to any kind of computing device, but I wouldn't change anything you said. I would, of course, also give a linked credit to you, this thread, and XDA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure.
+10char
bftb0 said:
Sure.
+10char
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
bftb0, I never took the time back then to say thank you for your explanation. I'd like to do that now. Thank you. Obviously I know more about Android and the phones its installed on now. I have a better understanding of this subject and others you have helped with.
Also I haven't seen you around lately. I certainty hope your ok and hope to see you around again.
DINC|CM7|INCREDIKERNEL
I see him all the time. Well I don't actually see him but I do benefit a lot from his advise and insites. Also I've been able to run my Eris at 787mhz without issues but as a norm run at 710mhz.
I'm curious about the state of fine tuned overclocking on the note.
Of course, we have Da G's OC Kernel, and a couple roms.
But i've never been so unlucky when it comes to receiving some free performance via overclocking.
I've been blessed with a solid piece of silicon on my transformer and my desktop setups.
I find that even at 1.72ghz, i FC every 20-25 minutes or so. Just enough to make me want to avoid OCing it.
At 1.78 it's worse, and although i've heard that the majority of users have no issues at 1.83 ghz, i crash hard at that settings--within a quarter-minute of applying it.
I've tried different governors, and had more luck with smartassv2. I have a feeling that i just received a mediocre piece of silicon.
I only have a couple options-- i've had other issues with my note--namely the buttons; soft keys, as well as hard, and display brightness--unfortunately im just past my 30 days to return the note, so i'd have to replace it through Black-Tie Protection....i have no idea how this even works.
The other option is to bump up the voltages, but in SetCPU, there are no options, and CPU Master is the same. The only app I've found that even lists voltage options is System Tuner Pro, and while i'm not fond of the UI, i could deal with it.
Edit:
It turns out, bumping up the voltages @ 1.83ghz to 1375mV seems like it buys me a few seconds more before i crash and burn, but this could be a placebo affect.
So, the pupose of this thread is two-fold:
A: Find out if voltage adjustment is a function of the app, and a logic board component.
B: Find out if voltage adjustment must be supported at the kenel and/or ROM level in order to function, and the settings i'm changing are just dummy settings without said support.
2.
A: Find out how much variation on overclocking yield is standard.
B: Poll and share the results.
it is non sense having a poll for that because although we have the same device, still they are not the same if u know what i mean. stop overclocking if it crashes unless you want your phone to die, or just get it replaced with another one and see if it works fine. 1 question, why you need to oc?
This thread is for discussing overclocking methods, settings, support, and to answer my questions about the above listed specificity.
The poll is meant to survey our (us @ the LTE Galaxy Note forums on XDA) sample (albeit, a small one) to find out where our numbers fall. Unless we have a volunteer to read the thread every day, and report back on how many users are stable @ the clock speeds listed above, a poll is the most efficient, concise, objective, and standardized method to gather such information via forum.
Us non-cyborgs (organic humans) just don't do well when it comes to looking at a ton of numbers and extrapolating 411 from 'em over, and over, and over again.
What do benchmarks actually measure? I always make allkinds of tests to the phones i have just for fun and to compare to others i have understood that a bigger score is always better..?
Benchmark test with antutu shows for me
10372
I have a s3 16gb and using the latest stock ics..
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
CPU tests i guess is based on really long loops and depends on time that loop take you get result. RAM tests I think write big file direct to memory and depend of time get you speed of RAM memory in MBps or GBps...
On Antutu I have about 14,9K-15K with Paranoid and Siayah kernel. On Quadrant i have about 5,7K
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
e-peen.
Seriously, different benchmarks measure different types of system performance by subjecting different elements of the device to different stress and performance tests. CPU calculstions, frames per second, javascript performance - they're genuinely useful in some situations, such as for devs to test out different approaches and ideas to see if one works fundamentally better than the other, and if done properly it can be useful to compare raw performance of one device to another, but they've cottoned on in the wider community because some people like to benchmark their phones and post those benchmarks proudly.
It's all a bit ridiculous, especially if - indeed - they don't know what they're benchmarking, or they're using out of date and largely useless benchmarks like quadrsnt, or they're just doing it for the bragging rights. It's relatively easy to push your phone and have it score well in assorted benchmarking tools if you really want to, it's just unlikely to be genuinely useful in that state - for example, setting the CPU governor to 'performance' had the effect of boosting it up to the highest available clock speed, and of raping your battery life. These are mobile devixes, not gaming PCs, and are designed to operate accordingly.
Personally, I ignore people's benchmark posts, because if they're posting benchmarks they're either brsgging, complaining about something absurd - "Your kernel doesn't perform as well as someone else's when in this unrealistic benchmarking scenario! It may best optimised for daily use, but now I can't hold my precious benchmarking score above everyone else's heads!" or "This new software update sucks because I don't get as high as score in Wankermark Extreme! [twenty sad faces]."
Hope that helps.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
onslaught86 said:
e-peen.
Seriously, different benchmarks measure different types of system performance by subjecting different elements of the device to different stress and performance tests. CPU calculstions, frames per second, javascript performance - they're genuinely useful in some situations, such as for devs to test out different approaches and ideas to see if one works fundamentally better than the other, and if done properly it can be useful to compare raw performance of one device to another, but they've cottoned on in the wider community because some people like to benchmark their phones and post those benchmarks proudly.
It's all a bit ridiculous, especially if - indeed - they don't know what they're benchmarking, or they're using out of date and largely useless benchmarks like quadrsnt, or they're just doing it for the bragging rights. It's relatively easy to push your phone and have it score well in assorted benchmarking tools if you really want to, it's just unlikely to be genuinely useful in that state - for example, setting the CPU governor to 'performance' had the effect of boosting it up to the highest available clock speed, and of raping your battery life. These are mobile devixes, not gaming PCs, and are designed to operate accordingly.
Personally, I ignore people's benchmark posts, because if they're posting benchmarks they're either brsgging, complaining about something absurd - "Your kernel doesn't perform as well as someone else's when in this unrealistic benchmarking scenario! It may best optimised for daily use, but now I can't hold my precious benchmarking score above everyone else's heads!" or "This new software update sucks because I don't get as high as score in Wankermark Extreme! [twenty sad faces]."
Hope that helps.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
200% agree but it wont stop the what is your quadrant score posts .
jje
it wont stop the what is your quadrant score posts .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Anyone good with Photoshop? Create a graph that reads 999'999'999'999'999'999 for your phone of choice and paste it under other people's claim.
It's neither more useful nor more useless than what they do
Benchmarks can be useful for yourself to check very basic performance before and after making changes (rom, kernel etc)
Sent via TCP/IP
gsw5700 said:
Benchmarks can be useful for yourself to check very basic performance before and after making changes (rom, kernel etc)
Sent via TCP/IP
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Possible but run ten benchmarks one after the other and you get different results .
But as a method of a basic test to see if firmware has brought something extra to your phone yes .
Two areas of concern for users are always one use how the phone responds scrolls etc and that's subjective .Two is battery life and none of these benchmarks actually run a standard test that could be used to give a basic battery consumption figure over say a two hour period . But even that's not a good indicator of individuals battery usage .
jje
Hello I own the Samsung Vibrant for two years now and even though I was a bit reluctant to overclock the phone at first as new phones were coming out in the market and its (Vibrant's) performance deficit was becoming all the more significant (in comparison to newer phones) I "succumbed to the temptation". At first by a little margin (no more than 20% overclock) but eventually -as I was seeing my phone to be capable for it- for even greater ones. There was a time that I was using my phone at 50% over-the-stock clocks.... those were the days
Eventually -it seemed- as if it somehow starting becoming less and less capable holding the clocks so I started lowering my clock thresholds eventually killing the overclock altogether. Mind you the grand total of the time(s) that I had my phone overclocked (up until then) was not that great...
But then ICS came out with all its fancy tools and the "temptation" overcame me again and as if from a miracle I was able to maintain 50% overclocks like the good ole days (1512Mhz to be exact). To be sure -that time around- that that is a stable clock I devised a slew of different test from extensive software decoding, to 3D and CPU rendering. My phone was rock solid. To address the battery issue I bought an extended battery and all was well in "Vibrant-Ville"...
To my dismay though even though my phone seemed rock solid I seemingly starting losing my overclocking capacity (once again) as I migrated into Jelly Bean, so I said to myself "oh no, no, I'm not going through this again, I'd choose a moderate overclock and I'll leave at that". So I disabled Live-OC, custom voltages, hell even deleted NSTools and used the standard 1.2GHz setting, my battery was better, my phone was rock solid once again and thanks to jelly bean my phone was still fast enough...
Two days ago -though- the ghosts of the past reared their ugly head once again, out of the blue my phone lost its stability. Anytime I was trying to do anything remotely complex and it would reboot (BTW I'm using Helly-Bean right now, using the "Smooth" setting, Smartass governor @ 1.2ghz, pretty standard stuff).
I love this phone but I feel it's nearing its death-bed, what's your opinion guys?
I'll prolly remove the oc altogether but I fear it won't be enough, I fear that instability would start encroaching the 1ghz setting as well one of the days and then it would be game over. I want to avoid this fate at all costs, so anything you could recommend I would try, even changing my rom.
Also to those who used overclocks in the long term what was your own experience?
Thanks for your attention
No response(s)?
Sorry for the bump but I take it none of you guys ever have/had any of the problems I'm describing. Hmm, that means that I was unlucky with my piece of hardware it seems... pity :/
More than likely an aging chip is the case. Personally my phone runs smooth at 1GHz, so I don't see the need to unnecessarily overwork the CPU. After reading your original post, one line stuck out to me in particular. You mentioned that you ran the CPU at 150% for a time, and to me that sets off a red flag. Setting the CPU at 1.5GHz is risky and can cause some major wear on the CPU. Not to say I've never overclocked that high, but I usually only set it that high when playing a high graphics game. Even then, 1.5GHz is not recommended if you wish to use your device long-term. Even 1.4GHz is considerably pushing it. Although our devices can handle it, eventually, they're going to tire out. Now some phones may be able to last longer than others, it depends on the amount of iron in the sand used to make the silicon processors or other minuscule things could play a role. Essentially, it's random. No two chips will be exactly identical nor run exactly the same. So in your case, that may be the case. Perhaps your device really is nearing the its end. Considering that your phone was made to last only a few years at stock speeds, you should still be pleased with how long it's lasted. However, it is understandable if you're upset with this. The only thing I can suggest is to not overclock anymore and to try and keep its temperature low. Perhaps try undervolting? But if you want your phone to last, don't overclock (if your phone's processor is already starting to fail at 1.2GHz, when it used to run rock solid at 1.4 or 1.5GHz, then you definitely need to stop overclocking entirely). More than likely you won't hear other Vibrant users discuss similar problems because they've already moved on to new devices, before the long-term effects of high overclocking began to take its toll. But if you do a little research, you'll find other users on other devices having similar problems to what you are having.
Wish you the best in your efforts, and hopefully you'll get a year or two more out of the device... Hopefully someone will come forward with a better recommendation/solution to your problem. Since I pretty much stated what you probably already knew.
I'm not for overclocking, nor have i overclocked my vibrant.
With that being said, i have never had any performance issues, and I'm having difficulty recalling any issues with stability either..
I hope you treat your new phone with more respect..
I'm sure it will live you much longer for it.
Sent from my amazingly stable SGH-T959 using SlimICS
Well, I was trying to tweak the CPU frequencies, but they always seemed to be overrite. To put the numbers into perspective, let's say I changed the max frequency to 787 MHz. If I start switching between apps, I'll see the max frequency ramp up to 1.44 GHz and then back. I tried changing input_boost_ms to 0 but didn't work.
My guess is that there's a daemon running somewhere. Any ideas?
Thanks
Here's my advice. Don't play around with these things. In this day in age there is simply no need to play with frequencies and whatnot. Gone are the days where oem's couldn't make a decent kernel. It is ridiculous to see how many people seem to think they're an expert on kernel's and uc/uv etc. There is a reason that the frequencies are set and certified by google before release. You're not going to gain anything by touching them. Our phone's are so powerful there simply is no need to waste time potentially damaging your device.
markbencze said:
Here's my advice. Don't play around with these things. In this day in age there is simply no need to play with frequencies and whatnot. Gone are the days where oem's couldn't make a decent kernel. It is ridiculous to see how many people seem to think they're an expert on kernel's and uc/uv etc. There is a reason that the frequencies are set and certified by google before release. You're not going to gain anything by touching them. Our phone's are so powerful there simply is no need to waste time potentially damaging your device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey, but what's the fun in that XD
Personally, most of the time I'm more tolerant to trading off performance for battery juice, which isn't everyone wants, so it's not really reflected in the stock parameters. Sure, in terms of raw performance/battery ratio, my preferences would probably be lower, but in terms of utility, it's a whole different story.
Do whatever you want. I really couldn't care less. I gave you advice when you asked. It is clear you lack experience yet think you're clever enough to mess with cpu frequencies and in the end you will gain absolutely nothing. so have at it. I've seen many inexperienced people cry for help when they fry their phones from doing things they think they understand.