Why does WM6 run slower than WM5?

[vlodeck]

Hello, everyone here say that WM6 is much faster than original WM5 rom. I for one have managed to flash every shipped WM6 rom and what can I say: molski AKU 3.3 WM5 is BY FAR the fastest rom! Why is that?

I've encountered many issues connected with using wm6, like: softkey lag (it takes almost 1 sec. for wizard to proceed the softkey. The screen rotation is also slow.

Can anyone tell me what is wrong?

[anichillus]

Hello, everyone here say that WM6 is much faster than original WM5 rom. I for one have managed to flash every shipped WM6 rom and what can I say: molski AKU 3.3 WM5 is BY FAR the fastest rom! Why is that?

I've encountered many issues connected with using wm6, like: softkey lag (it takes almost 1 sec. for wizard to proceed the softkey. The screen rotation is also slow.

Can anyone tell me what is wrong?

When you find out, let me know ;)

I managed to "beat" the TMobile 2.26 in benchmark. System speed is similar, but still not the same thing.

[epimazzo]

What WM6 ROm version did you actually use to compare and how did you compare?:o

Lots of people here are now using WM6 including myself and I really don't see any issues regarding performance when you compare to WM5.

So, I suggest you to play little more specially with these recently ones like X-plore 1.1, read the benchmarks and see the difference. :cool:




Hello, everyone here say that WM6 is much faster than original WM5 rom. I for one have managed to flash every shipped WM6 rom and what can I say: molski AKU 3.3 WM5 is BY FAR the fastest rom! Why is that?

I've encountered many issues connected with using wm6, like: softkey lag (it takes almost 1 sec. for wizard to proceed the softkey. The screen rotation is also slow.

Can anyone tell me what is wrong?

[bbobeckyj]

Hello, everyone here say that WM6 is much faster than original WM5 rom. I for one have managed to flash every shipped WM6 rom and what can I say: molski AKU 3.3 WM5 is BY FAR the fastest rom! Why is that?

I've encountered many issues connected with using wm6, like: softkey lag (it takes almost 1 sec. for wizard to proceed the softkey. The screen rotation is also slow.

Can anyone tell me what is wrong?

I thought Molski's 3.3 aku was snail paced, 2.3 aku is by far the fastest. superrom1.1 with NO overclocking is faster than every other rom with overclocking! ymmv

[vlodeck]

Man, I've tried EVERY rom, starting from UNDERGROUND, through MB, and ending on Xplore 1.1

Each rom has the same issue, softkey lag, and slow screen rotation. Maybe it is faster in TCPMP or in whatsoever. Nevertheless, comparing to Molski WM5 or even T-mobile 2.26 - WM5 is much faster !

[papamopps]

When talking of speed why don´t we share sktools benchmarks with and without overclocking to each ROM without any software. Just after hardreset, tweaks, and sktools.

Let´s start to compare??

[papamopps]

BTW the overclocking speed that TCPMP shows is more specific than to compare batterystatus vs. omapclock.

Btw. after anichillus will be ready with Xplore 2.0 this discussion will end - because I believe him to create the fastest.

[cuboosh]

yea xplore 2.0 will be the tits

[edhaas]

It would be a neat thing to compare all these roms. One added complexity is that many of the custom roms are by default overclocked, so they would need to be manually throttled down for the comparison to be fair. (For example, supperrom 1.1 is by default overclocked to 252 mhz, Molski's has both smartskey and battery status installed, but I don't remember the default settings.) In addition, filecache and sd cache settings can greatly affect reported sd read speeds. Also, I'm not sure how the benchmarks compare with "real world" speed, but its the best we have for now.

Have fun!

[papamopps]

1. Xplore 1.1 (taken from thread) 195Mhz (BS)

2. XPlore 2.0 (early stadium) (taken from thread) 195mhz

[edhaas]

Poppamops, a favor...

Since you're running the new x-plore, could you check the following registry values?

HKLM>Drivers>SDCARD>ClientDrivers>Class>MMC_Class:
BlockTransferSize

HKLM>Drivers>SDCARD>ClientDrivers>Class>SDMemory_C lass:
BlockTransferSize

HKLM>System>StorageManager>FATFS:
CacheSize

HKLM>System>StorageManager>Filters>freplxfilt:
ReplStoreCacheSize

I've found these tweaks will increase the reported SD read rate greatly.

Thanks,

[deviusdragger]

Well i think farias wm6 (the real thing) is working awesome and it is so much faster than my mda with wm5. Especially the soft keys and especially the message buttons and internet explorer button on top of the phones. So i highly recommend this rom. And i think you may have a bunk wm6 rom. switch it up to one of the newer ones and you'll see a difference

[anichillus]

Well i think farias wm6 (the real thing) is working awesome and it is so much faster than my mda with wm5. Especially the soft keys and especially the message buttons and internet explorer button on top of the phones. So i highly recommend this rom. And i think you may have a bunk wm6 rom. switch it up to one of the newer ones and you'll see a difference


At your clock speed no wonder it's going fast.
You'll burn your wizard if you keep it at 299 ...be carefull.

[deviusdragger]

Well i am running Farias rom on my other 8125. I have 2 8125's and 1 MDA. On the one with farias rom it is only overclocked to 260. thats it. Havent really tried anything higher and really dont need to. ITs pretty fast. And Anichillus i have heard some real good stuff about your rom. seriously i had to ponder about which WM6 rom to use. EIther yours or Farias. Its just farias had a couple of programs already included that i needed. But on my next 8125 i will be running Xplore 2. So im looking forward to that one.

[vlodeck]

299mhz at BatteryStatus is only about 260+mhz in real.

[deviusdragger]

Yeah i think it was about 270 something. somewhere around there

[papamopps]

Yeah i think it was about 270 something. somewhere around there

Also good for comparing clockspeed is tcpmp. It shows clockspeed

[anichillus]

Guys , the BatteryStatus shows the right speed !

Other don't ! How can you trust a program with your CPU if it doesn't even show you right speed ?


How do I know that ? Well , just read clock speed with omap or any other just after flash...it should be 195MHz on a stoc rom ... then contradict me.

[vlodeck]

I think you're wrong anichillus. We may have 195 mhz omap processor, it runs on 170 mhz in windows though. It is a hardware but software trick.

[anichillus]

I think you're wrong anichillus. We may have 195 mhz omap processor, it runs on 170 mhz in windows though. It is a hardware but software trick.

Can you share something to support that ? Or it's just an affirmation ?

[bbobeckyj]

Can you share something to support that ? Or it's just an affirmation ?

check the original release thread, the difference is explained on this (http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=270751&page=3) page. meschle confirmed using sktools that BS is correct.

[QuadDamage]

Guys , the BatteryStatus shows the right speed !

Other don't ! How can you trust a program with your CPU if it doesn't even show you right speed ?


How do I know that ? Well , just read clock speed with omap or any other just after flash...it should be 195MHz on a stoc rom ... then contradict me.

No actually BatteryStatus is way off. Apply 273Mhz is BT and open OmapClock (standalone) and you will see it's only at 240Mhz. Besides, my Wizard could only do 240Mhz max how come i'm able to run stable 273Mhz now with BatteryStatus... well cos actually it's only at 240Mhz.
Unless OmackClock was actaully showing lower that actual frequency but i doubt that.

[anichillus]

I said that BS is correct.
It's nonsense to think otherwise.
You didn't proved anything else. It's easy, neither OmapClock, nor TCMP don't show a real speed, hack they don't even show same speed from what I know.
Who is the producer of OmapClock ?
I had an Motorola MPX200, on that one, it showed the right speed...on that one only.

I don't have time right now to read an 100+ pages thread for this thing.
Install CPU Scaler and see all the references there ...divider, multiplyer..all

[jwzg]

I said that BS is correct.
It's nonsense to think otherwise.


There's the quote of the day!

Seriously, if they'd get the program out of BETA (which it seems like its been in forever), I'd use it.

Anichillus, using the same base ROM, the SK tools benchmark tests show my ROM to be significantly faster than your's in read and write speeds on main memory using omapclockplus. I've tested both at stock speeds and at set 264 mhz. Set at 276 mhz, my device will lock up, which leads me to believe it's running at least 10-15 mhz higher than stated. I'll try to post the results after a while, but I'd be surprised if BS was wrong.

That being said I'm pretty sure there's no difference in the ROM settings. There's only so much tweaking one can do.

For anyone who comes in on the rear end of this conversation, this is not a my ROM is faster than yours post. This is simply about using two different programs for overclocking.

[QuadDamage]

I said that BS is correct.
It's nonsense to think otherwise.
You didn't proved anything else. It's easy, neither OmapClock, nor TCMP don't show a real speed, hack they don't even show same speed from what I know.
Who is the producer of OmapClock ?
I had an Motorola MPX200, on that one, it showed the right speed...on that one only.

I don't have time right now to read an 100+ pages thread for this thing.
Install CPU Scaler and see all the references there ...divider, multiplyer..all
And you got a proof for that i presume? How come OmapClock, TCPMP and some other proggies show 240 and only BS shows "correct" speed? Are you saying BS reprts correct battery drainage and cpu load as well?

[anichillus]

There's the quote of the day!

Seriously, if they'd get the program out of BETA (which it seems like its been in forever), I'd use it.

Anichillus, using the same base ROM, the SK tools benchmark tests show my ROM to be significantly faster than your's in read and write speeds on main memory using omapclockplus. I've tested both at stock speeds and at set 264 mhz. Set at 276 mhz, my device will lock up, which leads me to believe it's running at least 10-15 mhz higher than stated. I'll try to post the results after a while, but I'd be surprised if BS was wrong.

That being said I'm pretty sure there's no difference in the ROM settings. There's only so much tweaking one can do.

For anyone who comes in on the rear end of this conversation, this is not a my ROM is faster than yours post. This is simply about using two different programs for overclocking.

Man, with what program you have tested ? That's really important.
Also ..main memory speed can differ by hardware limitations and usage...

Just to let you know , with Omapclock mine Wizard doesn't work over 264MHz, that's as much as it can...that means 286 MHz in BatteryStatus

[jwzg]

Man, with what program you have tested ? That's really important.
Also ..main memory speed can differ by hardware limitations and usage...

Just to let you know , with Omapclock mine Wizard doesn't work over 264MHz, that's as much as it can...that means 286 MHz in BatteryStatus

Sk Tools.. the same as you.

Like I say, I think that BS is probably more accurate, but without a third software to compare it to, we're just chasing rabbits.

[anichillus]

And you got a proof for that i presume? How come OmapClock, TCPMP and some other proggies show 240 and only BS shows "correct" speed? Are you saying BS reprts correct battery drainage and cpu load as well?

TCMP and OmapClock don't show same speed OmapClock = 180 / TCMP = 170 REAL = 195... am I missing something ? And what other proggies ?
This started to enoy me, so I'll just drop it.
Then, who am I to say that HTC doesn't lie when they say the CPU's speed is 195 MHz...of course it isn't, it's 133MHz :rolleyes:
Sk Tools.. the same as you.

Like I say, I think that BS is probably more accurate, but without a third software to compare it to, we're just chasing rabbits.
Sorry, I meant with what program you have overclocked

[jwzg]

TCMP and OmapClock don't show same speed OmapClock = 180 / TCMP = 170 REAL = 195... am I missing something ? And what other proggies ?
This started to enoy me, so I'll just drop it.
Then, who am I to say that HTC doesn't lie when they say the CPU's speed is 195 MHz...of course it isn't, it's 133MHz :rolleyes:

Sorry, I meant with what program you have overclocked

omapclockplus

[QuadDamage]

TCMP and OmapClock don't show same speed OmapClock = 180 / TCMP = 170 REAL = 195... am I missing something ? And what other proggies ?
This started to enoy me, so I'll just drop it.
Then, who am I to say that HTC doesn't lie when they say the CPU's speed is 195 MHz...of course it isn't, it's 133MHz :rolleyes:

Sorry, I meant with what program you have overclocked


Whatever floats your boat, pal. Only one clock multiplier/clock divider can be correct. And if TI OMAP850 uses standard clock multiplier * front side bus formula ie 10x19.5 = 195mhz HTC isn't lying - they're just slightly inacurate. But that happens also with desktop cpu's Intel and AMD.