Sorry everything you said is wrong. During idle it doesnt matter if its 10mhz or 10000000mhz so there I just rulled out one of the preconceived ideas.
During usage on screen on you'll see your cpu ramping up to max freq a lot more if you have 350mhz, which doesnt happen with 700mhz (several times tested by me). There another preconceived **** rulled out.
With 700 you'll finish your crap faster which will make your cpu to be halted faster and enters idle a lot faster. We call that race-to-idle. Another point rulled out.
There you go, against facts theres no denial.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Franco, you're entitled to your opinions just as I am. If it's ramping up so much then why does CPU Spy show 350mhz is getting hit much more? My graphs indicate 350mhz is getting hit the most followed by 700, then 1000 (I have my range set to 350 -1000). In fact, 1000 barely gets hit at all for what I'm doing with my device. You may be right about getting threads done quicker, but at idle if I'm reading through Google Reader or any book for the matter the cpu, and I'm guessing, will probably sit at 350mhz thus drawing less current on the battery. If your theories hold true Franco, then why not eliminate the 700mhz step and go straight up to 1000mhz - at this freq. it barely requires much more current from the battery.
Like I said, this can be argued forever - no one has tangible proof. Franco, if you do, please show us.
Also, these settings can't be intended to work for everyone for best results since everyone uses their device differently (different applications, etc).
What I don't get is if at 700mhz you save more battery because of TTI vs lower clock speed why would TI, Samsung & Google set it to 350mhz?
Certainly a very interesting topic! In order to avoid the warnings from moderators & to stay on topic as to the development of the kernel here, I started a thread in General; please drop in to discuss.
Franco, you're entitled to your opinions just as I am. If it's ramping up so much then why does CPU Spy show 350mhz is getting hit much more? My graphs indicate 350mhz is getting hit the most followed by 700, then 1000 (I have my range set to 350 -1000). In fact, 1000 barely gets hit at all for what I'm doing with my device. You may be right about getting threads done quicker, but at idle if I'm reading through Google Reader or any book for the matter the cpu, and I'm guessing, will probably sit at 350mhz thus drawing less current on the battery. If your theories hold true Franco, then why not eliminate the 700mhz step and go straight up to 1000mhz - at this freq. it barely requires much more current from the battery.
Like I said, this can be argued forever - no one has tangible proof. Franco, if you do, please show us.
Also, these settings can't be intended to work for everyone for best results since everyone uses their device differently (different applications, etc).
However, if you put any trust in Quadrant scores you could use them to prove that dancing naked for 5 minutes in your garden affects device performance. By Chainfire
However, if you put any trust in Quadrant scores you could use them to prove that dancing naked for 5 minutes in your garden affects device performance. By Chainfire
Sorry everything you said is wrong. During idle it doesnt matter if its 10mhz or 10000000mhz so there I just rulled out one of the preconceived ideas.
During usage on screen on you'll see your cpu ramping up to max freq a lot more if you have 350mhz, which doesnt happen with 700mhz (several times tested by me). There another preconceived **** rulled out.
With 700 you'll finish your crap faster which will make your cpu to be halted faster and enters idle a lot faster. We call that race-to-idle. Another point rulled out.
Franco, you just disproved your theories by posting that link. See above ^^.
Those tests aren't conclusive enough though in all honesty to argue your point, besides the one above.
guys I have finally discovered that if you go past around 75% volume when outputting audio through the auxiliary/headphones such as music, audio clipping will occur in the high volume range where it seems to reroute the audio back to the speakerphone or simply just pauses the music and resumes again and then pauses over and over.. but this is basically due to audio clipping.
I dont know if this is due to the volume hack that was put into this kernel, but i never had this problem before, so it's 99% not hardware related.
please can others test out this issue on their phones.
NOTE: this must be audio out of the auxiliary cable/headphones outlet.
(75% is approximate, it's about 4-5 clicks down from max volume when this problem disappears, and no more audio clipping)
PHONE: Nexus 4 CM10.1 OTHER MEDIA DEVICE: Nexus Q - CM10.1 KERNEL: ---
XDA Developer TV Producer Kevin wants to help make your … more
XDA Developers was founded by developers, for developers. It is now a valuable resource for people who want to make the most of their mobile devices, from customizing the look and feel to adding new functionality. Are you a developer?
Introducing XDA:DevCon – A Conference For Developers By Developers
>
[KERNEL] [GPL][GN] franco.Kernel r378 -> 4.2.2 | r364 -> 4.2 | r300 -> 4.1
Print
Email
View Profile
View Forum Posts
.gif "Germany - O2 (Viag Interkom)")
.gif "Portugal - Vodafone (Telecel)")
Follow on Twitter
Follow on Google+
View GitHub profile
Linear Mode
