[DEV] CM7 Kernel performance comparisons (stock vs OC)

Search This thread

chisleu

Senior Member
Mar 7, 2011
1,042
105
Myrtle Beach SC
Thanks for the clarification. I take it you are referring to dalingrin. I think I recall the issue being addressed in a thread but I can't remember exactly what was said or where it was brought up. Do you have the threads post number by chance, since any observations on his part are worthy of serious consideration. Just hoping to learn something new here. Thanks in advance.

Web page refresh showed post by chisleu which quoted dalingrin on the io issue. If this was the post You were referring to then please ignore the above request.

I read a lot of threads on a lot of forums. Yes dalingrin was the person I was referring to, however senior madcat has put out a kernel with the offending code removed and performance is increased.

It's noticably increased if you enable animation on the app window, enable fade in on the labels, set alpha to ~50% (on the background of the app tray) and set the animation time to 1 second or so.

The old kernel just couldn't do it. It was always choppy. You could set it faster or slower and it was still choppy, even with performance on.

I installed matcat's kernel this morning and the very first thing I noticed was it was able to do it perfectly smoothly.

good times. I was wrong! I love being wrong, especially when it means my nook is now more awesome.
 

Divine_Madcat

Retired Forum Moderator
Sep 9, 2005
2,940
2,613
USA
I read a lot of threads on a lot of forums. Yes dalingrin was the person I was referring to, however senior madcat has put out a kernel with the offending code removed and performance is increased.

It's noticably increased if you enable animation on the app window, enable fade in on the labels, set alpha to ~50% (on the background of the app tray) and set the animation time to 1 second or so.

The old kernel just couldn't do it. It was always choppy. You could set it faster or slower and it was still choppy, even with performance on.

I installed matcat's kernel this morning and the very first thing I noticed was it was able to do it perfectly smoothly.

good times. I was wrong! I love being wrong, especially when it means my nook is now more awesome.

hah.. now try proving yourself wrong.. ;)

After my test, i really did think it was just quadrant. But i gave it a shot anyway, and found out i was flat out wrong, and that in this case, Quad was doing us a favor that no other bench did. I wont complain though... crow tastes good. ;)
 

vizographic

Senior Member
Feb 19, 2008
206
40
I read a lot of threads on a lot of forums. Yes dalingrin was the person I was referring to, however senior madcat has put out a kernel with the offending code removed and performance is increased.

It's noticably increased if you enable animation on the app window, enable fade in on the labels, set alpha to ~50% (on the background of the app tray) and set the animation time to 1 second or so.

The old kernel just couldn't do it. It was always choppy. You could set it faster or slower and it was still choppy, even with performance on.

I installed matcat's kernel this morning and the very first thing I noticed was it was able to do it perfectly smoothly.

good times. I was wrong! I love being wrong, especially when it means my nook is now more awesome.

Thanks for the heads up. I flashed madcats oc mod and damn if it didn't make a noticeable difference! Wow nice bump in usability. You're right about eating the the crow, though I find it kinda dry...... On the other hand, this has got to be a first on Xda; extolling the virtues of another Quad benchmark, just saying.
 

Top Liked Posts

  • There are no posts matching your filters.
  • 18
    So, for all us CM7 users, there have recently been alot of questions as to why there is such a disparity between the stock CM7 kernel, and the 1.1Ghz kernel, given both are made by the same person (dalingrin). Really, there are two questions -
    1) Why is the quadrant score different between the kernels?
    2) How does this equate to real-world use?

    To help answer #1, i went ahead and purchased a copy of Quadrant Advanced. The advanced version lets me run the bench offline (helpful at work ;)), and also shows each piece of the score (the important part, as seen in the results). this breakdown shows where the difference is.

    But to answer #2, I have to go well beyond Quadrant, and look at many different benches. I tried to find a variety of both system and 3D benches in a hope to uncover any problems anywhere. If there is a more widespread problem, it may be uncovered in other benchmarks. So, without further ado, the test system:

    CM7- nightly 27, running on eMMC
    Stock CM7 Kernel, 925Mhz, Performance Governor
    OC CM7 Kernel, 1000Mhz, Performance Governor
    OC CM7 Kernel, 1100Mhz, Performance Governor

    I kept the gov on performance, to help rule out any differences between governors. Performance runs the CPU at full speed all the time, so it keeps the benches comparable. For every CPU speed/kernel change, i rebooted the system, and ran each bench once in the order listed. And the results!


    Stock kernel
    CPU @ 925, Performance gov,

    Quadrant (First run only):
    Total: 1536
    CPU: 2504
    Mem: 1080
    I/O: 3629
    2D: 188
    3D: 278

    Linpack:
    12.078Mflops

    NenaMark:
    16.7 Fps

    Benchmark PI (https://market.android.com/details?id=gr.androiddev.BenchmarkP):
    Pi found in 1636ms

    Antutu System benchmark (https://market.android.com/details?id=com.antutu.ABenchMark):
    Total Score: 1675
    Memory: 407
    CPU Integer: 578
    CPU Float: 129
    2D Graphics: 100
    3D Graphics: 276
    Database IO: 10
    SD Card Write: 5.0 MB/s
    SD Card Read: 12.5 MB/s

    An3DBench (https://market.android.com/details?id=com.threed.jpct.bench):
    Fillrate ST/MT: 6.21/6.22 MP/s
    High object count: 27.03 Fps
    Multiple Lights: 40.19 Fps
    High polygon count: 19.97 Fps
    Keyframe animation: 39.97 Fps
    Game level: 30.04 Fps
    Total score: 4278


    3/16 Overclock Kernel

    CPU @1000Mhz, Performance gov

    Quadrant (First run only):
    Total: 960
    CPU: 2693
    Mem: 1099
    I/O: 522
    2D: 202
    3D: 286

    Linpack:
    12.983Mflops

    NenaMark:
    17.0 Fps

    Benchmark PI:
    Pi found in 1627ms

    Antutu System benchmark :
    Total Score: 1832
    Memory: 445
    CPU Integer: 631
    CPU Float: 144
    2D Graphics: 109
    3D Graphics: 302
    Database IO: 20
    SD Card Write: 5.8 MB/s
    SD Card Read: 12.3 MB/s

    An3DBench:
    Fillrate ST/MT: 6.23/6.19 MP/sec
    High object count: 30.46 fps
    Multiple Lights: 39.96 fps
    High polygon count: 20.16 fps
    Keyframe animation: 40.40 fps
    Game level: 30.43 fps
    Total score: 4397



    CPU @1100Mhz, Performance gov
    Quadrant (First run only):
    Total: 1001
    CPU: 2833
    Mem: 1085
    I/O: 566
    2D: 213
    3D: 306

    Linpack:
    MFlops: 13.917

    NenaMark:
    16.8 Fps

    Benchmark PI:
    Pi found in 1460

    Antutu System benchmark:
    **Would not run at 1100**
    Total Score:
    Memory:
    CPU Integer:
    CPU Float:
    2D Graphics:
    3D Graphics:
    Database IO:
    SD Card Write:
    SD Card Read:

    An3DBench :
    Fillrate ST/MT: 5.89/6.01
    High object count: 17.53 fps
    Multiple Lights: 40.22 fps
    High polygon count: 20.13 fps
    Keyframe animation: 40.37 fps
    Game level: 30.44
    Total score: 4054

    The results speak alot, i think, and yet they don't. The big difference, is that the IO score on Quadrant tanks on the OC kernel, but is fine/better on every other test. Specifically, i noticed that file system writes takes much longer on the OC kernel, than the stock. 3D performance makes obvious gains with increasing clock speed, and other CPU / IO benches show no problem either.

    The antutu bench failing at 1.1 is very odd, since my system has never shown any instability at this speed. It crashes almost immediately , where are 1.0Ghz makes it through just fine. Could it be my system is instable? Possibly...
    just for the heck of it, i set the gov to interactive, and here is what i got (1100Mhz, OC kernel, Interactive Gov):

    Antutu System benchmark:
    Total Score: 1089
    Memory: 481
    CPU Integer: 701
    CPU Float: 154
    2D Graphics: 101
    3D Graphics: 209
    Database IO: 10
    SD Card Write: 4.9 MB/s
    SD Card Read: 10.4 MB/s

    who knows....

    Thus, I am left with this question: Is the Quadrant bench testing an IO function that no other bench i tried is, or is it testing something in a way no other bench does, and just doesn't like this kernel? Obivously, SOMETHING is going on, becuase the problem is measurable and repeatable. The kernel change showing the problem alludes to a possible issue, but other benches say that the likelyhood of noticing it is minimal.

    That said, our device isn't the only one that seems like it has a problem with IO scores: http://androidforums.com/samsung-captivate/136969-quadrant-scores.html

    Hopefully, this is a starting point for people, and might even help a dev or two pinpoint what might be happening. I am no expert, but am willing to help where i can.
    17
    Data Formatting

    Thanks for the bench scores. Hopefully its a starting point to understand the issue.

    Here is a better looking version of your numbers :

    bench.png