|
2012-04-06
, 22:33
|
Posts: 1,539 |
Thanked: 1,604 times |
Joined on Oct 2011
@ With my N9
|
#122
|
You mean in what circumstances rebooted ? It was a completely random reboot , I just unlocked the phone and slided the menu down when suddenly the phone freezed and after 10 seconds rebooted .
|
2012-04-06
, 22:41
|
Posts: 617 |
Thanked: 338 times |
Joined on Mar 2011
|
#123
|
|
2012-04-07
, 05:53
|
Posts: 1,269 |
Thanked: 3,961 times |
Joined on May 2011
@ Brazil
|
#124
|
... running at 1.3ghz ... it seems to be pointless because there's no improvements in the smoothness of the UI .
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to rcolistete For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2012-04-07
, 07:54
|
Guest |
Posts: n/a |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on
|
#125
|
I confirm that the overclocking is very real and worth using (in some cases). Here I run a C calculation (for mu0 of type Ia supernovae in cosmology) with 100 thousand numerical integrals using double precision :
Nokia-N9% mu0_dp.o
1000 MHz : 28.438446 s
1100 MHz : 25.801086 s (1,1022 x)
1200 MHz : 23.743835 s (1,1977 x)
1300 MHz : 21.913544 s (1,2978 x)
1400 MHz : - (reboot)
As we can see above, the speed up is approx. the expected value.
So, with N9 @ 1,2 GHz (for example) we really get it 20% faster for running CPU intensive tasks.
Comparing with my N900 with and without OC (OverClocking) :
600 MHz : 54.061523 s
850 MHz : 39.386322 s
900 MHz : 35.555176 s
950 MHz : 33.086578 s
1000 MHz : 31.480408 s
1100 MHz : 28.668640 s
1150 MHz : - (reboot)
And my Nokia N810 : 400 MHz : 450.490479 s. Maybe gcc is well optimized @ Maemo 4.
A Intel Core i7 930, 4 cores @ 1,60-2,80 GHz, 8MB cache, running Linux 64 bits : 1.847429 s (single core calculation).
Conclusions :
- N9 @ 1.0 GHz is 90% faster than N900 @ 600 MHz, greater than 66.67% expected by clock only;
- N9 @ 1.0 GHz is 11% faster than N900 @ 1.0 GHz OC;
- N9 @ 1.0 GHz has the same speed of N900 @ 1.1 GHz OC;
- N9 @ 1.3 GHz OC is 31% faster than N900 @ 1.1 GHz OC, both at maximum OC for my N9 & N900;
- N9 @ 1.0 GHz is 14.8x faster than N810;
- N900 @ 600 MHz is 7.3x faster than N810;
- Core i7 930 is 14.4x faster than N9 @ 1.0 GHz, 28.3x faster than N900 @ 600 MHz, 243x faster than N810.
|
2012-04-07
, 08:13
|
Posts: 85 |
Thanked: 383 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
@ Hong Kong
|
#126
|
Despite I carefully followed your instructions nothing seems so happens when i click on the icons...
From icons: overclock not reflected in conky But if I overclock from bash, then I can overclock (1.1>1.2) from the icons.
From Bash, launching the scripts(/opt/overclock/*) : overclock OK
Edit:
Creamy goodness confirmed (see below) that downclock is impossible with the last version.
|
2012-04-07
, 09:44
|
Posts: 617 |
Thanked: 338 times |
Joined on Mar 2011
|
#127
|
I confirm that the overclocking is very real and worth using (in some cases). Here I run a C calculation (for mu0 of type Ia supernovae in cosmology) with 100 thousand numerical integrals using double precision :
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dragoss91 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2012-04-07
, 15:17
|
Posts: 1,269 |
Thanked: 3,961 times |
Joined on May 2011
@ Brazil
|
#128
|
I didn't say OC is useless at all , I was talking about UI only . Can you give us this benchmark please ? Is pretty usefull .
|
2012-04-07
, 19:33
|
Posts: 110 |
Thanked: 62 times |
Joined on Mar 2012
|
#129
|
|
2012-04-08
, 22:52
|
|
Moderator |
Posts: 7,109 |
Thanked: 8,820 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Vancouver, BC, Canada
|
#130
|
tried it on open mode kernel, works, did not use aegisctl or opensh, just devel-su
N9 and N900 , the beauty and the beast