adreno-driver-842.8 vs Qualcomm Technologies Inc. Adreno Vulkan Driver
On Adreno (TM) 750 (OnePlus 13R, OnePlus 13R, Redmi K70 Pro, Samsung Galaxy S24, Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra, Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra, Samsung Galaxy Z Flip6, Samsung Galaxy Z Fold6, Samsung Galaxy Z Fold6, ZTE REDMAGIC 9). The first driver named is compared against the second, which is the baseline.
StockQualcomm Technologies Inc. Adreno Vulkan DriverDriver Build: a0053eb399, I31b05c049d, 1766398679
vsCustomadreno-driver-842.8Driver Build: f6b5df5188, I29aebc4401, 1758283784
Graphics system version (Vulkan)1.3.128 to ?
Optional features (extensions)132 to ?not checked on both
Features that pass their check (validated)not tested on bothadreno-driver-842.8: no driver check yet
Speed test scenes (benchmark)5 faster 0 slower28% faster overall (geometric mean)
- compute_nbody13% faster
- hdr_2160p26% faster
- oit_linked_lists40% faster
- pipeline_barriers_2160p27% faster
- subpasses_2160p36% faster
Custom driver against stock, per scene. Bars to the right are faster, to the left slower.
Small areas of the picture differ from the stock driver in 2 scenes (pipeline_barriers: 1313 of 2304 cells, pipeline_barriers_2160p: 1333 of 2304 cells). The picture matches overall, so this is a local rendering fault, not a different scene.
Qualcomm Technologies Inc. Adreno Vulkan Driver details adreno-driver-842.8 details
Feature checks that differ
adreno-driver-842.8: no driver check (validation report) yet. Both drivers need a driver check before their feature checks can be compared.
Speed test scenes (benchmark)
The two drivers were not measured on the same set of device models. Frame times from different devices do not compare drivers, so read these numbers with that in mind.
| Scene | Stock ms | Custom ms | Difference | Starts | GPU clock, MHz | Picture vs stock |
|---|
| compute_nbody | 9.51 typical 9.29 | 8.38 typical 8.64 | 13% faster | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | ? vs 641 clock unknown | no large difference 0.0 no small difference worst 0.0 64x36 |
| hdr_2160p | 19.55 typical 19.35 | 15.54 typical 15.39 | 26% faster | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | ? vs 903 clock unknown | no large difference 0.0 no small difference worst 0.0 64x36 |
| oit_linked_lists | 26.14 typical 26.02 | 18.70 typical 18.65 | 40% faster | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | ? vs 1000 clock unknown | no large difference 0.0 no small difference worst 0.0 64x36 |
| pipeline_barriers | 2.57 typical 2.53 | 2.77 typical 2.33 | too light, see pipeline_barriers_2160p | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | ? vs 655 clock unknown | no large difference 7.1 differs in 1313 small areas worst 65.7 64x36 |
| pipeline_barriers_2160p | 8.10 typical 8.09 | 6.38 typical 6.36 | 27% faster | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | ? vs 903 clock unknown | no large difference 9.0 differs in 1333 small areas worst 69.7 64x36 |
| subpasses | 3.80 | n/a | too light, see subpasses_2160p | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | ? vs 840 clock unknown | not checked |
| subpasses_2160p | 13.43 typical 13.40 | 9.91 typical 10.09 | 36% faster | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | ? vs 935 clock unknown | not checked |
Time to draw one frame, per scene: the average (mean) frame time of the scene's best round, which is how many frames the driver delivered; lower is faster. "Typical" beside it is the median frame, which can sit well under the average when a driver's frames come in two speeds. A pair of reports made before per-round averages were recorded is compared on the median. A scene whose rounds disagree by more than 15% is left out. A scene marked "paced" was held at that mean frame time by the driver or the display queue, together with at least one other scene of the same run; its time says how the frames were spaced, not how fast the driver rendered, so it is not compared. A scene marked "too light" took under 8 ms at the standard size (1920 by 1080) on both drivers, where the screen's frame queue spaces the frames more than the chip does; its heavier run is the one compared: the row ending in _2160p is the scene drawn at 3840 by 2160, and compute_nbody_2x is that scene with twice the particles. "Faster" and "slower" describe adreno-driver-842.8 against Qualcomm Technologies Inc. Adreno Vulkan Driver. "Picture vs stock" compares one fixed frame per scene as a coarse colour grid (0 is identical, above 40 is a different picture); it finds a scene that was not drawn. Where both reports carry the finer 64x36 grid, the second figure is how many of its 2,304 cells differ by more than 4 of 255, and "worst" is the largest single cell; this is what finds a small rendering error in a picture that otherwise matches. A row marked 16x9 comes from a report made before the finer grid existed. "Starts" is how many of a scene's process starts reached a measured round. A GPU clock marked "not comparable" differed by more than 5% of the device's maximum between the two timings.
Technical differences (Vulkan)
Both drivers need a driver check (validation report) before their technical details (Vulkan) can be compared.