8eGen5-849 vs adreno-driver-842.8
On Adreno (TM) 750 (LENOVO TB321FU, OnePlus 13R, OnePlus 13R, Redmi K70 Pro, Samsung Galaxy S24, 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.
Stockadreno-driver-842.8Driver Build: f6b5df5188, I29aebc4401, 1758283784
vsCustom8eGen5-849Driver Build: 11e73fe00c, I4ff0bacd4f, 1710154332
Graphics system version (Vulkan)? to ?
Optional features (extensions)? to ?not checked on both
Features that pass their check (validated)not tested on bothadreno-driver-842.8 and 8eGen5-849: no driver check yet
Speed test scenes (benchmark)2 faster 2 slower11% slower overall (geometric mean)
- compute_nbody3% faster
- oit_linked_lists27% slower
- pipeline_barriers13% faster
- subpasses_2160p26% slower
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.
Did not start every time: hdr_2160p (stock 3 of 3, custom 2 of 3).
Not on equal terms: the GPU clock differed during 3 of these scenes (for example compute_nbody: stock at 64% of the device's maximum, custom at 90%). Part of the frame-time difference comes from the clock the device chose, not from the driver.
adreno-driver-842.8 details 8eGen5-849 details
Feature checks that differ
adreno-driver-842.8 and 8eGen5-849: no driver check (validation report) yet. Both drivers need a driver check before their feature checks can be compared.
Speed test scenes (benchmark)
| Scene | adreno-driver-842.8 ms | 8eGen5-849 ms | Difference | Starts | GPU clock, MHz | Picture vs stock |
|---|
| compute_nbody | 8.38 typical 8.64 | 8.12 typical 8.33 | 3% faster | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | 641 vs 612 not comparable | no large difference 0.0 no small difference worst 0.0 64x36 |
| hdr_2160p | 15.54 typical 15.39 | n/a | only one side | 3 of 3 vs 2 of 3 | 903 vs 680 | no large difference 0.0 no small difference worst 0.0 64x36 |
| oit_linked_lists | 18.70 typical 18.65 | 25.51 typical 25.46 | 27% slower | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | 1000 vs 680 | no large difference 0.0 no small difference worst 0.0 64x36 |
| pipeline_barriers | 2.77 typical 2.33 | 2.45 typical 2.45 | 13% faster | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | 655 vs 680 not comparable | no large difference 7.1 differs in 1313 small areas worst 65.7 64x36 |
| pipeline_barriers_2160p | 6.36 | n/a | only one side | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | 903 vs 680 | no large difference 9.0 differs in 1333 small areas worst 69.7 64x36 |
| subpasses | n/a | 3.80 | too light, see subpasses_2160p | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | 840 vs 605 | not checked |
| subpasses_2160p | 9.91 typical 10.09 | 13.41 typical 13.41 | 26% slower | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | 935 vs 680 not comparable | 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 8eGen5-849 against adreno-driver-842.8. "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.