[Galaxy S II Original Android Development] tryerxda:
Great news!

Thanks for your contributions.

Short Version of this Post: On my phone, a selection of benchmarking apps give scores indicating SlimJB is 2% faster than SlimICS.

====================================================

Long Version of this post:

So I bit the bullet, and installed JB in dualboot, along side with SlimICS 4.2

(If you want to see how you can set up Dualboot yourself, check out: http://xdaforums.com/showpost.php?p=26730445&postcount=1 )

My First impressions are that SlimJB is very fluid. After initial setup, have had no problems. (Apart from the standard ones, camera, etc)

I havent had time to do any extensive testing, but I have run some benchmarks, so I can have an idea of differences (if any) between the two roms, running on MY phone.

I know that no amount of benchmarking can account for real world usage, everybodies mileage varies, everybodies phone is different, some benchmarking apps havent yet been tweaked for JB's CPU usage (because of the higher UI priority), and that the answer to the universe is 42.

I'm just posting this info here in case someone is curious about this.

I'm not telling anyone to use SlimICS, SlimJB or to DualBoot their phones.

My Current setup is:

Made full backup in CWM, also backed up EFS, copied up to PC

1st boot slot: SlimICS 4.2 + common, after wiping EVERYTHING. Kernel: Siyah 4.0.1

2nd boot slot: SlimJB 2.1 + common, after wiping 2nd rom data/cache.

Upon first boot in both roms, I only installed the benchmarking apps from the apk's I have on my ExternalSD, and made sure stuff like rotation, etc were all disabled, and that airplane mode was enabled.

I rebooted the phone before each benchmark, and waited 2 minutes before unlocking the phone and running the app. I noted the results, closed the app, ran it again, and averaged the two scores, rounding to closest integer.

I did this first for SlimICS, then for JB.

Since both roms are "stock" with no changes, I am using standard as-is configurations.

RESULTS:

Quadrant Standard 2.1.1:

ICS: Total-3283; CPU-5637; Mem-2116; I/O-6145; 2D-606; 3d-1912

JB: Total-2108; CPU-3514; Mem-1257; I/O-3898; 2D-330; 3d-1539

ICS=100% /// JB=64%

CF-Bench 1.2:

ICS: Overall Score-5925; Java Score-3061; Native Score-10221

JB: Overall Score-5123; Java Score-2451; Native Score-9131

ICS=100% /// JB=86%

GLBenchmark 2.5:

ICS: Fill Test-358915328; Egypt Classic-6703 frames, 59fps

JB: Fill Test-365721504; Egypt Classic-6732 frames, 60fps

ICS=100% /// JB=102%

RealPi, to 10.000.000 digits:

ICS: 745 secs

JB: 741secs

ICS=100% /// JB=101%

Antutu 2.9.1:

ICS: Total-5393; CPU-2372; RAM-936; GPU-1481; I/O-602

JB: Total-5499; CPU-2642; RAM-1035; GPU-1462; I/O-360

ICS=100% /// JB=102%

Averaging all the percentage differences gives an overall score of SlimICS=100%, SlimJB=91%

Although, I do know that Antutu, Realpi and GLBenchmark have actually taken into account the CPU differences in JB, I will only regard those results as final, which gives SlimICS=100%, SlimJB=102%

And now I'll be testing other stuff over the next week or two. I'll only report back if I find something that really bugs me.

Keep up the good work, guys!!!