Database Develop

Is it true that the Kaiser processor is dual-core?

I'm pretty sure I saw that on the side of the box at an AT&T store (it was far from me behind the counter though), but I've have never heard this about this phone before. Is the performance increase over the Tytn very noticeable to this effect?

stpete111 said:
I'm pretty sure I saw that on the side of the box at an AT&T store (it was far from me behind the counter though), but I've have never heard this about this phone before. Is the performance increase over the Tytn very noticeable to this effect?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's nothing on the device, the HTC box or the Internets that leads me to believe that that's true.
I just saw a news.com story a couple of days ago (cant find the link though) about dual-core devices.
There's no noticible speed increas on the Kaiser.
Also, see this:http://www.pocketnow.com/index.php?a=portal_detail&t=news&id=4554
s

Nope, but there are seperate CPU's the 2nd one runs the radio. Doesn't help WM6 speed, mabe it unloads it a little.

The side of the box DOES say dual core
I would scan the side of the box "Att White label reads ...400 mhz dual core processor..."but i dont need to prove it, do the research...even though it is prob. a marketing scheme!

shaharprish said:
There's nothing on the device, the HTC box or the Internets that leads me to believe that that's true.
I just saw a news.com story a couple of days ago (cant find the link though) about dual-core devices.
There's no noticible speed increas on the Kaiser.
Also, see this:http://www.pocketnow.com/index.php?a=portal_detail&t=news&id=4554
s
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Regarding speed, you say there's no noticable speed increase on the Kaiser. I'd disagree there, the first and most enduring thing I have noticed is a speed increase (untweaked) compared with a heavily tweaked (for max speed) Hermes. That said though, that increase is not across the board in all applications.
Regarding whether it's dual core or not - well it just depends what you mean. Not perhaps dual core as we might normally think of it but rather a double processor function with seperate handling of some functions. That has advantages and dedicates processing to specific functions. In any case of course dual core is a much over hyped concept and for example a quad core can still be slower than a double or single processor. Much of this whole idea about cores is misleading and panders to those unenlihghtened folk who assume that the more cores you have the faster things will be. Very crudely put would you rather a dual 100 mhz core processor or a single 400mhz processor?
Mike

Its got one processor for PDA function and another for 3g... which actually means worse battery consumption... I heard HTC etc are working on a combined processor
And to answer the poster above, it actually depends what jobs I was asking the device to do...

unwired4 said:
And to answer the poster above, it actually depends what jobs I was asking the device to do...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly, a wise answer.
Mike

There's a lot of talk about this subject, and from an architecture standpoint it depends on how you define "dual core". In modern terms, it means two processors with identical functions packaged together. However, that's only true of the last couple of years.
Back in the days of the 386, a separate processor was required to do floating point math. This co-processor (the FPU) was built into the die of the 486 chip. In the days of the Pentium Pro, the cache chip and its supporting logic was on-die, then removed in the Pentium II, then re-integrated in the Pentium III. The Athlon64 chip took the memory controller, formerly in a separate chip, and put it on-die to increase performance. The next generation Intel mobile processors will have an integrated GPU chip in the CPU (and AMD/Cyrix did the same several years ago). In the strictest definition, all of these are "systems on a chip" (SoCs) and are "multi-core" processors, as they take the functionality of two chips ("cores"), and integrate them into one.
The question is, when does a processor that can accelerate multiple functions simultanesously stop being "multi-core" and start being a processor that has a function built in?
The Quallcomm 7200 and 7500 SoCs have several "co-processors" built in. There's one for graphics, one for GPS, one for the radio, etc. Saying it's "multi-core" by modern standards is a stretch, but it does indeed have dedicated processor acceleration for various processor tasks. It's more in line with how some of the above examples work than "true" multi-processing like a Core Duo or Athlon X2 work, but it's there.

He's right, the side of the Tilt box says "QUALCOMM(r) Dual Core 400 Mhz Processor"
Pretty misleading. 2nd core doesn't operate at 400 Mhz, either (290-something, I think)
DLD

well I can say that coming from a wizard (200 mhz) ran everything to my kaiser (260 or 290 for the phone and 400 for everything else) its an incredible diference. on the wizard hit the hang up button 20-30 times LITERALLY and then it wil finally disconnect hit the hang up botton on the kaiser no mater what ur running it disconnects instantly. and I know its definitely capable of running games much quicker than my my wizard. also keep in mind the wizard was overclocked 252 with every tweak and the kaiser is stock.

A good discusion, if you look at Intel's roadmap they are heading in the direction of having 'core acceleration'. Theye are designing seperate cores for different tasks, so if you want a sql server you would have a core that's dedicated to windows, one dedicated to storage, and one that's dedicated to sql... or something like that...
But hey when you have 80cores in a processor you can specialise them I suppose.

Yeah, finally picked up the Tilt yesterday and what I thought I saw is what I definitely saw, as confirmed by exzist and RacerX earlier in the thread. Definitely an interesting discussion as to what that really does mean.

!Diamond and GPU!

Hi, so, after about 3.5 months of researching HTC Diamond, does anybody know what is with Diamond GPU? Some info? Like how many VRAM has it? I read somewhre that Diamond has 16MB VRAM, on other site that Diamond has 64 MB VRAM. And the second, why is Diamond GPU so "bad"? theoretically, it must be fast, but games like Quake can run only about 4 FPS, while VGA Dell Axim x50v, about 4 years old PPC can run it about 25 FPS? Yes, I know, Axim has 2700G from Intel, BUT, 7201A chipset is brand new, so I dont believe that its GPU is so bad.

do those older PPC games run on a GPU? or right off of the phones CPU?
I remember when I ran rocket elite on my easio e125 it ran wonderfully. I think that had a mips 150mhz in it. On my next device, the toshiba e330 with a 208mhz cpu it ran WAY worse. Maybe it was the ram, or cpu, I dont know, but I know some of the games written for older devices seem to run terribly on the newer ones.

Hmm, one example - Quake 3 - Diamond 0-4 FPS, Axim x50v 25-30 FPS - technology - open GL ES. Diamond should have Open GL ES 1.1 HW Accelerated.

Xperia X1 CPU vs Omnia i900 CPU

hello
Xperia X1 has a Qualcomm MSM7200 528MHz processor and Omnia i900 has a 624MHz Marvell PXA312 processor , now the question is :
Xperia cpu has the top speed or Omnia Cpu ???
please answer with full detail and full info !!!
thanks

ofcource omnia has a faster cpu

xperia in my opinion is suffering from not optimal firmware..
however i have seen a video online about xperia vs touch pro when switching landscape to port. , xperia wins..
what do u intend to use the phone for most impt.

CPU speed has nothing to do with actual performance, there are many variables there like RAM, video processor and many other things.
so if you want to know which is better between the two by comparing the CPU, then i think you are heading the wrong way.

samy.3660 said:
ofcource omnia has a faster cpu
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks but i need full details !!!

May i know why my Quake 3 only running 1fps on my xperia?

mcbyte_it said:
CPU speed has nothing to do with actual performance, there are many variables there like RAM, video processor and many other things.
so if you want to know which is better between the two by comparing the CPU, then i think you are heading the wrong way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you right !!!
i want to now xperia x1 has top speed and top performance or Omnia i900 !!!
xperia have 256mb ram and omnia have 128mb ram !!!

I also got an Fujitsu Siemens n560 with xscale 624MHz (pxa 27* i think) and its twice as fast as xperia playing vga avi.
If i compare the time they need to open /windows for example, the xperia is faster.
The qualcomm is made to run with extra graphics chip i think and is slow if it has to draw something itself.

Der_Immitanz_konverter said:
I also got an Fujitsu Siemens n560 with xscale 624MHz (pxa 27* i think) and its twice as fast as xperia playing vga avi.
If i compare the time they need to open /windows for example, the xperia is faster.
The qualcomm is made to run with extra graphics chip i think and is slow if it has to draw something itself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks ! nice !!
command , more info , you can do it !!!

CPU Topic only...
No brainer! 624MHz > 528MHz.. Omnia Wins!
Thread close...

frankly, you can't compare CPU with MHZ. depends on the internal structure.. for example, u take a pentium 3 CPU 3GHZ vs intel core 2 3GHZ, intel core 2 will be WAY faster

leobox1 said:
frankly, you can't compare CPU with MHZ. depends on the internal structure.. for example, u take a pentium 3 CPU 3GHZ vs intel core 2 3GHZ, intel core 2 will be WAY faster
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes , you right !!! we can't compare CPU with MHZ !!!!

xxl2005 said:
yes , you right !!! we can't compare CPU with MHZ !!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to disagree on this one.
Of course there are hundreds of important facts, how the CPU is processing the data, which structure it is using, what processes can be outsourced, how they are transferred and so on.
But these are concerns of the processor type and its environment.
The MHz say, how many operations the CPU can do per second. That is the only indication of its real speed.
Just think about the car industry. If you want to compare the power of an engine to another, everything that counts is the power. There are thousands of reasons why the car with the weaker engine could be faster than the other (maybe the stronger engine is built in a truck or what else).
But you wanted to compare the engines, so the most powerful wins.
I'm sure, the opener of the thread rather wanted to hear about the overall phone speed, but then he asked the wrong question.

i remember he powerpc cpu used to be lower than p4 but used to run a lot faster. i think the ram is the bigger factor between these 2 handsets. i know the x1 has a due core cpu, not sure on the other handset.
correct me if im wrong but these are both based on the same arm cpu right?

damskie said:
CPU Topic only...
No brainer! 624MHz > 528MHz.. Omnia Wins!
Thread close...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just like the old AMD 64 series CPU's beat Intel Pentium 4 chips which ran at a way higher clockspeed?
Get the facts straight before posting ignorant posts like that. Pure clockspeed has nothing to do with overall performance of a CPU.

Non scientific answer here, but ive got both phones.
The omnia on the stock Vodafone UK rom was slow as ya like to the point where the phone was almost useless.
Both phones with cooked roms on them perform about the same.
Personal winner... cant choose, omnia better as a phone, x1 better as a pda, not amazed by either.

lol not amazed by either

Simple test. One is Divx certified and the other isn't. That's a true performance test.

Hi,
i used to have both phone and i have used them and test them a lot.
for processors mhz doesn't mean anything sine a long time now.That why industry has creatd mips instead of frequency . Why ? for instance take a pentium 1 266mhz and a pentium 1 mmx 266mhz. same frequency but p1 mmx was way faster because of optimise instructions inside the cpu itself. Don't forgot we speak for frenquency about cpu cycles. before it was 1 cpu cycle = one simple operation since mmx 1cpu cycle severals operations. So you can have a very high frequency processor which can do worst than a lesser frenquency one. Compare Pentium 2 400mhz with a G3 266 mhz. G3 had the same performance. Why? not the same technology inside. A core 2 duo 1.8gz will outperform an p4 4 ghz even with more than 2ghz frenquency difference!!!
So to come back to the thread. omnia 1 arm cpu. xperia qualcomm 2700a.
2700a = dual core processor with integrated gpu. 1 core for the pda 1 core for the phone and 1 core for the 3d graphic cards( omnia doesn't have an accelerated graphic card.) So with the actual firmware we can say that omnia has reached the maximum of its capabilities. Which is not true with the xperia.
in cpu benchmark the two are about equals. But xperia is faster in all the other domain like memory access ...better multitasking on xperia.
for example on omnia when using their touchscroll music player if you got a lot of music the music will stop during the scrolling because scrolling" iphone like" takes a lot of ram....
the truth is that it's better to have more ram and a less powerfull processor than having a powerfull processor and no ram.
after a lot of testing i have sold my omnia and kept my xperia.
it's only my opinion with the test i made.
cheers.

NuShrike said:
Simple test. One is Divx certified and the other isn't. That's a true performance test.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
divx playback with the integrated player was shocking. Packets of pixels everywhere...thx coreplayer to play divx so well!! and the resolution is a bit too small 240*400.
only samsung phone are divx certified... maybe because the other construtor didn't ask for the certification.

Custom Llano based HTPC... opinions please!

Hey all,
I am putting a HTPC together that will primarily be used with XBMC, but also be used to browse the internet and download films via lovefilm.com. Here is what I am considering...
AMD Llano A8-3800
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-a8-3800.html
Gigabyte Motherboard - AMD A75, Socket FM1, DDR3 (GA-A75M-UD2H)
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-358-GI&groupid=701&catid=1903&subcat=2058
Corsair Vengeance 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C8 1600MHz Dual Channel
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-298-CS&groupid=701&catid=8&subcat=1517
Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB SATA 6Gb/s 64MB
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-368-WD&groupid=701&catid=14&subcat=1953
OCZ ModXStream Pro 500w Silent
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CA-037-OC&tool=3
Lian Li Case (PC-C37B)
http://www.kustompcs.co.uk/acatalog/info_1194.html
For these simple tasks I am under the impression Llano will suffice. Should I be worried about the lack of a discrete GPU?
Also this will cost about £500 which is kind of pricey for a HTPC. Has anyone got any suggestions to reduce the price of the build?
Thanks for any feedback?

PSU and RAM is a bit overkill for a HTPC. Also, run LINUX if you wanna keep it low-powered. From what I hear, Llano has a great GPU but sucky CPU. It should suffice as a HTPC processor. I'd go for a lower end PSU and about 1GB RAM if Linux, 2GB if Windows.

Thanks for the good advice about the PSU and RAM.
I have heard that the LLano CPU is a little weak on other sites too. I was considering instead an Athlon II with dedicated graphics. It will cost a similar amount as this system.
I can even get the AsRock vision 3D for the same price...
http://www.asrock.com/microsite/Vision3D/index.asp?c=Main
There are just too many options...

edcoppen said:
Thanks for the good advice about the PSU and RAM.
I have heard that the LLano CPU is a little weak on other sites too. I was considering instead an Athlon II with dedicated graphics. It will cost a similar amount as this system.
I can even get the AsRock vision 3D for the same price...
http://www.asrock.com/microsite/Vision3D/index.asp?c=Main
There are just too many options...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
3D is overrated. I'm assuming that you:
1. Have a 3D HDTV.
2. Have the 3D glasses
3. Have a desire for headaches.
Also, a lot will depend on usage pattern/behaviour. If you are only using it for some browsing (assuming social networks, youtubes, reading forums like XDA, some degree of flash playing), the Llano should be more than sufficient. It will also serve well in a light gaming mode (we're talking COD:MW2 probably). And if you're running Linux, I'd say that bumping to 2GB will make it a behemoth when it comes to webapps.
That said and done, what I suggested (Linux build and bumping it to 2GB) will be more than sufficient for watching movies and some light browsing with webapps. The Llano is not good as a CPU, but it is a real kicker when it comes to making a no fuss dedicated system (although it sucks when it comes to making a good gaming PC). I believe that many sites actually view it as a high potential processor for HTPCs. Just remember to properly cool your rig (silent cooling FTW) when building your HTPC (my brother's sucked because he used a 9800GT).
So... building your own (if you have the expertise or can seduce/befriend someone with the expertise) will definitely yield savings, benefits and earn an essential geek badge.

Linux is out the question as my Dad (who will be using the HTPC) has used Windows all his life and will not learn another OS.
I get your point about the 3D and I have no intentions of using it for now... but it will be there for the future
I believe that both a LLano based system and the ASRock Vision 3D will fit the needs of a HTPC. As they cost a similar price and I am comfortable building my own system I have both options open to me.
I guess what it comes down to is which system is better... Llano with A75 chipset or i3 with HM55 chipset? Any opinions???

edcoppen said:
Linux is out the question as my Dad (who will be using the HTPC) has used Windows all his life and will not learn another OS.
I get your point about the 3D and I have no intentions of using it for now... but it will be there for the future
I believe that both a LLano based system and the ASRock Vision 3D will fit the needs of a HTPC. As they cost a similar price and I am comfortable building my own system I have both options open to me.
I guess what it comes down to is which system is better... Llano with A75 chipset or i3 with HM55 chipset? Any opinions???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Llano.
It has similar processing powers to an i3, but trumps even an i7 when it comes to GPU power. As for 3D, when the glassless 3DTVs come out, the specs will be different. I get most of my home movies off the internet, and from what I understand, a Blu-Ray disc has about 20+GB on average on it, so go figure.

Thank you for the good advice. I am nearly ready to make my purchase. I have decided to go for a custom Llano based system pretty similar to the one outlined in the OP. I will follow the advice though to downgrade the PSU and ram. Just a few more questions pls...
I was hoping to avoid using a dedicated GPU but I just realised i'm not sure if the motherboard supports lossless bitstreaming. I have looked but couldnt find out. Here's the motherboard I have in mind...
http://uk.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_Socket_FM1/F1A75M/#specifications/#specifications
If this board doesn't support it I will probably get this GPU but I want to avoid it if possible...
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-263-SP
Thanks again for the help so far!

This situation just got a whole load more confusing
It turns out that the only way to get lossless bitstreaming with a Llano-based system is to use a dedicated GPU. This kind of defies the whole point of going down the Llano route as its integrated graphics was one of it's key benefits. Seeing as everyone says the CPU performance of Llano system is underwhelming I am seriously reconsidering the whole build.
Instead I could base the build around the H55 chipset as this does support lossless bitstreaming. I could then use the superior CPU performance of an i3, but would still require dedicated graphics to escape crappy Intel HD2000.
Bearing in mind that bitstreaming is an essential part of the build what would you do?
Edit: the H55 path really limits things like SATA 6gb/s and USB 3.0

edcoppen said:
This situation just got a whole load more confusing
It turns out that the only way to get lossless bitstreaming with a Llano-based system is to use a dedicated GPU. This kind of defies the whole point of going down the Llano route as its integrated graphics was one of it's key benefits. Seeing as everyone says the CPU performance of Llano system is underwhelming I am seriously reconsidering the whole build.
Instead I could base the build around the H55 chipset as this does support lossless bitstreaming. I could then use the superior CPU performance of an i3, but would still require dedicated graphics to escape crappy Intel HD2000.
Bearing in mind that bitstreaming is an essential part of the build what would you do?
Edit: the H55 path really limits things like SATA 6gb/s and USB 3.0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmm... I'll need to do a little homework first... I'll get back to you regarding the lossless streams

edcoppen said:
This situation just got a whole load more confusing
It turns out that the only way to get lossless bitstreaming with a Llano-based system is to use a dedicated GPU. This kind of defies the whole point of going down the Llano route as its integrated graphics was one of it's key benefits. Seeing as everyone says the CPU performance of Llano system is underwhelming I am seriously reconsidering the whole build.
Instead I could base the build around the H55 chipset as this does support lossless bitstreaming. I could then use the superior CPU performance of an i3, but would still require dedicated graphics to escape crappy Intel HD2000.
Bearing in mind that bitstreaming is an essential part of the build what would you do?
Edit: the H55 path really limits things like SATA 6gb/s and USB 3.0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seems to me that using an AMD Phenom/Athlon with a dedicated GPU will be slightly cheaper., although the whole rig will never fit in that casing...

I have decided to rule out the Llano system due to the complications with lossless audio. This now leaves me with an i3 system or Athlon like you suggested.
For an Athlon system I saw these parts:
AMD Athlon II X2 Dual Core 250 3.00GHz
Asus M4A88TD-M EVO/USB3 AMD 880G (Socket AM3)
These are cheaper than an i3 system for sure... as far as performance goes I am confident both the Athlon and i3 route is enough for a HTPC. I wonder about how their power consumption compares though?

edcoppen said:
I have decided to rule out the Llano system due to the complications with lossless audio. This now leaves me with an i3 system or Athlon like you suggested.
For an Athlon system I saw these parts:
AMD Athlon II X2 Dual Core 250 3.00GHz
Asus M4A88TD-M EVO/USB3 AMD 880G (Socket AM3)
These are cheaper than an i3 system for sure... as far as performance goes I am confident both the Athlon and i3 route is enough for a HTPC. I wonder about how their power consumption compares though?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AMD usually has a lower power profile than Intel, although if you underpowered your PC the processor will have to work REALLY hard to keep up... depends a lot.
Currently, an AMD-AMD setup for CPU and GPU combo is more efficient than an Intel-NVidia setup, although for the mid-range PCs, it might be different. A key component of power draw and power efficiency is actually your PSU. Most of the time, the PC will be on idle/low usage. Having an 80+ rated Gold or Platinum goes a loooooooong way towards saving power.
In terms of performance, the i3 does not have much benefit over AMD, because the good techs are limited to the i5s and i7s. AMD only differentiates the core count and superficial unlocks.
DISCLAIMER: A little late on this, but: I AM A HUGE AMD FAN. Not that I blow, but I really like AMD, and have been using AMD rigs for as long as I can remember.

Well I think I have come to a decision... again. Almost every component is different now. Here's my new selection of components:
Intel Core i3-2100T 2.5Ghz
MSI H67MA-E35 Intel H67
OCZ Platinum 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 PC3-10666
Sapphire ATI Radeon HD 6670 1024MB
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB
SilverStone Grandia GD04
OCZ StealthXStream2 400w Silent
I can get all of these for a round £500. Any last minute feedback from anyone before I buy it all would be much appreciated.

One thing that I didn't clarify with you. The service is movie streaming or downloading? Coz 1TB is mighty little for heavy downloading (trust me).
Although, from your setup, the parts look mighty fine to me. Just upgrade the CPU and GPU down the road and you'll have a mainstream gaming rig

why my desktop with intel pentium loads android studio faster than my laptop with i5

My question is about android studio's performance under different processors.
I tried to run the same version of the android studio on
1)intel pentium 3 4gb (windows 7 )and
2)intel core i5 7th gen 8gb (windows 10)
And surprisingly I found that the starting time in the pentium pc was faster than the i5 one!!
can anyone please explain the reason or possibly help me out with anything that I have been doing wrong in my i5 laptop?Is there any settings issue that is causing the i5 laptop to give android studio a slower studio?? What should I do to optimize the i5 laptop's android studio??

Check your RAM speed and Hard Drive speeds. They're likely have a large effect on the load time. Also, the processor variants in laptops are often low-power versions with only dual-cores and fairly low lock speed. the i5/i7 labels are just branding and don't actually give a great idea of the performance, especially on laptop processors.