Database Develop

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

Pop quiz! AMD or Intel?

So I'm working on my new computer, and I need help! I'm looking into bulldozer, but it keeps getting delayed. I feel like we may be seeing i9 before Bulldozer.
I'm looking for good performance, for a little bit less.
Opinions? No flaming!

Chandelure said:
So I'm working on my new computer, and I need help! I'm looking into bulldozer, but it keeps getting delayed. I feel like we may be seeing i9 before Bulldozer.
I'm looking for good performance, for a little bit less.
Opinions? No flaming!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Intel Core i5 would be nice.....because I've not been following up on AMD lately.....
Forever living in my Galaxy Ace using XDA App

AMD fanboy since day one. Seriously, just buy whatever you can afford.

It depends. What do you plan on using this rig for?
Sent from my I897 using XDA App

Currently i7 rules but bulldozer and ivy-bridge may change that
Also it'll depend on ur budget and what you plan using the rig for

bradleyG said:
It depends. What do you plan on using this rig for?
Sent from my I897 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Development.
And i7 is far to many $$$
Sent from my LG-VM670 using XDA App

Well if i7 is out of your budget an AMD Phenom II x6 is real cheap right now with bulldozer around the corner (This is what I currently have).
I honestly would wait for bulldozer so you aren't feeling buyers remorse once it comes out. I highly doubt you will be able to afford ivy bridge if you can't afford i7. Intel is soo pricey.

if ur budget is less than 500$ than amd if more than that move to intel..

Chandelure said:
Development.
And i7 is far to many $$$
Sent from my LG-VM670 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I recommend those fast i5s .
Forever living in my Galaxy Ace using XDA App

2600K at 300$

I have the quad core i5 750 Oc'ed to 4Ghz with no problems and only a cheap upgrade to stock cooling.
It FLIES!
Half the cost of an i7 too
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk

How did u oc it?
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium

How did u oc it?
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium

jsplace said:
I have the quad core i5 750 Oc'ed to 4Ghz with no problems and only a cheap upgrade to stock cooling.
It FLIES!
Half the cost of an i7 too
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have a first generation core I5 processor coupled to am Asus motherboard !! Overclocked from stock 2.8 ghz to 3.5 ghz with just the right air cooling products and a good processor fan and heat sink combo !
Tapashocked via my gt-I9003 with a random keyboard of my choice !

Amd. Will not buy intel.
-My life is a shooting range, people never change-

had you asked this question 2-3 years ago I would have said Amd hands down. On-die memory controller used to make all the difference. Now that Intel has on-die memory controllers with their core i3/5/7 line, Amd is definitely lagging behind in performance. I'd still recomend a black edition phenom II x4 or x6 for someone who loves to tweak and game out, but if you've got the cash, Intel sure seems to be the ring leader lately.
I had a 9550 BE phenom I, in a nice desktop system, ran it at 3ghz stable, was a fast box. Was given an hp dv6-3050ca which has an i5 in it, with the fancy on die memory controller and video acceleration. Wow was I EVER impressed at the progress intel has made, I even managed to run fallout new vegas at 15-20fps on low settings on this thing. We're talking intel graphics here, integrated. They've made leaps and bounds in the past few years. I currently have a Core i7 720qm sitting in a asus g73jh; I'd say it has a bit of a low clock speed with all 4 cores engaged, but with 8 threads, what's the difference. Takes a Phenom II x6 to match the same level of performance. Though either can be had new for about the same price.
Intel i7's are pricey as all hell, and unless you've got cash to dump and are looking for extreme performance, you'll probably be more than happy with an Amd. If you're looking to game matching up a nice Amd/Ati motherboard with an Ati video card, really does wonders in terms of compatibility, I've built a few myself and they were painless builds. Intels tend to be more efficient, expecially in the mobile arena. There's something sexy about a 140W cpu though, and that's where the phenom II line shines, they chew up power like nazi's chew up amphetamines, and they chew through like raped apes.
All in all amd is a good start/middleroad for the money, but for true high end power, or mobile efficiency stick to intel. I've noticed a trend across all cpu manufacturers, the more on die cache, the better. 2mb extra cache is worth more than 600mhz, imho.
0.02C CDN

I think the biggest problem of AMD is compatibility. Usually They don't work truely in some Linux Distros.

Pure preference. What's your budget?

Hmmm, sounds like i5 it is. Thanks guys!

Chandelure said:
Hmmm, sounds like i5 it is. Thanks guys!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
one more thing, AMD heats fast. it can cook your PC within 8 hours

First time buying a macboook: Doubts

I'm gonna get a macbook pro, keep in mind i will be selling my desktop pc and the mac will be my main device,i'll take it to the institute, etc i'm going start a graphic design course soon and naturally i will be usiong, corel, photoshop, and i suppose a little of video editing .
I plan on getting the 15" model, the 13" is a little small for my taste and the 17" model is off the budget and also i think it enters desktop territory ( is too big for a laptop) .
I've got a couple of doubts:
1.AMD Radeon HD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5 vs AMD Radeon HD 6750M with 1GB GDDR5 ? i know 1 gb sounds a lot better, but ive been told it only matters if im going to play videogames at large resolutions aka 1920x 1200
2.750GB 5400-rpm hdd vs 500GB 7200 rpm hdd , i already have an external 2 tb hard drive so i might be able to sacrifice the extra 250 gb for the increased speed, but does the 7200 hdd makes the mac run considerably hotter?
3.Choosing the 1680x1050 display over the standard 1440x900 is a no brainer, i wish there was a 1920x 1200 display instead but how is the Antiglare Widescreen Display worth the extra 150 $ ? how do they achieve the antiglare? won't the colors look dull or over satured?

I wish i could give you some good answers, but that's not the case, but i would go for the one with 1GB GDDR5, 500GB 7200 RPM HDD and of course the 1680x1050 display.
Regarding the GPU, won't it be better with the 1GB if you're going to edit videos?

1) 256 mb should be fine if you're not gaming
2) 7200 rpm will be faster and seeing as you have the external you may aswell, but it could be louder and it will not get too hot AFAIK
3) better display obv antiglare doesn't make image bad and it. Looks nice but imo its not wow like the glossy, professionals seem to prefer matte, maybe go down to the nearest apple store?
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App

Mainly CPU is used.. but some software can be aided by gpu.. however I'm not sure. If you'll notice much difference also op.. just checking are you going for quad i7, if not.. I'd reccomed more than the gpu
BazookaAce said:
I wish i could give you some good answers, but that's not the case, but i would go for the one with 1GB GDDR5, 500GB 7200 RPM HDD and of course the 1680x1050 display.
Regarding the GPU, won't it be better with the 1GB if you're going to edit videos?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App

MacaronyMax said:
3) better display obv antiglare doesn't make image bad and it. Looks nice but imo its not wow like the glossy, professionals seem to prefer matte, maybe go down to the nearest apple store?
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow like the glossy? what do you mean? is the gloosy more saturated?

It looks more vibrant imo.. and just stands out,
Chad_Petree said:
Wow like the glossy? what do you mean? is the gloosy more saturated?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App

MacaronyMax said:
Mainly CPU is used.. but some software can be aided by gpu.. however I'm not sure. If you'll notice much difference also op.. just checking are you going for quad i7, if not.. I'd reccomed more than the gpu
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, im going for the quad core i7 @ 2.2 GHz , the offer a quad core i7 @ 2.3 GHz for 250 $ extra dollars :/ just for 0.1 ghz? that's a steal, they dont even specifiy what cpus they're selling
I had forgotten sometimes the cpu switches to the gpu to render websites and play hd videos , i'll keep that in mind
MacaronyMax said:
It looks more vibrant imo.. and just stands out,
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Searching online, looks there's a lot of divided opinions in the glossy vs matte subject, gonna have to check it out in person, naturally

GPU Suggestions, GTX560TI Top or wait for Kepler?

Hey guys, just wondering if anyone has any knowledge / opinions regarding graphics cards. I'm tossing up weather to buy an Asus GTX 560Ti TOP as they seem to be fantastic for the price point ATM..... or wait for the new nVidia chipset release? Any ideas !?

How is the rest of your system looking? It might be a bit of an overkill, i would go with the GTX560 of 580, It should be ok for the next 2 years. Are you a hardcore gamer?

Hey mate, I'm not really a hard-core gamer but i figure for the price point i might as well go for it, plus a little bit of headroom would be nice.
Intel i7-2600k
8GB G-Skill DDR3 18600
60GB Sata 6Gbps SSD (For OS)
Various Drives for storage.
ASUS P8Z68-V PRO

freekaleekuk said:
Hey mate, I'm not really a hard-core gamer but i figure for the price point i might as well go for it, plus a little bit of headroom would be nice.
Intel i7-2600k
8GB G-Skill DDR3 18600
60GB Sata 6Gbps SSD (For OS)
Various Drives for storage.
ASUS P8Z68-V PRO
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The 560 will give you some headroom too. And later down tbe road when prices drop on the Kepler drop you can upgrade to that one. Are you an overclocker? Squeeze a bit more out of the 2600k and 560 and you wont notice any real-life performance difference from the Kepler.

If Kepler flops like what I'm hearing I'll be pee'd off as I'm hoping for a price war at the high end so I can upgrade my GTX580.

Intratech said:
If Kepler flops like what I'm hearing I'll be pee'd off as I'm hoping for a price war at the high end so I can upgrade my GTX580.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then you can sell your GTX580 to the OP since he isnt a hardcore gamer and everybody is happy. Solution found! Damn, I'm good. Lol.
I dont know if I would purchase such a high end video card the second it came out. I would wait like 5 months or until a second revision of the product so they can work out bugs with drivers or even with the manufacturing process.

Not to change the direction or anything but have you taken a look over at AMD? i use both products and the 7000 series is pretty good not to mention its latest and greatest 7990 6GB GDDR5 lol way too much ($800). but anyways....
I use the AMD XFX HD 6770 and need to upgrade but if Nvidia is what your looking at you might want to get the GTX 570?

XxLostSoulxX said:
Not to change the direction or anything but have you taken a look over at AMD? i use both products and the 7000 series is pretty good not to mention its latest and greatest 7990 6GB GDDR5 lol way too much ($800). but anyways....
I use the AMD XFX HD 6770 and need to upgrade but if Nvidia is what your looking at you might want to get the GTX 570?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I use AMD..but 680GTX .. O_O

OmegaRED^ said:
I use AMD..but 680GTX .. O_O
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah but the 680 like the 580, 590 has problems with overclocking.
I rather have a stable card then a blazing fast card that will only last me a month

bigboxrate said:
nVidia seems to be better
But a little expensive I think
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well it depends on what works best if you have intel Nvidia works best plus the processor speed too etc.....

680 GTX i tested a beta board for 2 weeks.
No issue's.. just damn power hungry.
I would suggest... once they revise and prices have dropped.
Else.. radeon makes some OP cards as well.
Memory
But basically aim for a 2GB Gddr5 card.. ^_^
Bus Width
Always check the bus width.. the wider the better. ^-^ 128 bit cards mostly suck. 256bit and upward are Can be OP cards..
Core clock speeds..
idk.. depend on manufacturer revision.. Higher clocks are almost always better.
Some cards like nvidia have shader and cuda engines... the may have separate clocks..
If you find a card you like... google it and see how it stacks up.. there are many sites will to provide info. ^_^
Good luck guy.

I disagree with the post above nvdia usually generate a lot less heat compare to amd and the definitely generate a lot less power.
In my opinion the best graphic card suited for the operator is hd6950 because of the price point and you can flash the bios to hd 6970 make it one of the best bang for buck .
Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda premium

Too much cores?

I'm talking about CPU cores people, not corn or the earth's core,
IS THERE SUCH THING AS TOO MUCH CORE FOR A SMARTPHONE?
this is how experts view this:
Greg Sullivan said:
If you're going to use the number of cores on your phone as the single metric for performance, you're doing it wrong. --
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nick DiCarlo said:
In theory, if you divide among cores, each one has an easy job rather than a hard job. --
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Raj Talluri said:
"We're able to get more performance with two processors than our competition can get with four,"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Greg Sullivan said:
that writing code to take advantage of multiple processor cores makes writing apps much harder. Likewise, there's a lot more complexity in debugging apps when something goes wrong, a challenge that many app developers are reluctant to face.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Greg Sullivan said:
Multicore won't help you in a world where the apps aren't threaded
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Francis Sideco said:
It's just like punching the accelerator on the sports car. The faster you do that, the faster you burn through gas
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Greg Sullivan said:
people listen to music while surfing the Web, and that's something you can do very efficiently with one core, performance rests on how efficiently the operating system can manage tasks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nick DiCarlo said:
Chip guys...will absolutely show you benchmarks where their chip will dominate everybody else's
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So these are the experts,
but what do you think?

I see no difference between single core and dual core services except in gaming.I'm quite content with my single core device compared to a dual core
Sent from my inter galactic super fantastic communication device.

Honestly, I'm a little torn on this one. The spec snob in me says "Moar cores, moar better, moar faster! Gimme nao!!"
However, I own both the HTC One X (international Quad core Tegra 3 variant) and the Samsung Galaxy S III (TMOUS S4 dual core variant)
They are both fast, powerful phones....
(disclaimer: yes, I know the S4 is based on a newer architecture (28nm vs the 40nm Tegra 3)
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

I don't know. It still takes about 3 full minutes for a picture to show up in the folder I moved it to. Maybe that's not the phone messing up, but I wonder if it would happen faster with a quad core phone.
BUT, I am inclined to agree with Greg Sullivan as a gut instinct.
Sent from your mom.

guys thats a simple a thing.
the performance isnt based on the number of cores,you can have a phone with dualcore cpu and it can be better(in performance) than a quadcore one,but you can have a quadcore which is better than a dualcore phone, its based on the software and the other hardware,its not only about cores.....

Eventually more cores will make a difference, but it's still too early right now
Once the majority of software is threaded, then more cores will mean faster processing and better battery life, especially in a multi-tasking environment like Android
But for right now, I wish there was as much attention paid to ram speed and r/w speed to internal/external sd storage
That would be a bigger boost to performance right now than cramming a 20 core cpu into a phone

Of course there can be too many cores. Every core more, than needed to complete a given task in an appropriate amount of time is one core to much. The question is, what will the average user (not people like us) do with their phones, and how much processor power does that need. The average users I know use their phones for Facebook and Angry Birds. Not very demanding things. To be honest, I don't do very much more CPU-intensive things, too.
Also, don't forget that software has to be optimised to run on multicore-machines. And those software that can be highly optimised, takes more advantage of GPUs than of CPUs. And highly parallelizable tasks are usually there to calculate things that you don't want to bother with on your way.
It's a matter of how people use their phones, but as a guideline we can take Intel's and AMD's x86-processors, for most tasks dual-core is enough, and more than quad-core is rarely used at all for private purposes.

deathnotice01 said:
I'm talking about CPU cores people, not corn or the earth's core,
IS THERE SUCH THING AS TOO MUCH CORE FOR A SMARTPHONE?
this is how experts view this:
So these are the experts,
but what do you think?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The amount of cores is not the only factor for performance.
However, assuming all other factors are the same, more cores will yield better performance in multi threaded code.
Sent from my HTC Rezound

I'm surprised no one has brought up the PS3 yet. It's processor is the epitome of this discussion.
More cores can make a huge difference, but the process is difficult and sometimes not with it, especially if they're unused.

Zacmanman said:
I'm surprised no one has brought up the PS3 yet. It's processor is the epitome of this discussion.
More cores can make a huge difference, but the process is difficult and sometimes not with it, especially if they're unused.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well the Cell Processor isn't like traditional multi core processors.
Each of the helper cores can only do single floats, but they are good for assisting the Gpu.
(I think it has been super fast bus between the cpu and gpu)
A very unique architecture, which is why it took several years to fully take advantage of it.
Sent from my HTC Rezound

The PS3 doesn't have to last off of a limited power supply. They can throw as many cores as they want in something with a wired power supply, when you switch over to something like a cellphone that has an expected battery life all that crap flies out the window. If the cores aren't being properly utilized that's just wasted power (at least to me). I am going to hold onto my Nexus S until it either dies out or stops being developed for. Hopefully multi core processors are better utilized by then.

wouldn't it be possible to break 1 chip into like 10 smaller cores, so it's almost like an army tackling the date transfer rather then 1 big chip tackling the data transfer? I know that that they're integrating GPU's with CPU's now, but what if they were to make 5 small GPU cores and 5 small CPU cores inside of one blazing fast chip. could it work?

MRsf27 said:
wouldn't it be possible to break 1 chip into like 10 smaller cores, so it's almost like an army tackling the date transfer rather then 1 big chip tackling the data transfer? I know that that they're integrating GPU's with CPU's now, but what if they were to make 5 small GPU cores and 5 small CPU cores inside of one blazing fast chip. could it work?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, that's sort of what Tegra 3 is like. Look up the specs of the Nexus 7.

Zacmanman said:
Actually, that's sort of what Tegra 3 is like. Look up the specs of the Nexus 7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
oh... sowwies im a nuubeee :laugh: knowledge is power. you learn something new everyday thank you sir

Just give it more time batteries will get smaller with higher power rating and mobile phone CPUs will get more power efficient.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using xda app-developers app

MRsf27 said:
wouldn't it be possible to break 1 chip into like 10 smaller cores, so it's almost like an army tackling the date transfer rather then 1 big chip tackling the data transfer? I know that that they're integrating GPU's with CPU's now, but what if they were to make 5 small GPU cores and 5 small CPU cores inside of one blazing fast chip. could it work?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Intel and AMD chips are also like that, that's the new thing coming. I just find tech funy, the more powerful the smaller...smh..
Sent from my HTC Desire Z using xda premium

strip419 said:
Intel and AMD chips are also like that, that's the new thing coming. I just find tech funy, the more powerful the smaller...smh..
Sent from my HTC Desire Z using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well they have to make them smaller.
If they kept the build process at the same size and made them more powerful, they would be giant, use a ton of power, and generate a ton of heat.
Sent from my HTC Rezound

I don't think more cores will be added to phones for a long while yet anyway.
This is because we had single cores and dual cores for years and they still work perfectly well.
Proof of that is the S2. It's an old phone in comparison to the newest phones on the market, yet it's still more powerful than the majority of phones around. Now, I know that it isn't purely based on the cores, but they are a deciding factor.
The dual cores of it can still more than easily do everything that is required of them, without even struggling.
So based on that, quad cores aren't even essential as of yet, so it's going to be a long time before more are needed.
I'm a product of the system I was born to destroy!

From a developer’s point of view, to get any advantage out of multiple core processors can involve a complete rewrite of the application. Is it worth the pain of doing this? The job has to be able to be split into threads that can be run completely independently of each other. In some cases this is impossible, or hardly worth the effort for any advantage returned.
On a PC, I have written a few number crunching programs that can farm out parcels of work across all four cores, using the _beginthreadex() Windows API. It still has to wait for the longest running thread to finish before it can carry on, meanwhile the other cores that have finished, sit there idle.
While multicore devices can run different applications at once, can you keep up with them all? There is only one human interface to the device.
There is very little software that really knows how to make full use of multiple cores.