Related
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.
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.
Hi all,
Since the X1 hardware is so similar to Blackstone, is it possible to use what the Blackstone guys are doing to improve performance on the X1?
What I am most interested in is this: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=442712
BETA graphics drivers for improving OpenGL speed. There is also a benchmark thread in the Blackstone forums, do the same benchies work with X1? Could be useful to have a reference for which ROMs are actually fastest.
Just some thoughts, hope for a response from a guru!
-Oobly
So I was reading that thread...
Theres a faq there:
"..
Q: Are these solely for MSM720X devices?
A: Yes, since the files used only work with the MSM720X chipset. And not even ALL MSM720X chipsets.
Q: So, which devices are supported?
A: Currently only newer devices: the Kaiser, Polaris, Nike, Diamond and up. There MAY be more in the future though.
.."
here is my take on all this:
-the neo2007 work on xperia but i cant see any performance increase
-the xperia is running @400mhz not 528mhz like the HD or td2. so dont ever expect it to reach the same level of performance. i have tested many cooked roms on xperia and they all trail the HD or TD2 stock roms in application and multitasking performance
THE GRIZZ said:
here is my take on all this:
-the neo2007 work on xperia but i cant see any performance increase
-the xperia is running @400mhz not 528mhz like the HD or td2. so dont ever expect it to reach the same level of performance. i have tested many cooked roms on xperia and they all trail the HD or TD2 stock roms in application and multitasking performance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
on the other hand, i (which are currently running Touch X 6.1 with various performance tweaks) find that the custom ROM that i'm currently using are faster and have better responce compared to a TD2 running on stock ROM that i've tested for 30 minutes in a store.
if that extra Mhz really matters, then it could always be unlocked using neurom. i did also tried neurom only to find that it decreases my battery life.
so i'm sticking with 400 mhz that lasts me 3-4 days than a 2 days 528mhz.
and no, i'm not biased just because i'm using an x1.
ejat said:
if that extra Mhz really matters, then it could always be unlocked using neurom. i did also tried neurom only to find that it decreases my battery life.
so i'm sticking with 400 mhz that lasts me 3-4 days than a 2 days 528mhz..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i tried using neurom but i could not overclock it to 528. if you can please let us now how. to test if it worked test with something like the core player or tcmp (both have benchmarking tools) and the game xtract.
both apps will give you real world performance and both perform clearly worse on my xperia then on td2
ohh and %20 less cpu speed will not double the battery life. the x1 has a nice big 1500mah battery
Thanks for the replies guys!
I always thought the xperia runs a 7200A processor at 528MHz...?? That's what all the spec sheets say at least.
About speed and battery life, increasing the CPU speed by 20% can certainly double power usage especially if it is an overclock. Both power usage and heat generated increase dramatically when overclocking CPU's in PC's and I don't expect it is any different with mobile CPU's.
I am disappointed by the benchmark results I see for xperia, but I really love the hardware layout and size. According to the specifications it should run faster than it seems to....
Any definitive answers about CPU clock speed? Anyone? From what I have read, the 7200 CPU runs at 400 and the 7200A at 528. The X1 has a 7200A and all the spec sheets I have seen and "official" specs say 528MHz.
Have we been screwed again by HTC? <--- referring to the 3D driver issue....
Since MWC is around the corner and Companies are already making announcements I ranted a bit about MultiCore phones. So like the Title says..
What do You think... Do Phones really need to have 2-4-6-8 cores?
My 2cents
To me the need for even two cores still seems over powered. My big complaint is that manufactures just want to ONE up the competition and add more and more even though it wouldn't be fully utilized by anyone in the foreseeable future.
For example. All these companies are slapping MultiCore phones and adding more ram and they aren't even really optimizing their software for the additional cores. It was android and it finally added MultiCore support with ICS, but companies were and still are releasing phones with 2cores running Froyo, Gingerbread that won't see ICS ever if not for devoted developers to Port it.
To me you can have the most fancy OS with all the Eye Candy you can think off and have it run off a Single(One) Core Processor just fine with no lag and 768MB of RAM and still have enough left for background apps if you focus on making your software efficient and optimized for that ONE core.
Look at WP7 sure its UI was over simplified, but it runs just fine with ONE core and 512MB of ram. And I've seen some very impressive Games run just fine on those phones. Unrelated to phones but look at how Windows (Desktop) handles RAM. Right now with just Chrome open with two tabs its using up 2GB of ram and this is a clean install. I just formatted my HDD and installed Chrome and updated to SP1 so there is no program prefetched. Ubuntu on this computer with just Chrome open only uses up 256-300MB of RAM because it was optimized for low ram machines. OSX86 SL on this computer only uses about about 300-500MB of ram.
So in the end all these multicore phones are doing is using up battery life to feed all these cores when the software hasn't been optimized for it. Now some processors shut off the additional cores when they aren't needed but even then only Games/apps that are aware of those cores will ever really use them.
Companies as they add more RAM and more cores add along with it bugged down crappy software and that just kills the purpose of all that power.
---
I just needed to spit this somewhere
There needs to be another high end mobile OS entering the market along with developers building more CPU demanding apps. That's the problem with android, its not universal like ios. And I don't want a apple vs android argument
Sent from the Nokia Galaxy Nexus S2 XL XE S X 3G LTE T-mo Plus with Beats Audio
I think they needs to focus on the CPU speed rather then cores. I'd rather have a dual core phone running at 3.5ghz then a quad core running at 1.2
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA Premium App
What I think a company should do is focus on
Software > Battery > CPU/RAM
Because if you make you software RIGHT and perfect it then right from the get go you will notice huge performance with a single dual core processor.
Just imagine HTC sense with the speed of stock ICS on the Gnex or any other phone with Dual Core 1GB ram!
If companies like HTC focused on improving their UI with performance in mind, CPU makers at the same time will evolve and develop better smaller processors and will be cheaper then making a monster out of a phone only to cage it with half as UI's that suck.... Cuz we all know that a Single Core 1Ghz processor from today beats the crap out of a similar spec one from early 2000's
I dislike Apple but i gotta give them credit for focusing on iOS more then the actual iPhone.. If Android makers did the same and improved their crapware we wouldn't call it that.
I heard the multiple cores end up saving battery, especially in regards to the Tegra 3 because it has the companion core to take care of easy tasks like email syncing while the screen is off or whatever. The extra cores kick in when they're needed too, they're not constantly running when there's nothing going on. Most of the time, the extra ones are offline (see screenshots below).
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using XDA Premium.
Do we really need hexacore computers? Even though most software doesn't really benefit from them? The majority of computer games rarely put more than 2 cores to any worthy use, the OS runs quite the same with 2 or 4 cores in general and for the most part only intensive applications even benefit from it at all (photo, video, CAD, 3D and so on). We still get them though, and often enough they don't use excessively more power than the previous generation with smaller, more efficient technology. Also, try running your ubuntu setup with an 800x480 res and a comparatively weak single 1ghz, 512mb shared ram setup. It'll struggle for air.
It is good to move into this realm with phones. Play around with a Galaxy S, then with a Galaxy S 2 - both in their pure touchwiz form. The S 2 simply blows away the original. Virtually no performance hitches throughout any usage you can imagine, and this is just an upgrade from single to dual core. New designs don't use any more power than predecessors, and often save power as described above. 4 active cores when needed (completely shut off when inactive), and a seperate low-power single core when there is something basic? Genius.
I'm all for phones with as many cores as they fit, as long as the designs of tomorrow are like the designs of today. I don't see any reason why they won't be, so what's the harm?
i dont think we need 2+ cores
my nexus s out performs most dual core phone when i had it on stock 4.0.3 @ 1ghz
not im on a custom rom @ 1.4ghz... its even better
qaz2453 said:
i dont think we need 2+ cores
my nexus s out performs most dual core phone when i had it on stock 4.0.3 @ 1ghz
not im on a custom rom @ 1.4ghz... its even better
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No offence but I really don't think it will, maybe at benchmarking because that's not really a full test of speed.
Dual cores and 1.5ghz seems like all we need...
I am running 1ghz on my epic4g with a nice rom and i never really have complaints about the single core and the 1ghz it always works.
Dual core would satisfy my needs
sensation lover said:
No offence but I really don't think it will, maybe at benchmarking because that's not really a full test of speed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Nexus S routinely beats SOME dual core phones with the right kernel and ROM. I should know, I have one. That phone with Trinity kernel is a beast.
Wasn't me!! I didn't do it!
The more the merrier!
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
For a long time i agreed with you completely, thinking more than two cores was fairly unnecessary, but after having recently looked into Ubuntu for Android and the Webtop application in the motorola atrix, i thought if our phones our powerful enough (4 or so cores), rather than have that power needlessly sitting there have our phones be able to run full desktop OS's. Ubuntu seems like the key candidate here, as i did enjoy my brief stint on there.
So too many cores does seem unnecessary just to one up the competition, but if we use that power to have a phone and desktop computer in one, then i am all for it!
qaz2453 said:
i dont think we need 2+ cores
my nexus s out performs most dual core phone when i had it on stock 4.0.3 @ 1ghz
not im on a custom rom @ 1.4ghz... its even better
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it gets a higher score in a benchmark that literally measures the frequency. I have a Nexus S and no matter how much i OC it doesn't compare to something like an SGS2.
Zorigo said:
For a long time i agreed with you completely, thinking more than two cores was fairly unnecessary, but after having recently looked into Ubuntu for Android and the Webtop application in the motorola atrix, i thought if our phones our powerful enough (4 or so cores), rather than have that power needlessly sitting there have our phones be able to run full desktop OS's. Ubuntu seems like the key candidate here, as i did enjoy my brief stint on there.
So too many cores does seem unnecessary just to one up the competition, but if we use that power to have a phone and desktop computer in one, then i am all for it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with this entirely. Android, in its current state, is a Phone OS. In time I hope to see it gain many Desktop OS attributes, and right now we can already see Desktop OSes run on the phones. There is no reason to turn Android into one, but more processor power means we can turn our phones into a mini-computer worth using at a whim.
Unlike what seems to have happened with the iPhone 4S, the android dual cores don't guzzle through the battery like no tomorrow. Battery technology in it's current state is also limited. You want more mAh? Buy a bigger battery. Anything else is more often than not just a scam.
I think not nessesary in more cores.Simply stupid marketing to get your money.
Give me more ram, give me more cores, give me a decent screen, USB host and native Ubuntu... That way
Sent from my HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio using Tapatalk
Give me more batary life.
animal-on said:
Give me more batary life.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed, instead of making the specifications better, they should focus on improving the battery live. Really, 1 day is horse**** compared to the Nokia phones in the early 2000's..
My two cents:
I recently upgraded from a MyTouch 3G Slide to a MyTouch 4G Slide... going from a 600MHz MSM7227 Qualcomm proc to a 1.2GHz MSM8260 Dual-core SnapDragon.
Now aside from the obvious bump in speed, what impressed me the most was improved battery efficiency - partly from the proc, partly from Android improvements. From what I have seen of the new Tegra 3 SoC, it basically has four system cores and one battery saver core, that runs with minimal draw when the phone is idling.
As with PC procs, I think we'll see near future software and operating systems that are able to make greater use of multi-core setups, while saving battery life.
---------- Post added at 01:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:43 PM ----------
Here's a better question:
Why are hardware manufacturers so stingy with RAM and ROM!?
I can't believe that HTC or Samsung or Nokia would pay all that much more for 512MB of RAM as they would 2GB of RAM, right?
It just annoys me that we still have current onboard memory restrictions with so many devices in 2012
It's simple.If manufecturers will equip devices so fast of big memory,2 Gb for example,not so many people will buy new phone or tab.They will be waiting,because it's devices will works very fine with any apps.
I don't think people need all these extra cores, the only reason people think they do, is because stupid interfaces slowing the sh!+ out of their phones, if companies start concentrating on simpler UI, the need for all this RAM and CPU power will be gone, it's all part of the marketing plan, make things slower, tell people they need more cores, sell expensive phones and profit like a boss
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.