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.

[Q] Nvidia Optimus or Not?

I was thinking of getting a lappy with
310m with i3, with Nvidia Optimus
or
310m with i5, without Nvidia Optimus?
Both are about the same price.
What do you guys think?

Save up for Sandy Bridge. It seems to bring about double the FPS rate in games, without the burden of a discrete card.
But, to answer your question, Optimus will only save battery. If you are looking to save battery, go for the Optimus.
If you are going to have some level of gaming on you laptop, go for the i5. There will be about 5-10 fps increase at least for games.
For reference, I can play COD4 and Dragon Age:Origins on a 210m at 1280*720 resolutions with all eye-candy tuned down.
One last note, if you wanna game, go for a desktop.
p/s: A lot of guesswork here, but I am assuming that you are getting a discrete mobility graphics for gaming amirite?

Well, obviously i5 (that's if I guessed right, and you talking about processors and graphics cards) is gonna be better. Faster at stock etc. Easier to overclock. Will need a higher source of power. About 800hz so the pc will last, as in for future upgrades..
And I don't know much about the card, but put up some details, eg mb/gb etc
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App

!PANDA said:
Well, obviously i5 (that's if I guessed right, and you talking about processors and graphics cards) is gonna be better. Faster at stock etc. Easier to overclock. Will need a higher source of power. About 800hz so the pc will last, as in for future upgrades..
And I don't know much about the card, but put up some details, eg mb/gb etc
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Erm... I believe that the 310m is a mobility card (read, stuck in laptops), otherwise I would have recommended that he beg his grandmother for cash to buy an AMD Radeon HD6950 NOW.

310m ... i wouldnt even call it a video card , get one with 335m ... theyre also available in $600 budget asus laptops
if u wanna play games , that laptop is gonna die on u , optimus or not
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-310M.22439.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-335M.24060.0.html
read both

Don't be nasty... some people really have the budget for only so much... and if you're talking about REAL GPUs...

The max I want to spend is around 600. Heavy gaming is not my forte but Ill be playing some MMORPGS.
Besides the 310m, how much difference is there between the i3 and i5?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App

The Core i3-3xxM processors are based on Arrandale, the mobile version of the Clarkdale desktop processor. They are similar to the Core i5-4xx series but running at lower clock speeds and without Turbo Boost.[21]
no turbo boost .. and lower freq ... that means better battery ... the optimus one is looking better for a laptop configuration
but if ur not an nvidia fanatic and just need the best bang for the buck id go with this

Thank you for the input everyone! It made me think a little more!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App

fezlopez said:
The max I want to spend is around 600. Heavy gaming is not my forte but Ill be playing some MMORPGS.
Besides the 310m, how much difference is there between the i3 and i5?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Spot on. MMOs like WoW? The 310m will handle it just fine. The difference between i3 and i5 could be almost 10fps at laptop settings, because the GPU is underpowered.
souljaboy said:
The Core i3-3xxM processors are based on Arrandale, the mobile version of the Clarkdale desktop processor. They are similar to the Core i5-4xx series but running at lower clock speeds and without Turbo Boost.[21]
no turbo boost .. and lower freq ... that means better battery ... the optimus one is looking better for a laptop configuration
but if ur not an nvidia fanatic and just need the best bang for the buck id go with this
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, the i3 and i5 are on the same architecture, so... turbo boost and higher frequency just means that the processor is more capable if and when it is needed. Gaming is going to suck the hell out of your battery no matter what you do, unless you intentionally cripple your CPU and GPU.
Your suggestion seems a little overpowering, but the specs are good for the price. Nice find

2+ Core Phones, Do we need them?

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

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.