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.
I've been reading a lot of discussion on this and would love to hear some opinions and see some benchmarks.
I currently own a Nexus One & where I live they are priced about $150 dollars more for a Nexus than a Galaxy S (It's my understanding Nexus are regarded as cheaper phones in America?) So basically I can sell my 4 month old Nexus One & buy a brand new 16GB Galaxy S for no extra cost. Here is what I am wondering...
I know the Galaxy S has an amazing GPU, it facerolls the Nexus One & even seems to stomp the Droid X with its improved GPU so that is great.
The CPU however seems to under perform in every benchmark I can find versus the Nexus/Droid2 & many more current high end Androids.
I realise these devices are running Android 2.2 with JIT. I've seen Linpacks of 2.2 running Galaxy S devices and JIT enabled ROMs that still don't compare with these other devices.
Question 1
What I'm wondering is the difference we can see in CPU benchmarks going to be surpassed with the addition of a proper 2.2 JIT rom on our devices or is simply that the Snapdragons & other Qualcomm CPU are actually better than our Hummingbird.
Question 2
My Nexus One is Linkpacking 30 MFlops atm, I think with OC etc I can get it higher too. Does anyone have any evidence of a Galaxy S phone (running 2.2, JIT, lagfix or anything) that competes (or even comes close to competing) with this? I have been unable to find anything.
Question 3
Is the current Quadrant scores that I'm seeing people reporting in the Lag Fix threads (2000+) actually representative of speed or are these (as Cyanogen & others seem to be claiming) distorted?
(I realise a lot of people are reporting lag fixed.. what I'm asking is the number represented there (x2 N1 Froyo's score) actually accurate. I don't understand the mechanics behind the I/O benchmark so I don't understand if the lagfix is distoring the reported results from it.)
1. Hummingbird is apparently faster.
2. We don't have JIT yet.. Compare Nexus One 2.1/Eclair with Galaxy S 2.1, and I remember seeing we are faster.. JIT has a massive impact on mflops (because the benchmark uses bytecode, not compiled code).
3. No benchmark is really representative of speeds (no matter what people tell you). Because different apps have different workloads. You might get 50mflops in a CPU test, but for 3D games, the number of triangles matters more. It has recently been shown the I/O test for quadrant can be tricked too.
Benchmarks aren't really comprehensive enough for anything more than getting an idea of the performance.. But don't rely on them.
The reason why we get crappy benchmarks is due to having ****ty filesystem (rfs) which don't let us have multi writes. That's what lag fixes help. Cpu wise we eat snapdragons for breakfast, lunch and tea.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
andrewluecke said:
1. Hummingbird is apparently faster.
2. We don't have JIT yet.. Compare Nexus One 2.1/Eclair with Galaxy S 2.1, and I remember seeing we are faster.. JIT has a massive impact on mflops (because the benchmark uses bytecode, not compiled code).
3. No benchmark is really representative of speeds (no matter what people tell you). Because different apps have different workloads. You might get 50mflops in a CPU test, but for 3D games, the number of triangles matters more. It has recently been shown the I/O test for quadrant can be tricked too.
Benchmarks aren't really comprehensive enough for anything more than getting an idea of the performance.. But don't rely on them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what he said ^^^
regards
ickyboo said:
The reason why we get crappy benchmarks is due to having ****ty filesystem (rfs) which don't let us have multi writes.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source please.. I never have actually seen anyone prove this here, but I hear it being thrown around increasingly. How was this proven? I'm becoming increasingly concerned that this conclusion was made by playing chinese whispers
andrewluecke said:
Source please.. I never have actually seen anyone prove this here, but I hear it being thrown around increasingly. How was this proven? I'm becoming increasingly concerned that this conclusion was made by playing chinese whispers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, if you look at pre-Froyo benchmarks of Snapdragon devices, they generally get around 6.1 in Linpack, vs ~8.4 for a Galaxy S. That's a pretty big delta, and carriers through most other synthetic and real world benchmarks, roughly 20% faster at the same clock speed. Same thing can be seen with the TI processors in the Droid line, at 1Ghz, they score in the 8's with 2.1.
Froyo benchmarks are suspect for a number of reasons, mainly because most of the benchmarks were designed with 1.6-2.1 in mind, and partly because Google spent a lot of time optimizing the base Froyo build for a Snapdragon processor. HTC, Sony, Dell, etc can piggyback off this work with their version, whereas Samsung and Motorola have to start much closer to scratch. Which is also why the HTC devices got Froyo sooner.
Believe it or not (and despite the marketing hype) the Snapdragon chipset is a budget solution, with less complex/expensive memory subsystem, and a far less costly integrated graphics solution than what is found on the Galaxy S.
It's cheap to produce, it has almost everything in a nice tidy package that makes it cheaper to engineer handsets (when I say everything, I mean CPU/GPU/Radio/WiFi/GPS/USB).
It's a pretty good package for companies like HTC, who don't do any real hardware engineering, and try to keep costs low. They do software (very very well, I should add), industrial design, and mass manufacturing, but they've NEVER designed a chipset (or display), they always source those from a third party, in this case Qualcom for the chipset, Samsung/Sony for the displays, etc.
However, they were the first to market with 1Ghz speed and it's a solid and stable hardware setup. Just keep in mind that clock speeds don't tell the whole tale.
The Galaxy S, (and to a lesser extent the Droid series) use a better stand-alone CPU solution and a far superior non-integrated (has its own chip) GPU. Samsung does do their own in-house chipset engineering, and they didn't cut corners on the CPU design, and they learned a lot about how to squeeze a lot of performance out of the ARM instruction set from their own products and the work they did for the iPhone processors. In brute-force, they smack the Snapdragon chipset around like a *****, but they get slapped around in turn by HTC's superior software engineering.
HTC has a real advantage in lots and lots of PDA/Smartphone software experience. They know how to make the most of the hardware they purchase, and seem to spend a great deal of time optimizing the software, be it Windows Mobile or Android, and lessons learned from a decade of making PDAs, under their name and for others.
If HTC used a Hummingbird or TI OMAP chipset with PowerVR GPU, I have no doubt they'd be able to more quickly wring more performance and stability out of it than Samsung or Motorola can.
Croak said:
Well, if you look at pre-Froyo benchmarks of Snapdragon devices, they generally get around 6.1 in Linpack, vs ~8.4 for a Galaxy S. That's a pretty big delta, and carriers through most other synthetic and real world benchmarks, roughly 20% faster at the same clock speed. Same thing can be seen with the TI processors in the Droid line, at 1Ghz, they score in the 8's with 2.1.
Froyo benchmarks are suspect for a number of reasons, mainly because most of the benchmarks were designed with 1.6-2.1 in mind, and partly because Google spent a lot of time optimizing the base Froyo build for a Snapdragon processor. HTC, Sony, Dell, etc can piggyback off this work with their version, whereas Samsung and Motorola have to start much closer to scratch. Which is also why the HTC devices got Froyo sooner.
Believe it or not (and despite the marketing hype) the Snapdragon chipset is a budget solution, with less complex/expensive memory subsystem, and a far less costly integrated graphics solution than what is found on the Galaxy S.
It's cheap to produce, it has almost everything in a nice tidy package that makes it cheaper to engineer handsets (when I say everything, I mean CPU/GPU/Radio/WiFi/GPS/USB).
It's a pretty good package for companies like HTC, who don't do any real hardware engineering, and try to keep costs low. They do software (very very well, I should add), industrial design, and mass manufacturing, but they've NEVER designed a chipset (or display), they always source those from a third party, in this case Qualcom for the chipset, Samsung/Sony for the displays, etc.
However, they were the first to market with 1Ghz speed and it's a solid and stable hardware setup. Just keep in mind that clock speeds don't tell the whole tale.
The Galaxy S, (and to a lesser extent the Droid series) use a better stand-alone CPU solution and a far superior non-integrated (has its own chip) GPU. Samsung does do their own in-house chipset engineering, and they didn't cut corners on the CPU design, and they learned a lot about how to squeeze a lot of performance out of the ARM instruction set from their own products and the work they did for the iPhone processors. In brute-force, they smack the Snapdragon chipset around like a *****, but they get slapped around in turn by HTC's superior software engineering.
HTC has a real advantage in lots and lots of PDA/Smartphone software experience. They know how to make the most of the hardware they purchase, and seem to spend a great deal of time optimizing the software, be it Windows Mobile or Android, and lessons learned from a decade of making PDAs, under their name and for others.
If HTC used a Hummingbird or TI OMAP chipset with PowerVR GPU, I have no doubt they'd be able to more quickly wring more performance and stability out of it than Samsung or Motorola can.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, that was a really insightful post.
So basically even though our processor should outperform or ATLEAST match the snapdragons. Due to the mass optimization of 2.2 JIT for Snapdragon devices it's likely we'll never see the same performance. Unless Samsung gets really keen to do some optimization themselves.
I searched all over the internet to see why the CPU scores in Quadrant and other benchmarks are waaaay lower then the Nexus ones, but still I can't find anything.
Does Samsung disable the JIT in their Froyo ROMs? Because both Snapdragon and Hummingbird are still based on the same Cortex A8 cores
"It's clear that FroYo's JIT compiler currently only delivers significant performance gains for Snapdragon CPUs with the Scorpion core. This in turn explains why, so far, only a beta version of Android 2.2 is available for the Cortex-A8-based Samsung Galaxy S — the JIT compiler is the outstanding feature of FroYo. For the widespread Cortex-A8 cores, used in many high-end Android smartphones, the JIT compiler needs to be optimised. A Cortex-A8 core will still be slower than a Scorpion core at the same clock speed, but the Scorpion's advantage may not be as much 260 percent."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://androidforums.com/samsung-ca...ant-scores-why-humming-bird-doing-so-bad.html
There are multiple reasons, not optimised jit, slow memory for caching and more. Most of them are solved in the CM roms (it performs on par with the N1), and i can tell you that when Gingerbread comes it will blow the snapdragons away.
Which custom ROM provides CPU performance close to Snapdragon?
[ignore this post please]
Still the 1Ghz humming bird out performs the 1Ghz snap in real world performance
Even the LG Optimus One ARM11 600MHz Core scores better than Galaxy S. I still believe it's a software problem.
http://lgoptimusonep500.blogspot.com/2011/01/custom-rom-for-lg-optimus-one-p500.html#more
Another benchmark:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4126/nokia-http://www.anandtech.com/show/4126/nokia-n8-review-/7
...where the Nexus S proves that the Hummingbird can do more than it currrently does in Galaxy S.
I currently have a HTC Desire which I have had since it first come out and am in line for a new handset... I always get mine sim free or pay as you go.
Been looking a lot a lately of the Optimus 2x or Galaxy S2 in regards to gaming. Now, I know there are threads about both GPU's but.... which one is more powerful and will be best "future proofed"?.
Heard a lot of things on both handset forums saying that Tegra 2 is a year old, has 8 cores and the Galazy S2 is newer and only 4 cores.
So, as a potential buyer of either handset... am looking at the best gaming platform based on games.
At the moment, its a hard choice because I want to purchase the best fone I can at the moment...
Any thoughts on which platform will be better?, or.... get the support from developers?. At the moment NVIDIA have got the marketing right imho, but could the Galazy S2 overtake that and make "it" the most optimized platform for games on a Android device?.
A lot of questions, which I am unsure of the answers?.
Any thoughts?.
While i can't tell you which is the future proof, i think its worth remembering that nvidia is very old school in gaming and i am sure they are doing what they can to promote tegra as the ultimate mobile gaming platform and i am sure they know a few in the business.
Can non tegra phone play tegra games ?
Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA App
@iceman92
Yes.
But still i'd say tegra is more furute-proof cause the developers will focus on the more mainstream processor which will be tegra... only a suggestion.
With the future-proof part, I would say Tegra is the best to go with. Nvidia have alot of plans for releasing smartphone CPU's in the future, I mean, they are due to release a quad core CPU this summer. I've had my O2x for about 2 weeks now and I've had no problems gaming with it, smooth as silk. As long as you use Launcher Pro then you're fine
The Mali-400 in the SGS2 SoC is older than the Geforce ULP in the Tegra 2 I believe but the Mali should outperform Tegra 2 on paper. Currently, gaming on "superphones" is still murky. You have different approaches to how you make (e.g. Adreno and PowerVR parts are "tile-based") the chips work. Therefore some games will play better on some chips because they are optimized for a certain kind of graphics design which is good on certain kinds of GPU hardware.
So here's what you do. Focus on good "Families" of GPU. First we have Adreno found in Qualcomm Chips (Adreno 220 in the HTC Sensation slaps Geforce ULP hard). The Adreno 200 is in the Nexus One and several Android phones. It's a well known and widely used GPU in Android.
Next you have PowerVR by Imagination, a very proven family. The PowerVR SGX540 is found in the Nexus S and the Galaxy S i9000 class of phones (Very popular phone). So expect a lot of marketshare in that. PowerVR is also used in iPhones and iPads. So expect some advantages when an iPhone released game reaches an Android platform.
Next you have Geforce ULP in the Tegra 2 by NVidia. Geforce ULP has not had much time to shine HOWEVER Tegra Zone has demonstrated NVidia has been encouraging developers on the platform. NVidia has a good history with developer support on their desktop chips and it is quite evident that they are doing the same with their smartphones. However, Tegra 2 is only in two (three if you count g2x as separate from o2x) smartphones in the market so far.
From what I can see so far, the Adreno, PowerVR, and Geforce ULP are very relevant in the future of mobile gaming and will be for a long time. There's no chance in hell you can futureproof with any phone you buy now. On average, smartphone GPU performance appears to be breaking Moore's Law and is becoming well over 2x the performance year over year with no sign of slowing down. What you want is something that's on the market which you will be satisfied with now. That's all you can count on.
Thanks guys.. in the end i went for the 2X as i paid £278 for the handset with a trade in for my desire.
Am very happy with the fone at the moment but having a issue with the free Shrek Kart voucher as it seems the voucher may have been used with someone else, not too worry.
Haven't had chance with gaming on it but just hope that we get games that are optimised for tegra 2, rather than ports from another more powerful GPU?!.
Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA Premium App
Hello everyone
I've been reading for a few days in this forum about the Motorola Razr i
I certainly found interesting articles but strangely I have found that very few refer to the Intel chip
just as I have been looking about the chip of "Motorola Razr i" and found a curious comment
"Medfield z2460 was meant to test the waters and is the reason why it was launched in india and not the US. Just a precursor to the medfield z2580. The z2580 and Clovertrail will be offered in dual core variants (not to mention quad core for clover trail) and will ditch the imagination technologies sgx 540 for an sgx 544 mp2 which runs 34 [email protected] mhz.
The sgx 540 gets 6.4 gfllops @400mhz . The adreno 225 runs at 24.5 [email protected] 400mhz and the tegra 3 (t30l or t33) gpu runs 13 [email protected] mhz. So being that 6.4gflops vs 24.5gflops is relative to 202% what do you think happens with 34 gflops vs 24.5 gflops? Plus the s4 is 103 mflops single threaded while medfield z2460 is 90 mflops single threaded on the cpu side. That's pretty close. Dual core comparison with sgx544 might actually be superior and at a higher process node (32nm vs 28nm), and that's with an in order instruction set vs ARM's out of order. I don't see how you get "x86 Atom has very slim chances when taking on Qualcomm’s ARM processors or any other new generation ARM mobile CPU from Samsung or Nvidia" with that info. Your talking a gpu and a core.
Come spring they go out of order, not to mention ditching 5 year old architecture for silvermont, 22nm process and inclusion of intel hd gpu with 40 to 80 gflops (depending on eu count) and you think there will be no competition? Even the apq8064 adreno 320 only has approx 40-45 gflops but that doesn't include the modem so higher tdp .
Maybe the exynos 5250 with mali [email protected] 68 gflops will be a threat given release schedule but still, nearly matching single threaded performance with the best chip on the market (and with 5 year old architecture), and beating every ARM chip to date in java script for a first try/test the waters offering? Swap a gpu and add a core and its game on. And adding new architecture, 22nm, out of order instruction and hd graphics and ARM might have a problem until 64 bit ARM v8."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My question is How true is this?
not publish the link to the site because I do not know if this is right in this forum.
I apologize for possible flaws in my English.
I'm having a super-smooth experience, so yeah, the hyper-threaded single-core chip is doing a very fine job compared to the ARM competitors.
But is it true that Intel will go out-of-order for their next architecture? Because the whole point behind Atom processors was to take advantage of Intel's advanced lithography and well tought architecture, then simplify it to make it consume much less energy (and go from out-of-order to in-order was one of those simplifications).
Well I always thought Intel smartphone chips were more powerful CPU wise but gpu wise its behind.
And christ you can quote all the figures you like but it doesn't mean it'll actually reach that. Its what the individual parts can achieve.
Put them into a phone and reduce the power consumption to an acceptable level = a lot less than quoted figures
Sent from my HTC Desire using xda app-developers app
with the new exynos and mtk octa core in the market , i was wandering if its possible for our phone to change cpu ? would a octa core be compatible ?
That is not PC dude. Anyway it would be great if possible
I don't think so. The motherboard may be not compitable with new cpu
Sent from my LG-P880 using xda app-developers app
kessaras said:
with the new exynos and mtk octa core in the market , i was wandering if its possible for our phone to change cpu ? would a octa core be compatible ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahh no sorry, there are two challenges that you would have too overcome, the first being the hardware aspect. The tegra 3 SoC isn't just a CPU but APU that has both a CPU and GPU on the same chip. This chip is physically soldered to the motherboard. While its not inconceivable that a very skilled person might be able to remove the chip and replace it with an identical chip (in theory).
You cant replace the tegra chip with another for both hardware and software incompatibilites, our phones whole motherboard is designed around the tegra3 and its very intricate details of operation. But let's pretend the hardware will be compatible and a exynos octa core is what we will use, the next problem is software. The kernel is the core of an operating system, on the arm platform the Linux kernel is different to that of x86 based devices, arm devices need extremely specific kernel support, you would in essence have to rewrite or re engineer an entire devices specific hardware support in the kernel, for scale the difference between mainline 3.1 and the 3.1 android kernel in our device is about a million lines of code, I'd guess lge's changes would be around 50,000 lines of code for our device.
But I somehow don't think its worth it
kessaras said:
with the new exynos and mtk octa core in the market , i was wandering if its possible for our phone to change cpu ? would a octa core be compatible ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why? You would lose access to THD games
Sent from my LG-P880 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
right the whole kernel must change. too much for me