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.
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.
Hi guys..
I sad Google developed 2.2 to improve snapdragon cpu and becuase of that the benchmarks shows 3X faster cpu on nexus,
will work 2.2 on galaxy like nexus ? or not for SGS cpu!
at all what you think about power of CPU/GPU in SGS on 2.2 ?
Is nexus cpu better than galaxy on Android 2.2 ?
The Galaxy's CPU/GPU is the best on the market right now and with 2.2 it should fix a lot of software problems with the SGS.
Actually can't wait for 2.2, and it's released around about my birthday!
When is your birthday
22nd September mate. You can buy me a Galaxy S as a spare if you want
well I have to see it first.
Guess Samsung finds a way to **** up the phone again i'm sure of that.
matty___ said:
well I have to see it first.
Guess Samsung finds a way to **** up the phone again i'm sure of that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If it has rfs file format and TouchWiz, consider it ****ed up.
kgk888 said:
If it has rfs file format and TouchWiz, consider it ****ed up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If froyo on the SGS sucks, then the chefs in here will cut it open and make it run properly and it won't matter what the FW was like when samsung sent it out. Also, TouchWiz is fine, even if it does have a dumb name.
I have been worried about this. The sgs line and droid line do not get over 15 in linpack with 2.2. I dont see the same increase in speed as I do with snapdragon based phones. I have read this is due to the snapdragon having 128 bit vs 64 bit something but cant find the forum post about this. The sgs line with 2.1 is still faster then a 2.2 snapdragon based phone but it must have the lag fix installed. Without the lag fix it is slower for sure. I will try to find the forum post about 128bit vs 64bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKsAUR61ByM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji49qFNxC4c
Edit: found the forum post
Originally Posted by Gimic26
Your question was answered already...it comes down to processor architecture. Qualcomm's Snapdragon platform and more specifically the Scorpion application processor, while being related to TI's Omap Arm series, has enhancements made by Qualcomm. The part of the cpu that handles the SIMD instructions has a wider pipeline, 128 bits vs 64 bits in TI's Omap. Scorpion also has a deeper pipeline to better handle all that data which I'd assume offsets some of the performance benefits a little bit.
As far as the difference between the two benchmarks, they are written to benchmark two different things. Linpack can run almost entirely within the SIMD/NEON portion of the cpu thereby showing off the enhancements made by Qualcomm. Quadrant stresses the entire core showing off total system performance showing that only in certain situations will Snapdragon outperform any other Arm based core.
shep211 said:
I have been worried about this. The sgs line and droid line do not get over 15 in linpack with 2.2. I dont see the same increase in speed as I do with snapdragon based phones. I have read this is due to the snapdragon having 128 bit vs 64 bit something but cant find the forum post about this. The sgs line with 2.1 is still faster then a 2.2 snapdragon based phone but it must have the lag fix installed. Without the lag fix it is slower for sure. I will try to find the forum post about 128bit vs 64bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKsAUR61ByM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji49qFNxC4c
Edit: found the forum post
Originally Posted by Gimic26
Your question was answered already...it comes down to processor architecture. Qualcomm's Snapdragon platform and more specifically the Scorpion application processor, while being related to TI's Omap Arm series, has enhancements made by Qualcomm. The part of the cpu that handles the SIMD instructions has a wider pipeline, 128 bits vs 64 bits in TI's Omap. Scorpion also has a deeper pipeline to better handle all that data which I'd assume offsets some of the performance benefits a little bit.
As far as the difference between the two benchmarks, they are written to benchmark two different things. Linpack can run almost entirely within the SIMD/NEON portion of the cpu thereby showing off the enhancements made by Qualcomm. Quadrant stresses the entire core showing off total system performance showing that only in certain situations will Snapdragon outperform any other Arm based core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I've seen and read, the 2.2 builds for the Galaxy S do NOT have a JIT compiler enabled which explains the lower scores. The N1 got the huge CPU boost from having JIT enabled. That doesn't explain the Droid X's scores, but then again I haven't read enough about 2.2 running on the DX to see if it has JIT installed.
What're you think? I'll buy SGS 2.1 or wait for SGS 2.2 ?
It's very important to buy most powerfull phone.
I like Nexuse cus it's tested sucssasfuly in Android 2.2 and I'm gono love SGS if it will be better than nexus in 2.2.
Help me to choose better path )
Vogie said:
What're you think? I'll buy SGS 2.1 or wait for SGS 2.2 ?
It's very important to buy most powerfull phone.
I like Nexuse cus it's tested sucssasfuly in Android 2.2 and I'm gono love SGS if it will be better than nexus in 2.2.
Help me to choose better path )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would wait at this time before purchasing an SGS if that's your concern.
Out of the box, the current phone/software is laggy and disappointing. If you're willing to hack it with some of the various fixes found here (I prefer samset with mimocan kernel), then you won't be unhappy with the phone, but there's no guarantee that Samsung will get FroYo right, and that if they do get it wrong that the devs here will be able to bring you a hot, non-laggy, super FroYo ROM before there's better, or at least comparable hardware done right by the manufacturer available.
That's no reflection on the devs here at all, I'm just thinking that Samsung won't release the firmware until the end of September, the devs will need a couple of weeks to make magic at least, and so now we're well into October. By October, the SGS will be a six month old phone. Six months is a very long time in the Android hardware world, and we'll likely see a landslide of new phones with faster CPU, maybe even dual-cores in the fall for the holiday season. The only thing the SGS will have over other phones at that point is the Super AMOLED screen by Samsung, since they're holding it all to themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if Moto or HTC try to kang the iPhone display tech for newer models if they can't get Super AMOLED for themselves.
In the android world it is nearly impossible to but a device that won't be out of date within at most a year and sometimes within 6 months.
Having said that, I don't see anything that will topple the sgs quite that soon. Although there is talk of dual core snap dragons, there has been nothing announced yet, and indeed the two new Desire handsets are still on the same chip.
I wouldn't expect to see anything that will have more raw power than the sgs until at least mid 2011. If there was anything closer than that it'd already be getting hyped.
If you keep looking at what is just over the horizon then you won't end up ever getting one, because there always seems to be something new out in a few months time. The sgs isn't prefect, but it beats the hell it of most anything that you'll be able to buy this year.
My humble opinion of course, but I think that if you want top end hardware, the sgs will serve you very well.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Based on your responses so far, I'd just get an iPhone 4 and be done with it.
There are a lot of people here and elsewhere who are perfectly happy with the device. I for one haven't installed the lag fix and I don't experience any lags, except for the situations below:
1. I'm trying to do something while there are several apps being installed/downloaded from the marketplace in the background. I think this will be resolved with the dualcore next gen CPU's.
2. Using LauncherPro, for all that is good and nice on this earth, I do not know why it took me 3 months before the option to change the shortcut on its drawer was shown to me. Imagine that, 3 months just to show the option to add a shortcut. Jeezus. I click on add shortcut and it took 3 months. Someone shoot me. I'm using ADW now and am very happy.
Out of sheer curiosity, why is it that you need "THE MOST POWERFUL PHONE"?
shep211 said:
As far as the difference between the two benchmarks, they are written to benchmark two different things. Linpack can run almost entirely within the SIMD/NEON portion of the cpu thereby showing off the enhancements made by Qualcomm. Quadrant stresses the entire core showing off total system performance showing that only in certain situations will Snapdragon outperform any other Arm based core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The hummingbird core is widely recognized to be faster than the snapdragon core. Benchmarks do not tell you everything. Reference:
You might think that the Hummingbird doesn’t stand a chance against Qualcomm’s custom-built monster, but Samsung isn’t prepared to throw in the towel. In response to Snapdragon, they hired Intrinsity, a semiconductor company specializing in tweaking processor logic design, to customize the Cortex-A8 in the Hummingbird to perform certain binary functions using significantly less instructions than normal. Samsung estimates that 20% of the Hummingbird’s functions are affected, and of those, on average 25-50% less instructions are needed to complete each task. Overall, the processor can perform tasks 5-10% more quickly while handling the same 2 instructions per clock cycle as an unmodified ARM Cortex-A8 processor, and Samsung states it outperforms all other processors on the market (a statement seemingly aimed at Qualcomm).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here is a GPU comparison for some of the leading smartphones:
Motorola Droid: TI OMAP3430 with PowerVR SGX530 = 7-14 million(?) triangles/sec
Nexus One: Qualcomm QSD8x50 with Adreno 200 = 22 million triangles/sec
iPhone 3G S: 600 MHz Cortex-A8 with PowerVR SGX535 = 28 7 million triangles/sec
Samsung Galaxy S: S5PC110 with PowerVR SGX540 = 90 million triangles/sec
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait for G2 as nexus one is old news and i think they are winding down production. Frankly i love my sgs. Get it now cos frankly froyo is way over hyped compared to what sgs can do now with a lagfix
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
ickyboo said:
Wait for G2 as nexus one is old news and i think they are winding down production. Frankly i love my sgs. Get it now cos frankly froyo is way over hyped compared to what sgs can do now with a lagfix
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can't really say froyo is over hyped, I mean its free, and beyond that its an incremental upgrade.
I don't see why anyone would be staying on eclair once official froyo drops, and you can't deny that it will bring a performance boost.
Now I doubt it will bring quite as much of a boost as it gave to the N1 until we get a few months of development to really get it running sweetly, but all the same its still not over hyped if I ask me.
With optimized ROMs and whatever fixes we need (cuz samsung WILL break something) I figure the sgs will shred the N1's new scores. I recon we'll see around 3k in quadrant.
Considering how far ahead of almost everything a lag fixed non-stock-rom sgs is now, we'll see something really special once froyo starts rocking our crotches.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
The.Opethian said:
Based on your responses so far, I'd just get an iPhone 4 and be done with it.
There are a lot of people here and elsewhere who are perfectly happy with the device. I for one haven't installed the lag fix and I don't experience any lags, except for the situations below:
1. I'm trying to do something while there are several apps being installed/downloaded from the marketplace in the background. I think this will be resolved with the dualcore next gen CPU's.
2. Using LauncherPro, for all that is good and nice on this earth, I do not know why it took me 3 months before the option to change the shortcut on its drawer was shown to me. Imagine that, 3 months just to show the option to add a shortcut. Jeezus. I click on add shortcut and it took 3 months. Someone shoot me. I'm using ADW now and am very happy.
Out of sheer curiosity, why is it that you need "THE MOST POWERFUL PHONE"?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why powerfull phone? ok i'll tell u:
Because I don't like to buy an expensive phone (like SGS) that power is lesser than a chipper phone (like N1) !
Because I'd rather a phone without stalling (lagging) to play games and running big applications. I will very gray if i'll se lagging/stalling...
Because I need a phone with a good support (it's enough, don't need mazing support). a phone with a clear (alive or nice) Future
JIT for Hummingbird should be promising.
High Mem
anyone got any idea on the high mem issue?... when i was browsing the Gmarket.com, i realize 305 total available memory is not enough for me... and the web page just closed....
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.
hello guys..i heard that galaxy note and other samsung device are using an outdated GPU (Mali-400MP GPU)...so is it a little "fail" for our note to have an outdated GPU?plss give ur opinion.. thanks guys
..u can read the review about the GPU--> Here
It's so much faster than the sgx540 in the nexus it's ridiculous and since my choice was between those two I'm very happy with it.
Sent from my superior GT-N7000 using Tapatalk
Check out the real world performances. Mali 400 outclasses Adreno 220 easily.
The weakpoint of Mali is geometry performance, but it does not matter much with mobiles until now as mobile games are not geometry heavy.
On the other hand, the OpenGL ES 2.x performance and real world performance of Mali is excellent.
With the clock speed of exynos in Note which actually gives much better real world performance with Mali 400 than even SGS2, it runs circles around Adreno 220 powered devices like sensation and even SGX540 powered devices.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4686/samsung-galaxy-s-2-international-review-the-best-redefined/17
The above review is of SGS2. And mind you the performance of note is much better than SGS2. It is one of the most balanced GPUs on market with great gaming as well as multimedia performance (which actually matters more to someone like me.)
Funkym0nkey said:
Check out the real world performances. Mali 400 outclasses Adreno 220 easily.
The weakpoint of Mali is geometry performance, but it does not matter much with mobiles until now as mobile games are not geometry heavy.
On the other hand, the OpenGL ES 2.x performance and real world performance of Mali is excellent.
With the clock speed of exynos in Note which actually gives much better real world performance with Mali 400 than even SGS2, it runs circles around Adreno 220 powered devices like sensation and even SGX540 powered devices.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4686/samsung-galaxy-s-2-international-review-the-best-redefined/17
The above review is of SGS2. And mind you the performance of note is much better than SGS2. It is one of the most balanced GPUs on market with great gaming as well as multimedia performance (which actually matters more to someone like me.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks for this info sir
although mali has been here for a very long time, it was well ahead of its time. and it still is i guess
anjath said:
although mali has been here for a very long time, it was well ahead of its time. and it still is i guess
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah well Scott Adams is wayyyyyyy past his heyday (heck, even being relevant).... haven't read him since 2007 or so, when he started dabbling in intelligent design woo and sexist claptrap...
for being a heavy mobile gamer
i can assure you that the mali 400 on the note does very well with the latest games (asphalt7, dead trigger to name a few) despite having to compute for a much higher resolution display than other phones...
and with a little overclocking (tegrak app or gl notecore kernel) gpu performance can get sky high.
best phone i ever got :victory:
GAME ON said:
hello guys..i heard that galaxy note and other samsung device are using an outdated GPU (Mali-400MP GPU)...so is it a little "fail" for our note to have an outdated GPU?plss give ur opinion.. thanks guys
..u can read the review about the GPU--> Here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The note was released ten months ago but still its gpu is better than all the others except sgs3 and and maybe one x..
Btw do you even own a note?? Did you every notice any lag in any game??
Whiskeyjack4855 said:
The note was released ten months ago but still its gpu is better than all the others except sgs3 and and maybe one x..
Btw do you even own a note?? Did you every notice any lag in any game??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The NOTE's and SGS3's GPU are the same.
However, the S3 is built on a smaller 32nm die-size, so it means it uses less space and less power for same performance. Samsung uses this advantage to clock the frequency much higher than the NOTE (which is built on a 45nm die).
Also, the S3 implements a new, updated driver for the gpu and squeezes more performance out. This was a same move Samsung made with the SGX540, which is also a very fast gpu. The original SGS was clocked real-low and had outdated drivers... after stealing the driver sources from the LG with OMAP 4440 SoC, the SGS (with 4.0.3) was performing in the same league as the 2011/2012 devices.
Kangal said:
The NOTE's and SGS3's GPU are the same.
However, the S3 is built on a smaller 32nm die-size, so it means it uses less space and less power for same performance. Samsung uses this advantage to clock the frequency much higher than the NOTE (which is built on a 45nm die).
Also, the S3 implements a new, updated driver for the gpu and squeezes more performance out. This was a same move Samsung made with the SGX540, which is also a very fast gpu. The original SGS was clocked real-low and had outdated drivers... after stealing the driver sources from the LG with OMAP 4440 SoC, the SGS (with 4.0.3) was performing in the same league as the 2011/2012 devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know that that both the note and sgs3 has same gpu.. But the one in sgs3 its more powerful cause you said it's overclocked and has better drivers..
Btw do you know why the mali in sgs3 gets so high benchmark scores even wih the 720p screen? I mean is it all due to oc and better drivers?
Whiskeyjack4855 said:
I know that that both the note and sgs3 has same gpu.. But the one in sgs3 its more powerful cause you said it's overclocked and has better drivers..
Btw do you know why the mali in sgs3 gets so high benchmark scores even wih the 720p screen? I mean is it all due to oc and better drivers?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Better drivers + a little O'C makes the overwhelming difference.
I mean the NOTE comes with *only* 2 cores and *slow* gpu... after I customized it, its running toe-to-toe with the HTC One X (Tegra3).
An easier way to understand is to look at the new RIM PlayBook.
It's got the same processor as the Gnex (Galaxy Nexus) however its much much faster, especially in browsing. It decimates it. It even decimates the ASUS Transformer Prime Infinity (O'C Tegra3 + ICS).... or the Nexus7 (U'C Tegra3 + JBean).
You are only as fast as your slowest component. In the case of Android, its the high-level (slow) implemented software.
= Getting a faster soc with more cores and more ram doesn't really increase performance that much.
Some serious thread necromancy going on here!
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
Kangal said:
Better drivers + a little O'C makes the overwhelming difference.
I mean the NOTE comes with *only* 2 cores and *slow* gpu... after I customized it, its running toe-to-toe with the HTC One X (Tegra3).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
By toe to toe with the one x do you mean benchmarks or real life perfomance..
Hey one thing more..aren't you a engadget reader?
Whiskeyjack4855 said:
By toe to toe with the one x do you mean benchmarks or real life perfomance..
Hey one thing more..aren't you a engadget reader?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Both.
But I don't live by the benchmarks. I mean have you tried some of the HD Apps from TegraZone. On stock TouchWizz, the NOTE really struggles. With a custom setup, I don't get much/any problems.
Yeah, I do frequent engadget... also on heaps of other sites.
Kangal said:
Both.
But I don't live by the benchmarks. I mean have you tried some of the HD Apps from TegraZone. On stock TouchWizz, the NOTE really struggles. With a custom setup, I don't get much/any problems.
Yeah, I do frequent engadget... also on heaps of other sites.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Would you be kind enough to educate me about your setup?
Kangal said:
Better drivers + a little O'C makes the overwhelming difference.
I mean the NOTE comes with *only* 2 cores and *slow* gpu... after I customized it, its running toe-to-toe with the HTC One X (Tegra3).
An easier way to understand is to look at the new RIM PlayBook.
It's got the same processor as the Gnex (Galaxy Nexus) however its much much faster, especially in browsing. It decimates it. It even decimates the ASUS Transformer Prime Infinity (O'C Tegra3 + ICS).... or the Nexus7 (U'C Tegra3 + JBean).
You are only as fast as your slowest component. In the case of Android, its the high-level (slow) implemented software.
= Getting a faster soc with more cores and more ram doesn't really increase performance that much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. Even though the Playbook has its many flaws (owned two both with screen/USB issues) it was a powerhouse. Multimedia was outstanding and web surfing was by far the fastest.
But the OS, QNX, is to thank for that. If the Playbook was running android it would be nothing out of the ordinary. As much as I love Android it really is not as efficiant as QNX
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda app-developers app
anything on market today is outdated tommorow
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
Recently I had a doubt about if it's possible to unlock the 2 locked remaining cores in the Galaxy Note N7000? Because I realize that the Note only uses 2 of the 4 GPU cores... It's there a possibility to do this? How?
i think mali 400 is a good GPU because Note1 and Note2 using it. and really nice GPU for gaming
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