Related
Looking back, when I switch phones it is usually when there is a better device out with a significant improvement over my current device. My first smartphone was the Tmobile MDA (HTC Wizard), which I bought roughly 5 years ago. The next phone was the Tmobile Wing (HTC Atlas), with a much smaller form factor and faster CPU the device was a great improvement.
My next device was my first real HTC marketed phone, the Touch Diamond. The diamond, was a complete overhaul from the other two HTC phones I used. I loved every little part of it. But going from the Diamond to the glamorous HD2 was even more amazing, the screen, the size everything was perfect.
Now the question I have is that it is almost a year that the HD2 has been out and I ready to get a new phone, but I am wondering about what things I should consider.
I dont think that the Droid X, or the Galaxy S smart phones are really all that much better than the HD2, so I am more interested in the Cortex-A9 phones that are slowly trickling into the market.
The CPUs that will have Cortex-A9 dual core tech are as follows:
Nvidia
Tegra 2
1Ghz
Custom High Profile Graphics
(Motorola Olympus, LG Star)
Qaulcomm
Snapdragon 3rd Gen
1.2GHz/1.5GHz
Adreno 220
Verizon HTC Phone
Samsung
Orion
1GHz
Mali 400
(Nexus S)
Texas Instruments
OMAP 4
1GHz+
PowerVR SGX 540
(Pandaboard)
Marvell
Armada 628
1.5GHz + Custom 624MHz DSP
Custom High Profile Graphics
ST-Erricson
U8500
1.2GHz
Mali 400
So basically what should I do? Wait for all of them to come out and then decide, or get which one comes first.
I want the best processing power with the greatest graphics, and was thinking on Tegra 2 but found that Open GL ES benchmarks have low values for the Tergra2 platform lower than the SGX 540.
Galaxy Tab Results:
http://www.glbenchmark.com/phonedetails.jsp?D=Samsung GT-P1000 Galaxy Tab&benchmark=glpro11
Folio 100:
http://www.glbenchmark.com/phonedetails.jsp?D=Toshiba Folio 100&benchmark=glpro11
Are these a result of poor drivers or is Tegra really weaker than the SGX 540, (and thus weaker than the Mali 400)?????
Is the Nexus S a better choice than the Motorola Olympus, or should I wait for HTC's addition to the game with a 3rd gen Snappy. Will the adreno 220 GPU out power the Tegra 2 and Mali 400. What do you guys think, and what do you plan on doing.
Well firstly better hardware means nothing if the software is the bottleneck. Secondly, we've seen often the grunt of the cpu is more contributive to performance of programs than the gpu in Android OS. Thirdly, you're going to have to wait, see, buy, test these platforms to know which ones are superior... but here is what I've discovered during the course of 2010.
SoC's for 2011:
(listed in what I believe is the best to the worse)
+ ARM Sparrow: Dual-core Cortex A9 @2.00GHz (on 32nm die), unspecified GPU
+ TI OMAP 4440: Dual-core Cortex A9 @1.5GHz, SGX 540 (90M t/s)
+ Apple A5 (iPad2): Dual-core Cortex A9 @0.9GHz, SGX 543MP2 (130M-150M t/s)
+ Qualcomm MSM8660 (Gen IV Snapdragon): Dual-core Cortex A9 @1.5GHz, Adreno 220 (88M t/s)
+ TI OMAP 4430: Dual-core Cortex A9 @1GHz, SGX 540 (90M t/s)
+ ST-Ericson U8500: Dual-core Cortex A9 @1.2GHz, ARM Mali 400 (50-80M t/s)
+ Samsung Orion: Dual-core Cortex A9 @1GHz, ARM Mali 400 (50-80M t/s)
+ Nvidia Tegra 2: Dual-core Cortex A9 @1GHz, nVidia ULP-GeForce (71M t/s)
+ Qualcomm Scorpion (Gen III Snapdragon): Dual-core Cortex A8 @1.2GHz, Adreno 220 (88M t/s)
Notes: The SGX530 is roughly half the speed as the SGX535. The SGX540 is twice as fast as the SGX535. The Adreno 205(41M tri/sec) is supposedly faster than the SGX535 but slower than the SGX540 (thus, is likely to be in the mid). The Adreno 220 is twice the speed of the Adreno 205 but it is slightly slower than SGX540(88M vs 90M tri/sec). Samsung claims ARM Mali 400 to be 5 times faster than its previous GPU (S3C6410 - 4M tri/sec), about on par (80M tri/sec) with the Adreno 220, but few leaks benchmarked it to be only slighlty faster than the SGX535 (40M tri/sec). The gpu used in the Nvidia Tegra2 has been quite contained (little known). I estimated the Tegra2 has 71M t/sec (Tegra 2 Neocore=27fps/55fps=Galaxy S Neocore, x62% disadvantage of screen resolution, x 90Mt/s of SGX540 = 71M t/s). And recently some inside rumors via fudzilla actually confirmed this exact figure, so therefore the gpu-chip inside the Tegra2 is roughly equivalent to the MALI 400.
All of these details are based on officially announced, rumors from trustworthy sources and logical estimations, so discrepancies can be existent.
Last thoughts: As you can see there is some diversity in the next-gen chips (soon to-be current-gen), where the top tier (OMAP 4440) is roughly 1.5 times more powerful than the low tier (Tegra 2). However drivers and software will play a lead-role in determining which device could squeeze out the most performance. And this factor may alone favour the iPad2, Playbook or even MeeGo tablets to be better than the Honeycomb tablets which are somewhat bottleneck-ed by the lack of hardware accelaration and post-transcription through the Dalvik VM. I think we've hit the point where we could have some really impressive high definition entertainment, and even emulating the Dreamcast at decent/fullspeed.
edit2: Well, Apple's been boasting over x9 the graphical performance over the original iPad. There are 2 articles on anadtech, one in Geekbench and a processor-specific details from imgtech (I dug up from 12months ago). It has been found that its a modified Cortex A9, 512MB RAM and the SGX543MP2. Everything points to the SGX543MP2 being significantly faster than the SGX540, and the given number was 133 Million Polygons per second (theoretical) for SGX543MP4 which is double SGX543MP2 performance. The practical figure is always less. Imgtech said the SGX540 is double the grunt of the SGX535, benchmarks show the SGX543MP2 is (on average) five times the grunt as the iPad (SGX535). So going by imgtech (the designer of sgx chips), the theoretical value that I list above, should be 70M t/s ... going by Apple's claim it should be 200M t/s ... going by benchmarks it should be roughly 130 M t/s. Imgtech's value is definently wrong since they claimed its faster than the SGX540 valued at 90M t/s. Apple's claim also seems biased, they take only the best possible conditions and exaggerate it even more. It seems to be somewhere in between, and wouldn't you know it, the average of the two "false" claims is equivalent to the benchmarked value
edit3: The benchmarks are out for the 4th-gen QSD, which confirms everything prior. It's competing for top place against the 4440 and A5. I've changed the post (only updated chip's name).
If one were to choose between the processor of the A5 and the OMAP4440, they'd be really pressed to choose between more cpu grunt or more gpu grunt.
Just re-edited the post.
Apple's A5 details are added in, its looks to be one of the best chips for the year.
If I had to choose between the OMAP4440 and A5, I probably would be reduced to a head-tail coin flip!
Update:
The benchmark results of the Snapdragon MSM8660 are in.... and it goes further to support the list.
MSM660 = Dualcore A9 + Adreno 220 + Qualcomm modification (for better/worse).
Seems with every smartphone that comes to the USA it gets some sort of Snapdragon Processor by Qualcomm and people do nothing but complain. So how does this Snapdragon S4 processor compare to every other dual-core processor out there and even the Tegra 3? Looked up some benchmarks and both seem to have their advantages and disadvantages. But what I really want to know is which one is better for real world performance, such as battery life, transitional effects, and launching apps. Couple people said Sense 4 is very smooth and "has LITTLE to no lag"? How does this processor display web pages in Chrome?
Read the thread "Those of your who are waiting too compare GSIII to HTC One X" in this forum. It only has about 6 pages but has a ton of information. Short answer is that the Qualcomm chip kicks serious ass.
Sent from my Desire HD using XDA
shaboobla said:
Short answer is that the Qualcomm chip kicks serious ass.
Sent from my Desire HD using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
After reading through that thread I'm still not entirely clear. Seems the Tegra is better for gaming?
MattMJB0188 said:
After reading through that thread I'm still not entirely clear. Seems the Tegra is better for gaming?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes and no, the tegra 3 does have a better gpu so in theory, better games. however, game makers cater to the mass. most androids that are active are mid-range, android 2.2 or 2.3, have a resolution of 480x800, and last years (or older) processors. although most will be made to work on the t3 and s4, it will be compatibility issues, not optimization. nvidia will have a couple games "t3 only" but even those will be made to work on other phones. now that ics is cleaning up some of the splintering of apps, we'll see some better options on both fields.
in short, yes the t3 is a better gaming chip. but for the battery life, games available, and current bugs i would suggest the s4. i may change my mind when the refreshs come out q3-4, we'll see.
MattMJB0188 said:
After reading through that thread I'm still not entirely clear. Seems the Tegra is better for gaming?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct. However, most games are not optimized to utilize the Tegra to its fullest potential. That should change by the end of the year. The other point is that the S4 is just as good as the Tegra un terms of gaming performance. IMO, you should decide between these 2 processors by looking at the main area where the S4 truly has the advantage thus far, and that is battery life. So far, the battery life advantage goes to the S4. Just read the battery life threads in this forum and for the international X. It took a few updates to the Transformer Prime to start having pretty good battery life. The One X, will get better in that department with a couple more updates for battery optimization. The S4 starts with great battery life and will get even better in that department.
Sent from my HTC Vivid using XDA app
I say the snapdragon S4 is a better chip right now. The tegra 3 gpu is great and with the tegra zone games it really looks great. But he 4 cores CPU is really for heavy multitasking so you candivise the work between all four cores. They are A9 cores vs the custom qualcomm which is close to A15. It mans that for single threaded task and multi threaded task the snapdragon will whoop tegra 3' ass. Opening an app, scrolling through that app sect... also browser performance is slightly better on the qualcomm chip. Basically tegra 3 can do lots of things at the same time with decent speed vs the S4 chip which can do 1 or few more things at lighting speed.
The S4 is almost 2x faster than any other dual core out there. Anandtech did a few nice articles on the S4, including benchmarks vs tegra 3.
In real use, the S4 should be much better, because not all apps are multithreaded for 4 cores. The S4 completely kicks the Tegra 3's ass in singlethreaded benchmarks. I also expect the S4 to be better at power management, because it is made on 28nm node, instead of 40 nm, so its more compact and efficient.
About 23 I'd say
Sent from my SGH-I997 using xda premium
Here is a comparison benchmark by someone from Reddit.
Benchmark S4 Krait Tegra 3
Quadrant 5016 4906
Linpack Single 103.11 48.54
Linpack Multi 212.96 150.54
Nenamark 2 59.7fps 47.6fps
Nenamark 1 59.9fps 59.5fps
Vellamo 2276 1617
SunSpider 1540.0ms 1772.5ms
Sadly, can't do much for the formatting. Enjoy.
The difference in DMIP's is where the S4 really whomps on the T3. All the T3 has going for it at the moment is it's GPU. If you don't care about some additional gaming prowess, the S4 is the way to go.
tehdef said:
Here is a comparison benchmark by someone from Reddit.
Benchmark S4 Krait Tegra 3
Quadrant 5016 4906
Linpack Single 103.11 48.54
Linpack Multi 212.96 150.54
Nenamark 2 59.7fps 47.6fps
Nenamark 1 59.9fps 59.5fps
Vellamo 2276 1617
SunSpider 1540.0ms 1772.5ms
Sadly, can't do much for the formatting. Enjoy.
The difference in DMIP's is where the S4 really whomps on the T3. All the T3 has going for it at the moment is it's GPU. If you don't care about some additional gaming prowess, the S4 is the way to go.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to add to that and to be fair, S4 is at around 7000 at antutu benchmark while tegra 3 is at around 10000. I still prefer the S4
Eh...
It wins in 1 benchmark specifically enabled to take advantage of more than 2 cores. So if you want to play tegrazone games and have some basic lag, the T3 is for you. If you want to have a near flawless phone experience, and have decreased graphical performance in some wanna be console games, then the S4 is the way to go.
Actually you wont really notice the lack of graphics performance on the snapdragon s4. Its about 10% slower in most benchmarks but outperforms the tegra3 in a few as well. However i have a sensation xl with the adreno 205 which is only a quarter as fast as the adreno 225 and all games including deadspace, frontline, blood glory runs smoothly on it. To say the snapdragon s4 is inferior because of the slower Adreno 225 is really nit picking to me. For me bigger reason to choose one graphics chip over another is flash performance and this is where the exynos mali 400 kicks the adreno 225 in the balls. It handles 1080p youtube videos in browser without a hiccup while the 225 chokes even on 720p content.
Let me answer this. How good is it? More than good enough. Almost all apps and games are catered to weaker phones so the T3 and S4 are both more than good enough.
And my two cents, the S4 beats tegra 3
MattMJB0188 said:
Seems with every smartphone that comes to the USA it gets some sort of Snapdragon Processor by Qualcomm and people do nothing but complain. So how does this Snapdragon S4 processor compare to every other dual-core processor out there and even the Tegra 3? Looked up some benchmarks and both seem to have their advantages and disadvantages. But what I really want to know is which one is better for real world performance, such as battery life, transitional effects, and launching apps. Couple people said Sense 4 is very smooth and "has LITTLE to no lag"? How does this processor display web pages in Chrome?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let me start by saying I'm not a pro when it comes to electronics but I do have an understanding on the subject.
The thing to realize about these processors, and most other processors available today, is that the s4 is based on the cortex a15 while the tegra 3 along with the new Samsung are based on the a9. The a15, at the same Hz and die size is 40% faster than the a9.
S4 = dual core Cortex A15 @ 1.5GHz - 28NM
Tegra3 = quad core Cortex A9 @ 1.5GHz - 40NM
Exynos 4(Samsung) = quad core Cortex A9 @ 1.5GHz - 32NM
S4 so far, in theory, is 40% faster per core, but having two less. Individual apps will run faster unless they utilize all four cores on the tegra3. Because the s4 has a smaller die size, it will consume less energy per core.
The actual technology behind these chips that the manufacturers come up with will also affect the performance output, but the general idea is there. Hope that helps to understand a little better how the two chips will differ in performance.
Sent from my shiny One XL
The S4 compared to the Tegra3 says it all. dualcore that beats a quadcore in almost everything.
Intel released the first native dual core processor in 2006 and shortly thereafter released a quad core which was basically two dual cores fused together (this is what current ARM quads are like).
That was 6 years ago and these days pretty much all new desktop computers come with quad cores while laptops mostly stick with dual. Laptops make up the biggest share of PC sales so for your everyday PC usage, you'll be more than comfortable with a dual core.
You really can't assume mobile SoCs will follow the same path, but it's definitely something to consider. I think dual core A15-based SoCs will still rule the day this year and next at the very least.
I was really on the fence about the X or the XL. But the S4 got me. Not having 32GB is already bugging me. But the efficiency (and my grandfathered unlimited data paired with Google Music) is definitely worth the sacrifice. Very happy so far! Streaming Slacker, while connected to my A2DP stereo, running GPS was great. I'm not a huge gamer though. I miss Super Mario Bros being the hottest thing!
krepler said:
Let me start by saying I'm not a pro when it comes to electronics but I do have an understanding on the subject.
The thing to realize about these processors, and most other processors available today, is that the s4 is based on the cortex a15 while the tegra 3 along with the new Samsung are based on the a9. The a15, at the same Hz and die size is 40% faster than the a9.
S4 = dual core Cortex A15 @ 1.5GHz - 28NM
Tegra3 = quad core Cortex A9 @ 1.5GHz - 40NM
Exynos 4(Samsung) = quad core Cortex A9 @ 1.5GHz - 32NM
S4 so far, in theory, is 40% faster per core, but having two less. Individual apps will run faster unless they utilize all four cores on the tegra3. Because the s4 has a smaller die size, it will consume less energy per core.
The actual technology behind these chips that the manufacturers come up with will also affect the performance output, but the general idea is there. Hope that helps to understand a little better how the two chips will differ in performance.
Sent from my shiny One XL
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
correct me if im wrong but all 3 are A9 based including the S4. the first A15 will be the Exynos 5250, a dual core.
Tankmetal said:
correct me if im wrong but all 3 are A9 based including the S4. the first A15 will be the Exynos 5250, a dual core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is inaccurate.
The Exynos 4 and the Tegra 3 are based on the ARM A9 reference design.
The Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 is "roughly equivalent" to the A15, but not based on the A15. The same was true for Qualcomm's old S3 (which was equivalent to something between the A8 and A9 design)
One thing that most people don't realize is that Qualcomm is one of the very few companies that designs its own processors based on the ARM instruction set, and while S4's is similar to the A15 in terms of architecture, it's actually arguably better than the ARM reference design (e.g. asynchronous clocking of each core which is a better design than the big.LITTLE or +1 design).
The news broke that the samsung galaxy s iii will be arriving to all major us carriers in June. here is the article on the verge.
The official announcement confirms that it will launch with Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 1.5 GHz dual core CPU and 2GB of internal RAM vs the Exynos 4212(5250 need to verify which version they used) 1.4 GHz Quad-core and 1 GB of internal RAM
Can someone that knows what they are talking about tell me if there's a significant difference between the two specs I presented and which one will be faster vs battery consumption?
I am a T-Mobile customer, and looks like the SGSIII is said to come with HSPA+ with 42Mbps+, while the international version will be HSPA+ with 21Mbps+, on paper it is double the speed, what is the difference, is there sufficient coverage? I looked at the map for T-Mobile Data and they only show the strength of signal and don't differentiate the two.
so far here's the only real answer i've gotten on this topic?? anyone agrees?? disagrees? why?
krepler said:
Let me start by saying I'm not a pro when it comes to electronics but I do have an understanding on the subject.
The thing to realize about these processors, and most other processors available today, is that the s4 is based on the cortex a15 while the tegra 3 along with the new Samsung are based on the a9. The a15, at the same Hz and die size is 40% faster than the a9.
S4 = dual core Cortex A15 @ 1.5GHz - 28NM
Tegra3 = quad core Cortex A9 @ 1.5GHz - 40NM
Exynos 4(Samsung) = quad core Cortex A9 @ 1.5GHz - 32NM
S4 so far, in theory, is 40% faster per core, but having two less. Individual apps will run faster unless they utilize all four cores on the tegra3. Because the s4 has a smaller die size, it will consume less energy per core.
The actual technology behind these chips that the manufacturers come up with will also affect the performance output, but the general idea is there. Hope that helps to understand a little better how the two chips will differ in performance.
Sent from my shiny One XL
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sorry if i'm posting in wrong section, I thought of posting it in the GSIII general forum, but only international versions available, I'll get biased answers, my guess is also the SII users at least recent ones won't be upgrading, and I know the HTC One users will just try to make it look like their phone is better. I need an unbiased opinion. lol
Does anyone else think that the new-generation Exynos SoC will support 802.11ac and LTE-A? Or playing back 1080p video at 60 fps and 2k quality at 30 fps? These are features which were never really discussed about the chipset itself.
The Snapdragon 800 was confirmed to have compatibility and capability of all of the aforementioned. It sounds as if the Snapdragon 800 series will be the superior chipset, while the Exynos Octa will likely provide better power efficiency in some regard. It would be pretty disappointing if the Galaxy S IV got stuck with a Snapdragon 600 processor, given the date it's likely going to be pushed out on. It might make me consider the Note this time around.
i really hope all these rumors are fake, samsung should use Exynos on there flagship Galaxy S line ! if not the octa, maybe the Exynos 5 Quad Core 1.8-2.0GHz !
All the Snapdragon 600 happens to be is a mid-tear SoC, which improves upon the same GPU and performance of the S4 Pro. Real A15 architectures should blow this chipset out of the water. People seem to think that what they see now is good. But when the Snapdragon 800 and other A15-based chips start making their debut, this will feel dated quickly in the coming months.
megagodx said:
All the Snapdragon 600 happens to be is a mid-tear SoC, which improves upon the same GPU and performance of the S4 Pro. Real A15 architectures should blow this chipset out of the water. People seem to think that what they see now is good. But when the Snapdragon 800 and other A15-based chips start making their debut, this will feel dated quickly in the coming months.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
clock-per-clock a15 is just 15% faster than krait, dont think that there's so much differences between the two.
they are both really solid performers and the batle is all on the maximum clock/power required rateo.
The SD800 will also feature Quick Charge 2.0, which is supposed to charge your battery 75% faster than other SoC chipsets without that same function. SD600 doesn't feature that either. I'm pretty sure if you seen the initial Tegra 4 benchmarks (based off of real A15 architecture) - they wipe the floor with the HTC One's SD600. Being 75% increased in performance over the Snapdragon S4 Pro (last year's best mobile SoC), the SD800 should bring comparatively the same or better results than the T4 mentioned. That's kind of going to be a disappointment if the S IV ends up with a SD600 and no Exynos 5 Quad/Octa, at least.
I was going to buy a tablet for uni, and as i have some experience with computers i decided to compare the tablets and buy which was best for me, however i realized I'm a complete greenhorn in terms of phone/tablet hardware.
I found that these two processor was the ones i had to pick from:
Samsung Exynos 5250 - A15 Dual core @ 2 Ghz
Has an excellent GPU T-604
Rockwell Rk3188 - A9 Quad core @ 1.8 GHz
Has an decent GPU Mali 400
I know that the Exynos has a MUCH better GPU and has the newer A15 architecture, clocked at higher speed but is a dual core.
But the Rockwell is a quad core but has a older A9 architure and has the worse GPU.
I tried to search for a comparison but came nil because I was comparing between different release date/architecture.
Could you guys people explain to this newbie the advantages and disadvantages of each processor, and which one i should pick?
Which Processor is better? why is it better? Better by how much?
Which processor would be better at Nds emulation? I know android nds emulator support multicore and GPU support
Rk3188 (quad core) vs exynos (better GPU, architechture)
Which one has the lower battery consumption?
Thank you for your time.
at first is it Rockchip RK3188 , not Rockwell .. 2nd, A15 is faster than A9 even A9 is in A9 quad core state, for better compatibility support for apps and games .. take exynos chip but the price is hinger than rockchip RK3188 tablet... battery comsumption are vary depnds actual MAH on the tablet + how the user usage on it's tablet + version ROM that perform
Tablet is not only about processor, build quality, screen, speakers - its a package.
As you did not mention exact models under comparison, it depends on what you look for and budget.
For price/quality top score, you can't go wrong with one of Cube u9GTV (quad) tablets :
Retina, aluminum body, IPS, HDMI, stereo speakers and 9+ hours of battery.
I have one myself, and I used the dual core (old model) for a year, so I know they last well and are robust.
One of issues to consider is that having ADB over USB to Cube tablets is sometimes a mess, so I'm using ADB over IP to debug things, which might be not the best solution for a developer.
Best luck with your choice!
Ramjali said:
I was going to buy a tablet for uni, and as i have some experience with computers i decided to compare the tablets and buy which was best for me, however i realized I'm a complete greenhorn in terms of phone/tablet hardware.
I found that these two processor was the ones i had to pick from:
Samsung Exynos 5250 - A15 Dual core @ 2 Ghz
Has an excellent GPU T-604
Rockwell Rk3188 - A9 Quad core @ 1.8 GHz
Has an decent GPU Mali 400
I know that the Exynos has a MUCH better GPU and has the newer A15 architecture, clocked at higher speed but is a dual core.
But the Rockwell is a quad core but has a older A9 architure and has the worse GPU.
I tried to search for a comparison but came nil because I was comparing between different release date/architecture.
Could you guys people explain to this newbie the advantages and disadvantages of each processor, and which one i should pick?
Which Processor is better? why is it better? Better by how much?
Which processor would be better at Nds emulation? I know android nds emulator support multicore and GPU support
Rk3188 (quad core) vs exynos (better GPU, architechture)
Which one has the lower battery consumption?
Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse