We do not yet have overclocking that I have found as of 1/23/11
but
what is the stock CPU Speed clocked at, I know that there is one dual core cpu or two processors and 1ghz but..
is that 2 processors at 500mhz each or 2 processors at 1ghz each?...
is there an app that correctly shows the current cpu frequency?
and lastly this is a G tablet thread but for comparison does anyone know if the Xoom's CPU
will be 2 processors at 500mhz or 2 processors at 1 ghz each?
Thanks
It is a dual "core" CPU, so there is really only one cpu and it runs at 1ghz. This is not 500 + 500 = 1000mhz.....just a processor running at 1ghz but has 2 cores that can process independantly of each other. The Motorola Xoom will be exactly the same.
2 independent 1ghz CPUs would be faster than 1 1ghz dual core CPU as the dual core design uses shared everything between the two cores (access to memory, etc...), though the dual core design does have other advantages.
Sent from my VEGAn-TAB-v1.0.0B5.1 using Tapatalk
The tegra 2 processor in are gtabs have 2 processing cores with each clocked at 1 GHz and is the equivalent of having two single core CPUs each clocked at 1GHz. The motorola xoom has the exact same chip set with 1GB of RAM instead of the 512Mb in the gtab.
I may not have been clear in what I meant as to the dual core part and I am sorry...
but now I ask what those advantages are? and how a single core 1.3ghz (largest i have heard of in a phone so far) compares to the dual core 1 ghz?
and then should there be overclocking support in the future and then what should the reachable speeds get up to in theory ie my droid 1 has hit 1.2 without a hitch where do the possibilities lie with the tegra 2
Thanks
Related
Hey guys there was a great thread before about tegra vs. Snapdragon. With the recent release of new chips such as tegra 2 and Qualcomm QSD8672(snapdragon 2) I wanted to see which chipset is more powerful and offers the best battery life. Omap 4440 Qualcomm QSD8672 or tegra 2.
I'm not excited about Snapdragon 2 because it's just based on current A8 architecture but overclocked and better gpu.
What interests me are OMAP4 and TEGRA2 because both are based on next generation A9 cpu. Although both announced as dual cpu's OMAP4 will be released with single core variant which early phones might adapt. Unlike TEGRA2 which is assured to be dual core.
LG's Optimus range will have the Tegra 2!!! Im so excited to see this! Next week Tuesday is the big reveal.
can someone tell me which soc have the best gpu and which does better rander triangles per second
.
What is better dual core or single core??
SupremeBeaver said:
LG's Optimus range will have the Tegra 2!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Optimus 2X does but the Optimus 3D uses the OMAP 4430 SoC.
CARLITOZ18 said:
What is better dual core or single core??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It honestly all depends on how you're looking at it.
Battery- Dual core most likely, since it's total tdp is about a much as a single cores tdp.
Performance- This varies a lot on the system. If the system is multi-core ready, then multitasking will be better. If the app is multi-core ready, the dual core will as long as the single core isn't say 2.5x clocked. Remember something, double the cores does not mean double the performance.
Speed- Again, this varies on the system and app.
Really, I feel that multiple cores and threads are the way to go. Clocking the cpus higher is only going to raise the power usage up. Multiple core systems can be more efficient, if the system makes use of it.
I'd say the OMAP4 from Texas Instruments is the top dog as of this moment in the SoC category, especially considering Tegra 2's Achilles heel in the high profile 720P/1080P dept.
Hello,
I have a question that I've been scouring the internet for ages for but have never found the answer,
I own a Nexus 7 and a cheap Tablet that utilizes the Mali 400-MP.
In my expirences with general gaming (and benchmarks) the Mali 400 outperforms the tegra by a long shot.
My question is why this is the case, I checked the specs of both chips and the tegra has 12 cores vs the Malis 4 cores, the Tegra even has a higher clock rate so I just can't understand why the Tegra is less powerfull.
Is it just that the games I play are optimized for the Mali better than the tegra?
My thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this
chip are different as Pentium dual @3Ghz = core 2 duo @1.6Ghz
Both have 2 core, but since the first is netburst an the second core architecture they don't have the same way to calculate, manage tread etc etc
Thanks
chocoboss said:
chip are different as Pentuim dual @3Ghz = core 2 duo @1.6Ghz
Both have 2 core, but since the first is netburst an the second core architecture they don't have the same way to calculate, manage tread etc etc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow that was fast! thanks for responding so quickly,
im still a little unsure, the Tegra 3 uses the ARM Architecture and so does the Mali so i don't think its that simple, i could be wrong i guess...
if it is just for that reason, how would you go about comparing the two to find out which is better when looking at the specs?
Edit: ive just checked, they both use The ARM v7 Instruction Set, and i think they are both variations of the ARM Cortex-A9 chip,
plus what im looking for is more a comparison of the GPU where as i think Architectures are more to do with CPU's.
SIMD's and MAD's
I've been scouring the internet and came across the fact that the Mali 400 has more SIMD Units.
Could this be why the Mali is better? I must admit that I'm not really sure what a Single Instruction Multiple Data unit does performance wise.
Bump.
Recap: my question is why a GPU with more cores and a higher clock speed has less GFLOPS than a GPU with less cores and a lower clock speed
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
Hi all,
I've always wondered which would be faster for daily use a Quad Core 1.5 GHz Processor or a Dual Core 1.7 GHz
let's assume they're both Snapdragon 400 processors
Which would be better
Thanks all
Mystogan said:
Hi all,
I've always wondered which would be faster for daily use a Quad Core 1.5 GHz Processor or a Dual Core 1.7 GHz
let's assume they're both Snapdragon 400 processors
Which would be better
Thanks all
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
in my opinion is dualcore (when its good clocked and at best cortex a9 or a15)(Xperia sp) better than cortex a5 or a7 (moto g)
cause i tested both and i can say : i like the 2core cpu more cause most of all apps use only 2 cores and the xperia sp can bomb a xperia z with out problems and btw xperia sp or better a phone with s400 dc at 1,7ghz have adreno 320 and we know its better than adren305 (the s400 from moto g)
I was talking about Xperia ZR and SP... Lets assume they both have 1 gb ram ( even though ZR has 2 ) which would be faster
Based on AnTuTu benchmarks SP got 21950 while ZR got 20850
So does clock speed really win???
Hi all,
I've always wondered which would be suitable for daily use a Quad Core 1.5 GHz Processor or a Dual Core 1.7 GHz
let's assume they're both Snapdragon 400 processors
Which would be better
Thanks all
In my experience the amount of cores doesn't really matter. Many apps only use one core. So... I believe the 1.7 GHz dual processor will be faster.
Do correct me if I'm wrong.
Sent by magic!
---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------
Oh, BTW, you made 2 threads...
Sent by magic!
I think multiple cores would make more of a difference. Multitasking would be better, and performance-intensive apps would be configured to use multiple cores anyway. For a real case, my friend's Galaxy Grand underclocked to 1 Ghz (dual core) is still better than my E at 1.3 Ghz (single core).
NSDCars5 said:
I think multiple cores would make more of a difference. Multitasking would be better, and performance-intensive apps would be configured to use multiple cores anyway. For a real case, my friend's Galaxy Grand underclocked to 1 Ghz (dual core) is still better than my E at 1.3 Ghz (single core).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, OK. Multitasking will definitely be better on a quad core device. It's all about personal use. Theoretically the quad core will win. But you're never sure, until you test yourself.
Sent by magic!
It depends on the number of cores that an app uses, if it only uses 2 cores, it's obvious that the dual-core with 1.7ghz will work better.
It's like amd vs intel. AMD put in their FX8XXX/FX9XXX 8 cores while Intel puts 4 cores on their i7, but intel's cores run a lot faster so the I7 gets better performance than the FX9XXX
But if the app uses all cores, the performance will be better with the quad-core.
I personally think Clock speed > number of cores.
I got a higher score on AnTuTu ( Xperia SP ) than my friend ( Xperia ZR )
I personally think Clock speed > number of cores.
I got a higher score on AnTuTu ( Xperia SP ) than my friend ( Xperia ZR )
Ketcchup said:
It's like amd vs intel. AMD put in their FX8XXX/FX9XXX 8 cores while Intel puts 4 cores on their i7, but intel's cores run a lot faster so the I7 gets better performance than the FX9XXX
But if the app uses all cores, the performance will be better with the quad-core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, not exactly AMD vs Intel, because Intel's got hyper-threading in their x4 core CPUs, which means two threads per core. However, AMD uses only one thread per core, so an octa-core AMD should work equivalent to an Intel quad.
Note that I said should. Some processors are just better optimized - my laptop's quad core AMD, when overclocked to 2.3 Ghz, performs slightly better than a dual core i5 at 2.4 Ghz (which should have an equal number of cores threads (got confused myself, lol) and a similar clock speed).
In the end, benchmarks on an AOSP ROM are the only thing you can completely trust, in my not-so-humble opinion.
AMD, I use an Intel 3rd gen extreme with turbo boost to 3.4Ghz on my Alienware m17x r4
Hyper-threading is indeed a great technology by intel
AMD, I use an Intel 3rd gen extreme with turbo boost to 3.4Ghz on my Alienware m17x r4
Hyper-threading is indeed a great technology by intel