Database Info

Best SOC! Tegra 2 OMAP 4 Snapdragon 2

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.

Tegra 2 faster than Exynos, A5, and PYrami Dual-core

I am sick of everyone thinking the upcoming dual-core devices will blow away tegra 2.
Tegra 2 vs Dual Core A5 (Ipad 2)
A lot of talk about Andntech OpenGL benchmark trumping Tegra 2, but what about Stockfish and Benchit Pi where A5 got slaughtered (PC Magazine)? With half the RAM and lower clock I don't see this thing smoking Tegra 2 in all benchmarks, or real life CPU situations.
Tegra 2 vs Exynos (Some Galaxy S2)
Lower benchmarks in Smartbench Gaming. Plus there is early benchmarks of Quadrant scores of 2100 tablets running the Exynos 4210. There is a reason why Samsung Galaxy S2 is including Tegra 2 in some regions.
Androidevolution.."One negative surprise on the S2 so far has been the level of GPU performance. So far, most of the early benchmark shows that Exynos 4210 isn’t up to par when it comes to the GPU performance. This is strange given that Samsung was leading the market when they introduced the previous generation SoC ...... Smartbench 2011 GPU numbers are once again, very disappointing"
Tegra 2 vs Dual Core-Snapdragon (HTC Pyramid)
This thing got smoked in Smartbench with gaming and productivity.
" Their tests confirm that the Pyramid indeed houses a dual-core chip, but the popular Smarbench 2011 shows a CPU and GPU that simply don’t hold up to the Tegra 2 chip found in the LG Optimus 2X and Motorola Atrix 4G"

Something to remember, Tegra may be the fastest, but........ Just like a computer in your house the slowest component is the driver or the memory storage is usually the one that slows it down or the motherboard. So having the fastest cpu makes your bench look good but in practical use it is not better performance.
If the sole purpose is to game then, yeah ok that may be a winner, but get real, using the phone for gaming is such a waste of technology

Mind you synthetic benchmarks aren't the best way to show performance, quadrant and linpack are both easy to inflate scores just by changing a single value. As for ram, it's hard to compare ram seeing that Ios and Android handles memory differently.

vbetts said:
Mind you synthetic benchmarks aren't the best way to show performance, quadrant and linpack are both easy to inflate scores just by changing a single value. As for ram, it's hard to compare ram seeing that Ios and Android handles memory differently.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1. Synthetic benchmarks are not a good indicator of real world performance.

[INFO/Q] HTC Sensetion only 1900 points with

smartbench 2011 Productivity test
http://smartphonebenchmarks.com/ind...11:Productivity&filter_cpu=all&filter_gpu=all
gpu score i might understand why its low cos the high res but why the Productivity is so low ?
i guess HTC didnt put faster NAND ROM
Evo3D did 2000
someone maybe know what the problem or cause ?

Proz00 said:
smartbench 2011 Productivity test
http://smartphonebenchmarks.com/ind...11:Productivity&filter_cpu=all&filter_gpu=all
gpu score i might understand why its low cos the high res but why the Productivity is so low ?
i guess HTC didnt put faster NAND ROM
Evo3D did 2000
someone maybe know what the problem or cause ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The reason is...
The CPU is cortex 8.
Tegra 2 and the new Samsung processors are Cortex 9.
Coretex 9 is a PRETTY big improvement over cortex.
Once again HTC is going for garbage hardware
What is in the sensation is 2 Desire HD CPUS oC to 1.2 Ghz + better GPU.
What is in the SGS2 is 2 MUCH better Hummingbird CPUs OC to 1.2 + MUCH better GPU

the cpu is neither a cortex a8 nor a cortex a9. it will provide plenty of performance and will be competitive with other dual cores.
the adreno 220 gpu that comes with the sensation is faster than the mali gpu that comes with the sgs2 when looking at preliminary tests done by anandtech.
whether it will be the fastest or slowest dual core soc will have to wait until its released, and benchmarks often only tell part of the story. but certainly it will provide far more performance than any of the single core soc's we have right now and will provide much satisfaction from its owners.

kaiserkannon said:
the cpu is neither a cortex a8 nor a cortex a9. it will provide plenty of performance and will be competitive with other dual cores.
the adreno 220 gpu that comes with the sensation is faster than the mali gpu that comes with the sgs2 when looking at preliminary tests done by anandtech.
whether it will be the fastest or slowest dual core soc will have to wait until its released, and benchmarks often only tell part of the story. but certainly it will provide far more performance than any of the single core soc's we have right now and will provide much satisfaction from its owners.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huh? I'm confused.
Is the cpu not based on arms cortex a8? Just a slightly modified version. It is identical to the Single core Snapdragon in the Desire HD.
The benchmarks so far don't make it seem too be as competitive as the Tegra 2 OR orion.
Samsung has said that the Mali 400 is MUCH faster then the current hummingbird GPU. Current benchmarks say that it is infact SLOWER...
I doubt samsung would release the Orion with a GPU SLOWER then its previous gen... that just makes no sense. If that is the case then Tegra might be king. If the Mali 400 IS much better tho, samsung will have the best SoC.
The CPU in the Sensation is ROUGHLY... 2.4 ghz. Compare that to the Desire HD stable OC of 1.8 ghz.
What is left to be seen is how much the CPU can be OC'd.
I would think that it would be less then 1.8 ghz each core. But thats yet tooo bee seen.
Regardless of what you think... the HTC sensation CPU will be slower then the competitions.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that the Sensation CPU should have the same battery life as the current single core Snapdragon... however it is pushing more pixels sooo..

Samsung should have mated its Orion to Hummingbird gpu. Hummingbird was great
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App

Maedhros said:
The benchmarks so far don't make it seem too be as competitive as the Tegra 2 OR orion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dunno where you got your information from, but it's very competitive with the Tegra 2. (8660 is the CDMA version of the Sensation's 8260). From these benchmarks, we also know that an overclock of at least 1.5GHz will be perfectly viable--the chip was designed for that anyhow.
Debating A8 vs A9 is a trivial matter, because it's a tiny fraction of the entire picture.

Wondering if cm7 can help the score

First, that Anandtech benchmark is not a good measuring stick. Anandtech benched the MDP that had the 8660 running at 1.5 GHz and 800x480 so the results are higher than what Sensation can achieve because Sensations runs at a lower clock and higher resolution.
Second, Qualcomm 8260/8660 is A8 Cortex. Tegra 2, OMAP4 and Exynos are A9 Cortex based. Claims that Qualcomm doesn't use the ARM architecture is a lie.

Never trust smartbench. Period.
GLbenchmark is more trustworthy.
Sent via psychic transmittion.

t-mizzle said:
First, that Anandtech benchmark is not a good measuring stick. Anandtech benched the MDP that had the 8660 running at 1.5 GHz and 800x480 so the results are higher than what Sensation can achieve because Sensations runs at a lower clock and higher resolution.
Second, Qualcomm 8260/8660 is A8 Cortex. Tegra 2, OMAP4 and Exynos are A9 Cortex based. Claims that Qualcomm doesn't use the ARM architecture is a lie.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The scorpion core in snapdragon socs use the arm v7 instruction set that both the a8 and a9 use, but it is not an a8 or an a9, it is qualcomms own design.
And personally I like comparing the different chips in these phones at the same resolution to see which chip has better performance on a level playing field. But yeah the sensation will have a bit worse performance thanks to higher resolution. Like the atrix vs optimus 2x. But to me the higher resolution is completely worth the hit in performance.

TeroZ said:
Never trust smartbench. Period.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Would you care to elaborate on this please?
GLbenchmark is more trustworthy.
Sent via psychic transmittion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GLBench is a decent 3D benchmark app, but it is just that - it tests only the GPU. Smartbench was designed to test both CPU (inc. dual-core ones) and GPU, hence reporting two numbers. IMO, you are not comparing apples to apples unless you were only referring to the GPU portion of the test.

kaiserkannon said:
The scorpion core in snapdragon socs use the arm v7 instruction set that both the a8 and a9 use, but it is not an a8 or an a9, it is qualcomms own design.
And personally I like comparing the different chips in these phones at the same resolution to see which chip has better performance on a level playing field. But yeah the sensation will have a bit worse performance thanks to higher resolution. Like the atrix vs optimus 2x. But to me the higher resolution is completely worth the hit in performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Stop spreading FUD. MSM 8260/8660 is not capable of out of order execution. Cortex A9 supports this feature, A8 does not.
MSM 8260/8660 Pipeline Depth is 13 stages, therefor it's clearly a A8 Cortex.
A9 was a successor to the A8 and it's a significant improvement over it.

t-mizzle said:
Stop spreading FUD. MSM 8260/8660 is not capable of out of order execution. Cortex A9 supports this feature, A8 does not.
MSM 8260/8660 Pipeline Depth is 13 stages, therefor it's clearly a A8 Cortex.
A9 was a successor to the A8 and it's a significant improvement over it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
qualcomm disagrees with you though. they state that it is not based on the a8 and has partial out of order execution. it also has a 128 bit wide neon data path for neon instructions in comparison to the 64 bit wide path in a8 and a9 designs. while there are some similarities to the a8 as you pointed out, the scorpion is not qualcomm's implementation of an a8. and it has some advantages over both a8 and a9. and some disadvantes to an a9. overall the a9 will probably be a bit faster clock for clock, but the scorpion cores in the snapdragon dual cores are clocked faster.
this is very much the same as amd and intel. they both use the same instruction set (x86), but their processors are not the same. qualcomm simply licenses the instruction set (armv7) and builds its own processor. while other companies like nvidia, TI, and samsung buy the cortex a8 or a9 design from ARM and build a copy of it.

Acei said:
Would you care to elaborate on this please?
GLBench is a decent 3D benchmark app, but it is just that - it tests only the GPU. Smartbench was designed to test both CPU (inc. dual-core ones) and GPU, hence reporting two numbers. IMO, you are not comparing apples to apples unless you were only referring to the GPU portion of the test.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are right. But smartbench rank scorpion+adreno205 lower than DX with [email protected] is definitely nonsense.
For gpu, go glbenchmark or nenamark or an3dbench whatever but smartbench.
For cpu, crunching pi or linpack is more reliable.
Smartbench does not reflect any real world performance.
Sent via psychic transmittion.

Thracks said:
Dunno where you got your information from, but it's very competitive with the Tegra 2. (8660 is the CDMA version of the Sensation's 8260). From these benchmarks, we also know that an overclock of at least 1.5GHz will be perfectly viable--the chip was designed for that anyhow.
Debating A8 vs A9 is a trivial matter, because it's a tiny fraction of the entire picture.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Based on glbenchmark score the anand tests might be suspect. It was score 6% higher than tegra 2 not double like anand's test. Or qcomm might be monkeying with things.If that is the case I am going to have a big problem with qcomm products.

Maybe smartbench is right and the nand quality is poor?

The sense experience on it wasn't done. It would have to score higher than the mytouch and previous devices its dual core. Most likely a crappy engineering build on it.
Sent from my HTC Glacier using XDA Premium App

TeroZ said:
You are right. But smartbench rank scorpion+adreno205 lower than DX with [email protected] is definitely nonsense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are other benchmark apps that rank your combo in the same order as Smartbench in graphical tests. Plus, please do look at the productivity tests for Smartbench 2011 more carefully. Typical Scorpion based phone score slightly higher results on Scorpions than DX. Even games like Dungeon Defender (a graphically heavy game) ranks both as "mid-range", while ranking Galaxy S series as "high-end".
For gpu, go glbenchmark or nenamark or an3dbench whatever but smartbench.
For cpu, crunching pi or linpack is more reliable.
Smartbench does not reflect any real world performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Calculating Pi is a very very simple, narrow, and one-dimensioned test. Linpack is heavy on floating point calculations. If that is what you want to know, then I have no issues with that. But do your day-to-day tasks on your phones translate to pure floating point calculations on your phones? They don't. That's why I've included several tests and will be including more as new versions are updated in the future. Plus, I believe none of them uses more than 1 core.
I'm open to suggestions and criticisms - but please do provide more details.

Latest benchmarks made by a retail GSII which has an ORION Exynos talks by themselves
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=13096662&postcount=383
Exynos at "only" 1.2Ghz is even better than adreno 220 SCORPION 1.5Ghz chip as it score 41 fps whereas the latter is scoring 38 fps in GLBenchmark EGYPT standard test
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4243/36161.png
http://nsa25.casimages.com/img/2011/04/21/110421112944690206.png
So the HTC Sensation which is underclocked to 1.2Ghz and have a bigger resolution will look like shayt, SGSII With Exynos will rule for a long long time...

touness69 said:
Latest benchmarks made by a retail GSII which has an ORION Exynos talks by themselves
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=13096662&postcount=383
Exynos at "only" 1.2Ghz is even better than adreno 220 SCORPION 1.5Ghz chip as it score 41 fps whereas the latter is scoring 38 fps in GLBenchmark EGYPT standard test
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4243/36161.png
http://nsa25.casimages.com/img/2011/04/21/110421112944690206.png
So the HTC Sensation which is underclocked to 1.2Ghz and have a bigger resolution will look like shayt, SGSII With Exynos will rule for a long long time...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for this.
Looks like this is another HTC phone with a disappointing CPU & GPU

Exactly how good is this Qualcomm Processor?

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).

[Q] Tegra 3 GPU ULP GeForce Question

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