Database Info

Our Next Phone...

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).

[Q] tegra 2, exynos 4210, TI OMAP4430 and others

hello i have a few questions about different SoC.
-so first which is better?
-which have the fastest gpu?
-which gpu can render more triangles per second?
-on exynos 4210's mali-400 gpu has 4 cores (tegra 2 has 8 gpu cores are that the same cores)
-how many gpu cores have TI OMAP4430?
-and finaly benchmark test:
on quadrant the galaxy s2 scored onle around 1500 just like galaxy s (1) or htc desire HD. why?
why did motorola atrix scores ower 2500?
and why does exynos 4210 (galaxy s) record video in [email protected] and tegra 2 (motorola atrix) just in [email protected] is that software suppressed
ps.: if my English is incorrect i'm sory

so do anyone now something above this???

lol its seems that noone knows anything above this and this should be the top mobile forum XD

At this point, no one really knows which is best. The problem is some of the drivers for the chips are optimized (tegra 2, TI Omap) and some aren't (Exynos). When the Galaxy S II gets closer to launch we will have a better idea of which chip is the best.
GPU isn't just dependent on the GPU, but drivers matter a lot as well. It's not who has the fastest GPU, but it's which one has the best drivers and the fastest GPU.
The GPU cores in the Exynos (Mali-400) and the Tegra 2 are not the same cores. They most likely have different designs. The Mali-400 should work about as well as the Tegra 2, but we won't know that until the Galaxy S II is released.
The Galaxy S II scored around 1500 on Quadrant because like I said earlier, drivers are not yet optimized for it. The Atrix scored over 2500 because the drivers are mature and the Tegra 2 is a great chip. We unfortunately can't compare the Exynos with the Tegra 2 and the TI Omap because they have better drivers right now. When Samsung's drivers are optimized, we will have a much better idea of which chip is the best.
I hope this helps. If you have anymore questions, just ask.

thanks for the answer.
jea i got one more if u know how many triangles each gpu could rander in 1 second.

It looks like the OMAP 4430 is supposed to get approximately 20 million triangles/s. The Tegra 2 is, according to nVidia, 20-30% faster than that. There are no numbers I could find for the Exynos.
I do know that the Exynos is SUPPOSED to have 5 times the 3D performance as the current Hummingbird from Samsung. The Hummingbird has the PowerVR SGX540 (The same GPU in the OMAP 4). That means that the Tegra 2 and the Exynos are supposed to be a lot better than the OMAP 4430.
Don't quote me on that, it's just what I've heard.

coz i read (on some forum) that tegra 2 has 90mil tri/sec and exynos has 122mil tri/sec (that was for mali-604) and i wanted to confirm that but i couldnt find any proof except this:
http://www.arm.com/products/multimedia/mali-graphics-hardware/mali-400-mp.php
in performance is information 30mil tri/sec and i think that it is for one core so 4 times 30 is 120. or it is just 30mil tri/sec???
o and in previous answer u wrote that tegra 2 and exynos dont have the same gpu cores but i wanted to know if that 8 cores (4cores = quadcore, 8cores = ?) in tegra 2 means the same that quadcore gpu on mali like it says in this picture:
http://www.gsmarena.com/showpic.php3?sImg=reviewsimg/mwc-11-samsung/pc/gsmarena_009.jpg

If you look at this wikipedia page and go to the SGX540 (The GPU in the OMAP 4), it says that it has approximately 20 Million tri/s.
Then if you go to this page it says that the Tegra 2 has a GPU that is 10-30% faster than the SGX540.
Also, this page says that the Exynos (code named the Orion) should have "5 times the 3D graphics performance over the previous processor generation from Samsung." The previous generation (The Hummingbird found in some phones including the Galaxy S and the Galaxy Tab) also had an SGX540.
I'm making all of my comparisons to the PowerVR SGX540 because those are the only numbers I could find. Also remember that the real world numbers you will get depend on other factors than just the GPU.
The cores are different, but the 8 cores in the Tegra 2 makes the GPU an octa-core GPU, not quad-core. The difference between them is the architecture and design of each core. Samsung could have made faster/more efficient cores and could get by with 4 of them. nVidia could have decided to go with a different design that got close to the same performance as the Exynos with more cores. It's all up to the manufacturer, design, and drivers, as well as some other factors. It's very hard to make a decent comparison between the cores without actual diagrams of them as well as the design.

Kumouri said:
If you look at this wikipedia page and go to the SGX540 (The GPU in the OMAP 4), it says that it has approximately 20 Million tri/s.
Then if you go to this page it says that the Tegra 2 has a GPU that is 10-30% faster than the SGX540.
Also, this page says that the Exynos (code named the Orion) should have "5 times the 3D graphics performance over the previous processor generation from Samsung." The previous generation (The Hummingbird found in some phones including the Galaxy S and the Galaxy Tab) also had an SGX540.
I'm making all of my comparisons to the PowerVR SGX540 because those are the only numbers I could find. Also remember that the real world numbers you will get depend on other factors than just the GPU.
The cores are different, but the 8 cores in the Tegra 2 makes the GPU an octa-core GPU, not quad-core. The difference between them is the architecture and design of each core. Samsung could have made faster/more efficient cores and could get by with 4 of them. nVidia could have decided to go with a different design that got close to the same performance as the Exynos with more cores. It's all up to the manufacturer, design, and drivers, as well as some other factors. It's very hard to make a decent comparison between the cores without actual diagrams of them as well as the design.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks for youre time. now we must wate for them to come out and se some RL tests.

Yep. I've been waiting on good numbers for Exynos for about a month now. Trying to decide between the Galaxy S II and a few other phones.

Kumouri said:
Yep. I've been waiting on good numbers for Exynos for about a month now. Trying to decide between the Galaxy S II and a few other phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Choice is a good thing is it not?

Bumping because I was gonna post new thread but saw this instead.

What is the Actual frequency of OMAP4430?
I want to know the actual frequency of OMAP4430. Samsung is Advertising like its GALAXY SII (GT-I1900G with a OMAP4430) is powered by 1.2 GHZ processor. But Texas Instruments's site stating like it can clock up to 1 GHZ. which is true?
http://www.ti.com/general/docs/wtbu...ateId=6123&navigationId=12843&contentId=53243

Please vote for GT-I9100G for a seperate section in the forum
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1416406

Please Vote to get CyanogenMod on your I9100G
Guys,
Please vote the poll in the following link to get CyanogenMod on your I9100G.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1583091
You can find the poll at the top of the thread. Please spread the news.

Samsung Galaxy S2 Diff Spec

Hey guys , i'm from malaysia and it seems that my galaxy S2 is not running on the spec that i have been seeing on the net.
according to gsmarena, it is suppose to be:-
Dual-core 1.2GHz ARM Cortex-A9 processor, Mali-400MP GPU, Exynos chipset
but what i found on my s2 from Quadrant Standard is a
dual core 1.2 (min freq 300 max 1.2) Arm v7 Processor rev3 (v71)
the board seems to be the omap4sdp
and importantly it iis NOT the mali 400mp Gpu but it is the
PowerVR SGX540 open GL ES-CM 1.1 version.
Does anyone has this kind of spec? is it right ? or does different country might have different specs?
I would need some answer and explanation cause i couldnt find a reason why the spec of my s2 is diff as from the internet.

[Q] Samsung Galaxy S III

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

[Q] About hardware and benchmarks

hi,
There's something that I don't understand about how the mobile CPUs work.
Why is the Galaxy SIII stronger than the HTC ONE X (in benchmarks), although they are both quad-core and ONE X's CPU frequency is even faster by 100MHz?
How can the iPhone 5 be faster than the GALAXY SIII in benchmarks, although it only has a dual core 1.2GHz?
Thanks.

because they use different cpus. Some cpus are better than others. This also explains why Xperia T and V (both dual core) outperformed gs3 (quad core).