Related
Why would a phone need it? Wouldn't battery life just suck?
Sent from the key to my world.
Sure, if you want a portable console lol.
The response speed would be great thought, and camera will be able to record in full HD without trouble. But, the software will need to be programmed to take advantage of the dual-core processor.
As for the battery, not necessary. The cpu will throttle back its speed a lot, and a dual-core might be able to drop really low and remain fully operational which will require less battery. Also the new dual-core cpu nanometer architecture would most probably be lower which means better battery consumption but at full load (like when playing graphically intensive games) battery probably won't last long. Still thought, new battery technology will need to be manufactured soon to keep up with this new phone technology. Next you'll see are dual-gpu phones lol
I'm waiting for the 2011 CES to see if anything dual-core will be announced before dropping $800 on a phone as I would love such a device, just for fun.
CES is just next week right?
They've already announced one phone to run it, I just think technology is getting crazy with portability. My computer still has a 1.6ghz processor, these new phones will undoubtedly surpass my poor system. Ha.
Sent from the key to my world.
One thing that the makers of the chips take into consideration, is power usage. And it's easy to see that too. I'll use desktop cpus and laptop cpus for example. Intel and AMD's 6 core designed both have a TDP of under 125W. Old single core pentiums had a TDP higher than that, and were much bigger in nm range. Laptop cpus now only use at the most, 1/4 the tdp of a desktop cpu.(Not as fast though)
Other than that, right now I can bet that there is no multi-threaded apps available, and is Android really able to take advantage of a multi-core system? Probably not on it's own.
HAPPY NEW YEAR people!!
Yeah, CES is just next week. I know they announced some phone but I would like to know when they are coming so I know if I should buy the best thing right now or not.
I wouldn't have a clue if Android can handle multicore processors but maybe the new Honeycomb version of Android will enable this? If this is the case then maybe this phones will come March/April....sigh
And yeah, TDP of this chips will be lower then current chips. I bet they are working hard to make the best use of the battery.
ceg1792 said:
Why would a phone need it? Wouldn't battery life just suck?
Sent from the key to my world.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A multi core cpu does not necessarily use more power than a single core cpu; it's mostly dependent on the architecture.
NVIDIA talks about benefits of dual core:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/08/nvidia-touts-the-benefits-of-multi-core-processors-for-smartphon/
I think there is a definite need for Dual-Core Processors in phones. Gaming is making a mainstream shift from dedicated handheld gaming consoles to Smartphones. In order for developers to make more robust and graphically appealing games, they are going to need more processing power. Another point is that Dual-Core Processors will help browser rendering speeds. With HSPA+, WiMax, and LTE we are getting some serious downlink on our devices. But if you notice, a smartphone getting 3mbps down and one getting 10 mbps down renders a webpage at the same speed. Right now the processor bottlenecks webpage rendering, not our data connection. With these faster processors it helps eliminate the bottleneck to provide a gratifying web experience to the end-user.
It'll help if the application has multi-thread support. But if the app can only use 1 core/thread, then that's where dual core is useless. Also gaming isn't the main focus of Smartphones, there's probably a huge minority of people using their Smartphones as a serious gaming machine compared to people who are using their smartphone for work, talk, text, or other multimedia.
I know i'm gonna get burned at the stake for this one, since this is a tech forum, but dual core is just overkill AT THE PRESENT MOMENT. It's like computers. They are all now dualcore, most come with almost 4 gigs of ram. What in the hell would 95% of the population need AT THE MOMENT with something more powerful than that? LIke a quadcore with 8 gigs? NOTHING. It's just a ploy to get more money. Our 1ghz phones can run everything just fine. This isn't like the early days of android where it always felt like more ram and raw power was needed. We have hit a plateau where the current cellphone landscape fits MOST peoples needs. Can i really be the only one who thinks that it's just unnecessary?
Remember, xda only represents .0000000001% of actual real world use. I am talking about the layman who is actually gonna fall for the "OMFG ITS GONNA DO EVERYTHING SO MUCH BETTER AND FASTER", um no it's not. Most people dont even max out there current hardware.
Edit: Seriously people get a grip on reality. I'm not pushing my views on anyone. It's a ****ing forum, you know, one of those places where people discuss things??? The debate that has come out of this has been fantastic, and i have learned alot of things i didnt know. I'm not gonna change my original post to not confuse people reading the whole topic, but i can now understand why dual core does make some sense. Quit attacking me and making stuff so personal, it's uncalled for and frankly i'm about to ask a mod to close this topic cause it's getting so ridiculous. Learn how to have a debate without letting all the emotion get in the way or GTFO. YOUR the one with the problem, not me.
Xda doesn't care. We like specs, maxing out our devices, and most of all, benchmarking
redbullcat said:
Xda doesn't care. We like specs, maxing out our devices, and most of all, benchmarking
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well as do i! I'm talking about the uneducated masses.
more cores mean;
more threads
meaning better apps
meaning better FPS
meaning HD everything
meaning more capabilities
meaning more fun with less devices.
Do you remember the days you had a cell phone, a PDA, an MP3 player, a digital camera AND a laptop? All that was missing is your bat symbol and cape. I like not having to have a utility belt of gadgets on my person.
I would rather see them work on battery saving and density technologies to eventually allow for one week [heavy usage] times.
iamnottypingthis said:
I would rather see them work on battery saving and density technologies to eventually allow for one week [heavy usage] times.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hard for you to believe, i know, but that's what having a multi-core does, it helps improve battery life (both in standby and in usage). Sure it's not a definitive answer to our battery problems, but it's a first.
Hey Lude219, I thought I'd post this as I thought you gave a good explanation on battery life and usage (fifth one down).
It really all comes down to the person's requirements. If someone requires to run several apps at once, or requires to watch movies at a higher frame rate, or requires to have the 'best phone on the market', then they'll buy a dual-core phone, no-one else will care (much). Most people I talk to agree and think that Dual-Core in a phone is unnecessary ('dual-core phone' it even sounds ridiculous lol), but, I must admit that I was surprised at how laggy my DHD was out the packet, and don't get me wrong, I know once it's rooted it will be much better just because the SW is cleaner, but most people will not even contemplate rooting their phone, so if it's not an option for them, dual-core will surely help.
Dual-core procs don't have a higher power consumption than single-core procs (or at least they won't if they design/implement them properly), so it shouldn't (fingers crossed) make power consumption any worse.
Personally, I'd also rather they put they're time and effort into making better batteries and improving general power consumption.
It'll be the next marketing point after the dual-core hype has ebbed (Now with Three Days Standby!! YEY!!)
Well i think most people who do buy these "powerful" devices have one important reason to buy, and that is to future proof themselves. But ey, i'm looking at the perspective of a tech savy guy, I suppose the masses simply want the next best thing.
But you are right however, it is a ploy to make money, but everything in business is, so there's no difference between dual core, one core, 8 mp camera, 5 mp, 720p. 1080p, it's all business. If there was no business then.. well, where'd we get our smartphones?
lude219 said:
Hard for you to believe, i know, but that's what having a multi-core does, it helps improve battery life (both in standby and in usage). Sure it's not a definitive answer to our battery problems, but it's a first.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can easily go into why you're wrong, but I won't waste the calories. Other things besides just adding a core are done to get those gains. If more cores equaled more power savings, ULV cpus would be octo-core.
Just a matter time when they get battery life ironed out in smartphones and to the OP i would agree in some aspect, but they are smartphones why not just keep improving them. Else if someone never thought outside box we would still stuck with dumb phones =no fun.
here a link for next gen snap dragons sounds promising.
I won't lie, right now dual core is overkill. But in time like everything else has computer wise, it will be the normal and will be the way all devices go, that's not just considering dual core. I'm talking pure multicore threading. It's not just the number of cores you're buying as well, it's the difference core to core when you compare say arm cortex a8 to the Tegra II's Arm Cortex a9, single core the a9 will be faster and more efficient and also produce less heat thanks to the die shrink, which then also means less power draw per core. Right now for phones, dual core is futureproofing a bit for when we do have android that is fully multithreaded, and apps that are as well.
There's also something you need to remember, XDA isn't really a big fraction of people using android devices and what not, but not every android user is on XDA. I also disagree with everyone maxing out their hardware, just running my Evo with a few of the aosp live wallpapers my evo runs terrible, and web browsing isn't the greatest either depending on the website.
Oh dude you should so post this one overclock.net, the beat down you would get would be hilarious. But anyway back one topic, as for phones, well for some people dual core is nice, for example me and my friends, when we head off to lecture, all we can do is browse the web on our phones, all of us, for some odd reason like to have at least 6-8 tabs open at the same time and for the phones we have (I have an iphone 3gs, theres a couple captivates, Droid Inc 2, and some others), they sometimes tend to slow down with all of the tabs open. Also when you open up numerous applications, you have to sometimes close out of some of them because the one that is open starts to slow down. Thats a couple reasons that dual core is nice, with massive multitasking. But with the computer part, where you say that no one needs a quad core processor, well think about it, there are a lot of people who want performance (not just XDA, theres overclock.net, techpowerup, EVGA, HardOCP, etc) and just random people who want fast computers for reasons such as video processing, gaming (this is probably a big reason), ridiculous multitasking (I fall into this category cause I have over 125 tabs open in chrome right now and I actually needed to upgrade to 8 gb's of ram because it was saying I was running out of ram with only 4), and some people that want just plain snappiness from their computer. So I would not say that a quad core processor is overkill for most people as the demographic I mentioned above does include a decent amount of people.
Oh and I forgot to mention watching Hi def videos, your average intel integrated graphics card cannot play a 1080p video without issues so thats why you might need a faster processor and a faster GPU to play those videos in an HTPC.
But yes for your average everyday joe, a simple nehalem based dual core would suffice for everyday tasks such as web browsing and such but it cannot do much else.
xsteven77x said:
I know i'm gonna get burned at the stake for this one, since this is a tech forum, but dual core is just overkill AT THE PRESENT MOMENT. It's like computers. They are all now dualcore, most come with almost 4 gigs of ram. What in the hell would 95% of the population need AT THE MOMENT with something more powerful than that? LIke a quadcore with 8 gigs? NOTHING. It's just a ploy to get more money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which is why netbooks took off for a while there (until people realized those were a bit too slow)
Our 1ghz phones can run everything just fine. This isn't like the early days of android where it always felt like more ram and raw power was needed. We have hit a plateau where the current cellphone landscape fits MOST peoples needs. Can i really be the only one who thinks that it's just unnecessary?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I completely disagree. The difference between dual and single core for mobile devices is *huge*. There is a *huge* difference between everything running "fine" and everything running "great". The biggest difference is for games and web browser, which most people absolutely care about. There is also the wide range of more powerful apps it enables, which for now is more important on the tablet, but that will come to phones as well.
Dual core is not overkill, for one, its future proofing your phone, most ppl buy the phones on contract and in a couple of months dual cores will be the standard for high end smartphones, second, it allows for better GPU performance which leads to better games and overall experience, there are many benefits to it, too many for me to list...
iamnottypingthis said:
I can easily go into why you're wrong, but I won't waste the calories. Other things besides just adding a core are done to get those gains. If more cores equaled more power savings, ULV cpus would be octo-core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, it's better if you don't, because I dont think you have any substantial knowledge on the matter to go against the research and knowledge of all the computer engineers out there. The reason why it's not octo-cores yet is because it's called a BUSINESS. But I wont waste the calories in telling you why that is until you go and read up on "economy of scales."
It'll be interesting at least to see what develops. See if they'll start doing proper separate GPU Die's or if they'll dedicate GPU cores on the proc (i.e quad core chip with 2 CPU cores and 2 GPU cores).
Hope people don't start to get burnt when they begin maxing out/overclocking their cores.
Funny, if you stop developing you get nothing because you are satisfied with nothing.
Us at XDA are techies and you give us more core more ram more battery we will figure what to create with the new abilities. That is how progress is done.
As far as the masses, let marketing depts do their thing to them........we do not care, never did. As for me, I have a 12 core motherboard with 32 gigs of ram.etc and I jack it to 85% demand almost every day, and I am sure that there are very very few computers that have this capabilities.
The funny thing more innovation make more efficiencies my computer under a full load uses less than most of the gaming rigs out there and has 50% more muscle.
On the phone dual core allow one to create algorithms that will make the battery use way more efficient.
More cores more ram === win win win for everyone, but us in XDA and other forums like this it is just great great great for us.......... don't worry we will use what ever is created 110% and make it better.
If dual core in your Nokia 3210, yes it's overkilling, but if dual core in your cad workstation, it's been overkilled. All depends on the user, usage, and design of the device.
Actually it's an arueable question whether dual-core cpus are an overkill today, they have several advantages but most of those can be applied to netbooks and tablets rather than phones.
1. When there are several CPUs, multi-threaded applications can be really run concurrently (and basically, even if one application is performing, the scheduling overhead for multi-core system is lower and background tasks like gui/hardware drivers can be executed on a separate core).
2. Another use case (although this is a misuse and abuse of CPU anyway) is the use of multi-core systems for encoding/decoding media. It brings absolutely no advantages to the end user, but when the CPU is powerful enough to handle the media stream, one may use it instead of a proper DSP processor which Google will likely be doing for VP8/WebM
3. SMPs can be useful in tablets and netbooks - for example, tegra2 will outperform intel atom in most cases (first of all, it is dual-core. and secondly, it has a very powerful GPU). I am personally using debian on my tablet (in chroot though) and many people are using ubuntu on toshiba ac100 - arm SoCs are a fun to hack and give an incredible battery life. But this is IMHO only acceptable for geeks like us and I think dual-core (or x-whatever-core) ARM CPUs will be useful for consumers (hate this word but whatever) if some vendor releases a device which will run a full-fledged linux distro with LibreOffice, math packages like octave/maxima, development environments like kdevelop so that it can be used as an equal replacement of an x86 netbook.
As for the popular arguement about power consumption - surprisingly, but there is little correlation between the number of cores and power drain. Newer SoCs are more energy efficient because they have improvements in technical process (literally the length of wires inside the chip), more devices are integrated into one chip, more processing blocks can be put to sleep states. Even if you compare a qualcomm qsd8250 running at 1GHz with a GPU enabled, it will use less power than an old 520 MHz intel pxa270. Besides, as I have already mentioned, a multiprocessor system can execute tasks concurrently which means that the computation will take less time and the processor will spend more time in a power-saving state.
Basically multi-cores are a popular trend and is a good way to make consumers pay for new toys. For me personally the reasons to change a device have always been either the age of the device (when it literally began to fall apart) or the real improvements in hardware (I updated from Asus P525 to Xperia X1 because ever since I had my first pda I was frustrated by the tiny 32 or 64 mb ram and awful screens with large pixels that were really causing pain in eyes if one used them for long) but unfortunately the situation now is the same as it is in the desktop world - software quality is getting worse even faster than hardware improves. Hence we see crap like java and other managed code on PDAs and applications that require like 10 Mb ram to perform simple functions (which were like 100 Kb back in winmo days). I do admit that using more ram can allow to use more efficient algorithms (to reduce their computational complexity) and managed code allows for higher portability - but hey, we know that commercial software is not developed with the ideas of efficiency in mind - the only things corporations care about are writing the application as quick as possible and hide the source code.
lude219 said:
Yea, it's better if you don't, because I dont think you have any substantial knowledge on the matter to go against the research and knowledge of all the computer engineers out there. The reason why it's not octo-cores yet is because it's called a BUSINESS. But I wont waste the calories in telling you why that is until you go and read up on "economy of scales."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That and yields for Nehalem 8 cores aren't so high. Bulldozer yields are working out okay so far, but then again it's not a real 8 core cpu...
http://nena.se/nenamark/view?version=2
http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_sensation-review-605p4.php
nraudigy2 said:
http://nena.se/nenamark/view?version=2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
who cares? SGSII stills faster... and G2X it's just 5FPS under...
tomeu0000 said:
who cares? SGSII stills faster... and G2X it's just 5FPS under...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Talk about troll
tomeu0000 said:
who cares? SGSII stills faster... and G2X it's just 5FPS under...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who cares? All of our phones will be obsolete by the end of the year anyways
Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using XDA App
tomeu0000 said:
who cares? SGSII stills faster... and G2X it's just 5FPS under...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
SGS II is faster due to the lower resolution. learn the facts before commenting.
xamadeix said:
SGS II is faster due to the lower resolution. learn the facts before commenting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope, the resolution isnt the finally factor, ( Tegra 2 is powerfull than adreno220 in benchmarks, but Atrix with qHD resolution scores like the sensation, so Adreno220 isnt more powerfull ) just watch CF-Bench, Vellamo bench and other bench, SGSII still superior, in CPU and GPU.
And that % more resolution, will take about 10FPS, max 15 FPS so if at 800x480 Adreno220 stills not more powerfull.
i have a sensation, but for now SGSII is more powerfull.
With optimization maybe, but on default definetly NOT.
Excuse my bad english.
tomeu0000 said:
Nope, the resolution isnt the finally factor, ( Tegra 2 is powerfull than adreno220 in benchmarks, but Atrix with qHD resolution scores like the sensation, so Adreno220 isnt more powerfull ) just watch CF-Bench, Vellamo bench and other bench, SGSII still superior, in CPU and GPU.
And that % more resolution, will take about 10FPS, max 15 FPS so if at 800x480 Adreno220 stills not more powerfull.
i have a sensation, but for now SGSII is more powerfull.
With optimization maybe, but on default definetly NOT.
Excuse my bad english.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Adreno 220 is much better than Ad 205..But sometimes even my dhd is MUCH faster than Sensation..I believe it is the optimization's difference..With the optimization we can have ad 220's best performance..I believe at that time ad 220 will be better than optimized SG2
missing2 said:
Who cares? All of our phones will be obsolete by the end of the year anyways
Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, 6 months from now it will be quad core phones, and really, do you care if it takes you 1.275ms longer to type in a phone number on one phone over another?
Seriously guys, get a frikin life, you buy the phone you prefer, everyone's preference is different.... and that's that.
Think of it like this.. A girl will go out with the guy she prefers. Highly unlikely that she will get you to flop it out and make a decision on the millimeter difference here and there.
Moreover, she won't be arguing with other girls on a forum about it either.
.... GET. OVER. IT.
GET. A. LIFE.
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710a (S-ON GRRRR!) using XDA Premium App
This pretty much sums it up...
http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_sensation-review-605p4.php
artymarty said:
True, 6 months from now it will be quad core phones, and really, do you care if it takes you 1.275ms longer to type in a phone number on one phone over another?
Seriously guys, get a frikin life, you buy the phone you prefer, everyone's preference is different.... and that's that.
Think of it like this.. A girl will go out with the guy she prefers. Highly unlikely that she will get you to flop it out and make a decision on the millimeter difference here and there.
Moreover, she won't be arguing with other girls on a forum about it either.
.... GET. OVER. IT.
GET. A. LIFE.
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710a (S-ON GRRRR!) using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who would want a quadcore phone? @[email protected] I mean, no application in a mobile requires that kind of processor. even a 800mhz processor can process most of the apps now. and besides, who would think of developing an app that would require quadcore? @[email protected]
I'm excited for our phones to be cracked open. I think that is when we will really start to see what they can do. Numbers well dramatically increase.
Can't wait!
Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using XDA App
vitusdoom said:
Who would want a quadcore phone? @[email protected] I mean, no application in a mobile requires that kind of processor. even a 800mhz processor can process most of the apps now. and besides, who would think of developing an app that would require quadcore? @[email protected]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some people would still buy it even if it is overkill. I can't imagine why quad core would be needed in a phone but I think it doesn't stop there.
brusko1972 said:
Some people would still buy it even if it is overkill. I can't imagine why quad core would be needed in a phone but I think it doesn't stop there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For gaming purposes I suppose. 30% of all gaming takes place via smartphones so it's a ripe market for developers. Quadcore devices would pretty much put devices on par with console systems.
People would buy a quad core phone (such as I) the same reason why some people get sports car. Are sports car absolutely needed for everyday driving? Most of the time, I would highly doubt it, but it sure is nice as hell to have, no?
twomix9900 said:
People would buy a quad core phone (such as I) the same reason why some people get sports car. Are sports car absolutely needed for everyday driving? Most of the time, I would highly doubt it, but it sure is nice as hell to have, no?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats not the correct question. lol. you didn't get it.
question is, why would people buy a sports car when in the case he only knows how to drive a bike.
Well, surely, quadcores are great. and mentioned above, games needs it. looking at games today, most of them are not that resource consuming at all. just needs a decent graphic emulator. not processor. you definitely don't understand what a processor does. it only process the loading of a certain app. surely it does process during the game but you can measure the speed clearly during app loading. what does a game that loads up real fast but in the short run, it hangs up like hell? mind you guys, most of the games usually are just 10-25megabytes (most that i've seen) any single core processor can process that fast. should we say, its like 200mb of a game. single cores can process that. but when you say gaming, you should think about graphics first.
From what I have been reading... it will not only be quad core... but also we'll have speeds up to 2.5GHz. That's faster than my laptop
Too bad it loses in pretty much every other benchmark.
GS2 is teh suck, gets crushed in smartbench gaming...
But it's the fastest phone out there....
KingKuba13 said:
Too bad it loses in pretty much every other benchmark.
GS2 is teh suck, gets crushed in smartbench gaming...
But it's the fastest phone out there....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think most beanchmarks are utilizing these dual core CPU's properly. That goes for all of them. Not just the Sensations. I wouldn't trust any of these benches with dual core CPU's.
Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using XDA Premium App
KingKuba13 said:
Too bad it loses in pretty much every other benchmark.
GS2 is teh suck, gets crushed in smartbench gaming...
But it's the fastest phone out there....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Smartbench is weak stuff. Any 3D scene that is too weak will lower the score of GS2. For example it could do 300fps for Neocore benchmark app, but it has a 60fps limit so the app only reports 59fps for GS2, while another phone scores 80fps and yet GS2 has lower score. You just have to bench GS2 on strong benchmark apps like Nenamark2 and GLBenchmark2.
Understanding the current generation SoC and benchmark:
SoC stands for System on a Chip. But most of us care only about the CPU and GPU on it.
Snapdragon (all 3 iterations) used the same Scorpion CPU core, at different clockspeed. The one on the Sensation has two cores, both can run up to 1.2Ghz, so if a benchmark is single threaded and very CPU heavy, the latest Snapdragon can only be 20% faster than the first generation 1Ghz Snapdragon.
Qualcomm uses a custom design for the Scorpion. Roughly speaking, the performance of the Scorpion lies somewhere between Cortex A8 and A9. In general, SoC with dual core Cortex A9's like Exynos, Tegra 2, OMAP4 will be faster in CPU heavy apps and benchmark. Yet, the Scorpion is exceptionally good at FPU heavy task, so... if FPU matter for that app/benchmark, Scorpion could pull over.
GPU wise, this depends on resolution. Higher resolution means more pixel to generate and lower benchmark score, OTHER THINGS EQUAL. The GPU on the dual-core Snapdragon is as powerful as those on Exynos and OMAP4, with one winning in some benchmark and another winning in another. Due to different resolutions on different handsets, it's hard to tell, but they are among the same class. The Tegra 2, however, has a weaker GPU than the bunch mentioned above. This may come at a surprise to everyone consider Nvidia is a graphic card company and the chip is often being promoted as "most powerful". The truth is, the Tegra 2 was supposed to be released in mid 2010 but the market wasn't ready for dual-core phones back then. So the Tegra 2 got delayed for a year, and the design of Tegra 2 was set early. But that's also why Nvidia is almost ready to launch Kal-El/Tegra 3 whatever the next thing is, because the design of Tegra 2 was done long time ago.
So if a benchmark is graphically intensive, and doesn't depending too much on CPU, Snapdragon will be faster than Tegra 2, while Exynos will be the fastest (especially since there is no qHD Exynos device out there yet). On FPU heavy CPU bench, like Linpack, Snapdragon perform exceptionally well due to its CPU design. But with benchmarks that test a wider variety of CPU function, Cortex A9 equipped SoC will beat Snapdragon. And while Tegra 2 has a weaker GPU, it may perform better in some games..... because of Nvidia's "the way it meant to be played" program. Basically it's Nvidia way to fund developers to optimize the code for Nvidia's chips, and market their games. It is no uncommon to see games that are funded by Nvidia's TWIMTBP program run faster on Nvidia's card than on AMD's card.
But what does all the above mean? IT DOESN'T F***ING MATTER AT ALL. All the current dual-core SoCs are fast enough for everything you want to do on your phone. They are equally (not) future proof, and when the future comes that your current phone is too slow, the other current gen phones will be slow too. And honestly, these ARM based SoCs are evolving so fast that none of these SoCs is really future proof. Just pick the phone that feels right or you. IGNORE those stupid benchmark numbers, and pick the phone that physically appeal to you, and pick the phone that is less buggy, or has the best monitor (for you). And if you really care about benchmark numbers, get the GSII. It has the fastest ARM-based CPU right now, one of the fastest mobile GPUs, and a relatively lower resolution screen so that it dominates all benchmarks. It also has enough plastic to be a true successor to the GS I as the most plasticky Android phone, if that matters.
Does the Snapdragon in the HTC Sensation stand any chance against the Exynos processor??
Flame baiting much?
I'll try to give an unbiased opinion here and hopefully avoid a device war like what could be instigated by the very general statement of the OP.
If performance is all that matters to you, then yes the exynos is a better performer clock for clock. But all around best depends on what matters to you. For instance, the dual core snapdragon if properly supported is more efficient because of the asynchronous cores. It has the potential to get better battery life the exynos because it can down clock or shut down one core while running the other core full tilt.
Most people factor in things besides raw power into their purchasing decision. For me, I "accepted" a slower processor (that's still exceptionally fast) because it was in a device made by a company that I've historically had good experiences with.
moto211 said:
Flame baiting much?
I'll try to give an unbiased opinion here and hopefully avoid a device war like what could be instigated by the very general statement of the OP.
If performance is all that matters to you, then yes the exynos is a better performer clock for clock. But all around best depends on what matters to you. For instance, the dual core snapdragon if properly supported is more efficient because of the asynchronous cores. It has the potential to get better battery life the exynos because it can down clock or shut down one core while running the other core full tilt.
Most people factor in things besides raw power into their purchasing decision. For me, I "accepted" a slower processor (that's still exceptionally fast) because it was in a device made by a company that I've historically had good experiences with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just a bit, I just wanted to hear some opinions.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/06/samsung-galaxy-s4-octacore-review/
The A15 in the octa-core isn't any better or worse than the krait in the snapdragon, either in performance or benchmarks. The extra four helper cores you get doesn't improve battery life. In fact, with the four a15 cores, it is actually WORSE than the more efficient krait cores. All those people bragging about how much the A15 is better than the krait based on thin air speculation really need to shove it up their butt.
It was already expected that the four extra low power cores in an octa core would not make much difference in battery life and actually be worse off than a regular quad-core processor. History has already shown with the Tegra 3's helper core that utilizing low power helper cores is a tricky and inefficient affair. It's not easy to switch between them, to prioritize when to use what, and instead of making a more efficient A15 design, Samsung relied too much on the chip's switching capabilities instead of making an overall better processor.
So if you want LTE, BETTER BATTERY LIFE, rom compatibility and dev support with the most widespread SoC, actual availability in stores everywhere, then stop waiting or worrying about the Exynos octa-core and pick the widely available snapdragon version of the S4. Anyone still spouting how great the octa-core version will be and still lies about it being EIGHT WHOLE CORES! when there's really only four are the biggest trolls in the S4 forum.
this video show more real compasion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt5im3WAZYc
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2258519
Heh, load of bullcrap.
If you do video battery tests you do them on Wi-Fi, congratulations on testing modem battery life. (Same carrier? Same tower? Same time of day? Bravo on apples vs oranges Engadget)
The benchmarks ARE faster on the 9500. Let's not mention that Engadget are incompetent fools who don't understand benchmarking. The Linpack scores are a joke as is CF-bench, one because the benchmark literally takes 0.3s and if you're idling before you press the start button that's not even though time for the CPU to ramp up to highest speed. CF-bench fails due to thermal throttling. At least that's a valid negative point, but not performance, scores are far beyond the 30k mark. I'm also getting funny more realistic results on the other benches: 661ms vs 732 SunSpider, 10% higher Vellamo score, 300 more 3D rating, and I'm sure there's others. Funny how they suddenly don't use GeekBench.
Matter of fact: the 9500 is undoubtedly faster and that's a technical reality. They even state so in their subjective comparison.
As for battery life: I've already mentioned how the early firmware is unfinished. I'm getting roughly 10% per hour usage; right now at 61% and 3h30 screen, and that's with doing benchmarks for the last half hour which ate 9%.
The only correct *video* battery life tests I've seen came from GSMArena (9505) and Russian mobile-review who got 12h.
You're going to have to wait for AnandTech to do a review in a few months to be able to use it as argumental material in such discussions.
Engadget is the pinnacle of ignorance and technical non-reporting, and as they've proved in their botched S3 review last year, the benchmarking seems to be done by the principal of their local baboon academy.
katamari201 said:
All those people bragging about how much the A15 is better than the krait based on thin air speculation really need to shove it up their butt.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think people thought that devices using Octa vs. S-600 wouldn't perform comparably. It would make no sense for Samsung not to optimize both to the best of their ability and S-600 is a powerful and efficient chip. You can't help but get the feeling that the s/w isn't "done" on either version based on comments on all the SGS4 forums about lag and display driver issues. That's echoed by some of AndreiLux's comments from looking at the code. Octa is literally the first public implementation of big.LITTLE. All of ARM’s future designs will be based on it. That means Qualcomm’s next generation of chips after S-800 will be based on it also as they license ARM’s designs. I'd expect over time that updates will continue to improve Octa's performance (power and efficiency) whereas S-600 is simply a massaged version of S4 Pro and the OEMs have a lot more experience working with it so there's less upside potential. I'd still buy the i9500 over the i9505 if I were going to get a SGS4 (I'm waiting for the N3) as I think its long-term potential is greater than S-600 and, going forward, I'd expect it to be used in more Samsung devices once Qualcomm's RF360 universal LTE baseband becomes available. Once that happens, unless there's production capacity issues, there no reason Octa wouldn't be Samsung go-to high-end chip. Just my opinion of course.
P.S. - The i9500 has about 250MB more free RAM (13%) than the i9505 as Adreno reserves 500MB for itself while PowerVR reserves a little over 200MB.
matheus_sc said:
this video show more real compasion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt5im3WAZYc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Funny thing is you do the same comparison on another I9505 or I9500 and it will most probably yield different results... they are too close to compare
---------- Post added at 11:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------
BarryH_GEG said:
P.S. - The i9500 has about 250MB more free RAM (13%) than the i9505 as Adreno reserves 500MB for itself while PowerVR reserves a little over 200MB.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really? Where is the source for this? Anyone like to show free ram comparisons between both devices? I am sitting around 750mb free ram,I am Stock Rooted, I have 5 active applications open... And I still have most of the samsung bloat
BarryH_GEG said:
P.S. - The i9500 has about 250MB more free RAM (13%) than the i9505 as Adreno reserves 500MB for itself while PowerVR reserves a little over 200MB.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
None of that memory on neither SoCs is allocated to the GPUs. Video memory is reserved on-the-fly from user-space. That unavailable memory is dedicated to camera controllers, image processors, video decoder, and a bunch of other smaller buffers.
katamari201 said:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/06/samsung-galaxy-s4-octacore-review/
The A15 in the octa-core isn't any better or worse than the krait in the snapdragon, either in performance or benchmarks. The extra four helper cores you get doesn't improve battery life. In fact, with the four a15 cores, it is actually WORSE than the more efficient krait cores. All those people bragging about how much the A15 is better than the krait based on thin air speculation really need to shove it up their butt.
It was already expected that the four extra low power cores in an octa core would not make much difference in battery life and actually be worse off than a regular quad-core processor. History has already shown with the Tegra 3's helper core that utilizing low power helper cores is a tricky and inefficient affair. It's not easy to switch between them, to prioritize when to use what, and instead of making a more efficient A15 design, Samsung relied too much on the chip's switching capabilities instead of making an overall better processor.
So if you want LTE, BETTER BATTERY LIFE, rom compatibility and dev support with the most widespread SoC, actual availability in stores everywhere, then stop waiting or worrying about the Exynos octa-core and pick the widely available snapdragon version of the S4. Anyone still spouting how great the octa-core version will be and still lies about it being EIGHT WHOLE CORES! when there's really only four are the biggest trolls in the S4 forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Get ornery myself some times. Trust me on this, go out, find some nice young lady, make her see God. Later when you read this and are wondering what the hell you were thinking you can apologize. Everybody wins. :good:
Well Said, AMEN
Well said Krabman.....
katamari201 said:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/06/samsung-galaxy-s4-octacore-review/
The A15 in the octa-core isn't any better or worse than the krait in the snapdragon, either in performance or benchmarks. The extra four helper cores you get doesn't improve battery life. In fact, with the four a15 cores, it is actually WORSE than the more efficient krait cores. All those people bragging about how much the A15 is better than the krait based on thin air speculation really need to shove it up their butt.
It was already expected that the four extra low power cores in an octa core would not make much difference in battery life and actually be worse off than a regular quad-core processor. History has already shown with the Tegra 3's helper core that utilizing low power helper cores is a tricky and inefficient affair. It's not easy to switch between them, to prioritize when to use what, and instead of making a more efficient A15 design, Samsung relied too much on the chip's switching capabilities instead of making an overall better processor.
So if you want LTE, BETTER BATTERY LIFE, rom compatibility and dev support with the most widespread SoC, actual availability in stores everywhere, then stop waiting or worrying about the Exynos octa-core and pick the widely available snapdragon version of the S4. Anyone still spouting how great the octa-core version will be and still lies about it being EIGHT WHOLE CORES! when there's really only four are the biggest trolls in the S4 forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AndreiLux said:
None of that memory on neither SoCs is allocated to the GPUs. Video memory is reserved on-the-fly from user-space. That unavailable memory is dedicated to camera controllers, image processors, video decoder, and a bunch of other smaller buffers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
People were saying the i9505 has 1.5GB of available RAM while the i9500 has 1.8GB. Is that true? If it is, what's contributing to the difference?
BarryH_GEG said:
People were saying the i9505 has 1.5GB of available RAM while the i9500 has 1.8GB. Is that true? If it is, what's contributing to the difference?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it's not true. My i9505 have 1.78gb of RAM available.
BarryH_GEG said:
People were saying the i9505 has 1.5GB of available RAM while the i9500 has 1.8GB. Is that true? If it is, what's contributing to the difference?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
loollll no ... where are ppl coming up with this nonsense
Who cares really when are we gonna use the phone at max capacity? And 3 months later something better will be out so quit your *****ing and enjoy ya phone
Sent from my GT-I9505 using xda premium
By the time Verizon ships my S4, the next super phone will be out! Seriously, I've got to quit reading these forums.
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2
1.78gb ram on I9505 here
In any device even low end device you will not find the full ram visible as some is reserved exclusively of the system.
Also the post was on difference between Octa and Quall why would you expect a significant different as if that happens samsung would be trouble because they are the same device right S4 so samsung would tuned both in a way that the performance battery life is almost the same that hows it should be right you cannot say my s4 is slower then yours bec I purchased it from US ????
BarryH_GEG said:
People were saying the i9505 has 1.5GB of available RAM while the i9500 has 1.8GB. Is that true? If it is, what's contributing to the difference?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It really doesn't made a huge difference on Android devices. The extra memory just allows you to have more applications paused in the background before the kernel kills them to free up space. With the S3 if you're playing a game and switch to a web browser it's very likely that the game will be closed as it only has 1GB. On the S4 it will stay open in the background.
katamari201 said:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/06/samsung-galaxy-s4-octacore-review/
The A15 in the octa-core isn't any better or worse than the krait in the snapdragon, either in performance or benchmarks. The extra four helper cores you get doesn't improve battery life. In fact, with the four a15 cores, it is actually WORSE than the more efficient krait cores. All those people bragging about how much the A15 is better than the krait based on thin air speculation really need to shove it up their butt.
It was already expected that the four extra low power cores in an octa core would not make much difference in battery life and actually be worse off than a regular quad-core processor. History has already shown with the Tegra 3's helper core that utilizing low power helper cores is a tricky and inefficient affair. It's not easy to switch between them, to prioritize when to use what, and instead of making a more efficient A15 design, Samsung relied too much on the chip's switching capabilities instead of making an overall better processor.
So if you want LTE, BETTER BATTERY LIFE, rom compatibility and dev support with the most widespread SoC, actual availability in stores everywhere, then stop waiting or worrying about the Exynos octa-core and pick the widely available snapdragon version of the S4. Anyone still spouting how great the octa-core version will be and still lies about it being EIGHT WHOLE CORES! when there's really only four are the biggest trolls in the S4 forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Amazing! Where were you all these days??
BTW, I don't have to wait, nor do I have to worry about getting a I9500. Stores near me don't have any Snapdragon variant. I think it's always a good practise not to take advise from a random person in the forums.
Nobody asked for your advise on what version to get. People are knowledgeable enough to make that decision.