Related
Wow, just reading this and watching the video got me really excited!
Quote: "...its benchmark puts Kal-El at a higher performance bracket than even Intel's Core 2 Duo full-on-PC processors."
Enjoy: http://pocketnow.com/android/nvidia-quad-core-kal-el-in-android-devices-this-summer
I guess my next phone will somewhere on par with my [email protected], nah not quite but still impressive.
Its freakin ridiculous isn't it, I can't imagine how powerful wayne, logan, or even stark will be.
By the way, those are the architectures coming after Kal-El as seen in the roadmap here
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4181/...-a9s-coming-to-smartphonestablets-this-year/1
Can't wait for my Q6600 to have a little brother as well.
dreadlord369 said:
Its freakin ridiculous isn't it, I can't imagine how powerful wayne, logan, or even stark will be.
By the way, those are the architectures coming after Kal-El as seen in the roadmap here
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4181/...-a9s-coming-to-smartphonestablets-this-year/1
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow sick! I had a feeling the technology was gona explode once dual core starts being implemented into phones but this is just ridiculous. I wander which C2D they are comparing to though. Can't wait to play some Crysis on my phone !!
omg it looks so cool!
7
Its lie, arm can not beat intel dual core cpus for next three year
It might be better then atom dual...
Sent from my LG-SU660 using XDA App
uhh three years is too long if they havent already beat some dual core chips, least thats what i think...specially since the kal-el and omap 5 cpus and whatever qualcomm have planned are gunna be freaking awesome!
OMG!!!! Its amazing
Mobile phones better than my first PC
Well since nvidia is supposedly releasing quad core in q4 of this year I say that computers will prolly eventually die out. Especially since this year smartphone sales beat computers...just a thought
HTC HD2 w/ 2.3 : )
CTR01 said:
Well since nvidia is supposedly releasing quad core in q4 of this year I say that computers will prolly eventually die out. Especially since this year smartphone sales beat computers...just a thought
HTC HD2 w/ 2.3 : )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Funny you mention that, I was just in uni talking about networking (my major) and technology and a classmate said the same thing. I would say it could happen in maybe 20+ years.
I would like to see a Tegra 3 rendering a complex 3D scene or something like that which would really show it's performance.
Is this the Q6600 club or what? <3
Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk
I have an Athlon X3 435 at 3.6 ghz. Can go up to 3.8 ghz as well. But too much v-core.
Although they are saying these newer processors are supposed to be much more efficient, are these dual and quad core processors going to be a viable option with the today's battery technology?
Or is it going to be more of a "use it if it is available" for the app devs, and therefore negating any positive improvements in battery life?
icecold23 said:
Although they are saying these newer processors are supposed to be much more efficient, are these dual and quad core processors going to be a viable option with the today's battery technology?
Or is it going to be more of a "use it if it is available" for the app devs, and therefore negating any positive improvements in battery life?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I don' think the battery technology is on par or evolving on par with the processors. At this rate, we'll have "stationary" tablets with the current battery technology.
icecold23 said:
Although they are saying these newer processors are supposed to be much more efficient, are these dual and quad core processors going to be a viable option with the today's battery technology?
Or is it going to be more of a "use it if it is available" for the app devs, and therefore negating any positive improvements in battery life?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It just really depends on how optimized these cores are for power. It's not adding cores that gives a higher TDP, it's the vcore of the core and the frequency the cores run at. But really, I can't see cpus going any other way but multicore or multithread. It's more efficient for power and performance to have 2 cores running at 1 ghz each, instead of having a cpu at 2ghz that will have a higher tdp and vcore to keep it stable. If the cores are a smaller die size, then it works out perfectly.
vbetts said:
It just really depends on how optimized these cores are for power. It's not adding cores that gives a higher TDP, it's the vcore of the core and the frequency the cores run at. But really, I can't see cpus going any other way but multicore or multithread. It's more efficient for power and performance to have 2 cores running at 1 ghz each, instead of having a cpu at 2ghz that will have a higher tdp and vcore to keep it stable. If the cores are a smaller die size, then it works out perfectly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agreed...while im no cpu expert i do know the slight basics and did a little reading that agrees with vbetts. they said the 4 core kal-el nvidia cpu is supposed to have ~12 hours of play back for hd video...least thats what someone on a thread of mine posted...
vbetts said:
It just really depends on how optimized these cores are for power. It's not adding cores that gives a higher TDP, it's the vcore of the core and the frequency the cores run at. But really, I can't see cpus going any other way but multicore or multithread. It's more efficient for power and performance to have 2 cores running at 1 ghz each, instead of having a cpu at 2ghz that will have a higher tdp and vcore to keep it stable. If the cores are a smaller die size, then it works out perfectly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah exactly, I personally thought the move to dual core would be sooner with a 2 500mhz core cpu or lower since that would still be better then a single 1Ghz chip.
Battery is definitely a issue, with today's technology I wonder how much these chips will consume at 100% load or when playing a game which use most of the devices grunt. On my DHD I can take it up to 1.9Ghz stable and if i'm playing FPse while at that frequency current widget show consumption of around 425mA, while at 1Ghz it's around 285mA. That's quiet a difference! So in order for these chips to be efficient they shouldn't use much more battery then todays chips.
I love my Q6600, max OC I could get was 4Ghz but it required 1.6v Vcore and on air that was HOT. Still I made it into Windows and did some benching, 13.110s on a 1MB SuperPI/1.5 XS mod
CTR01 said:
agreed...while im no cpu expert i do know the slight basics and did a little reading that agrees with vbetts. they said the 4 core kal-el nvidia cpu is supposed to have ~12 hours of play back for hd video...least thats what someone on a thread of mine posted...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I read that as well or heard it somewhere.
Yeah exactly, I personally thought the move to dual core would be sooner with a 2 500mhz core cpu or lower since that would still be better then a single 1Ghz chip.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If the app is multithreaded capable, then yes. Easily better. But 2 500mhz cpus would probably be best for multitasking.
Battery is definitely a issue, with today's technology I wonder how much these chips will consume at 100% load or when playing a game which use most of the devices grunt. On my DHD I can take it up to 1.9Ghz stable and if i'm playing FPse while at that frequency current widget show consumption of around 425mA, while at 1Ghz it's around 285mA. That's quiet a difference! So in order for these chips to be efficient they shouldn't use much more battery then todays chips.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Battery has always been an issue though, even on my old Moment the battery sucked. But that's what you get with these I guess. But man, 1.9ghz stable from 1ghz! For a small platform, that's pretty damn impressive.
I love my Q6600, max OC I could get was 4Ghz but it required 1.6v Vcore and on air that was HOT. Still I made it into Windows and did some benching, 13.110s on a 1MB SuperPI/1.5 XS mod
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ouch, how long did the chip last? I've got my 435 at 1.52vcore. I can go higher but I need this chip to last me for a year or so.
I can't believe that they set the time-frame for the release as early as they did. Hopefully they will live up to this standard
ive done so many benchmarks on htc sensation nd gs2..but i still find the gs2 win by a huge margin...but on the other hand..the anandtech benchmark on 1.5ghz msm 8660 showed that it beats all the other gpu's such as mali 400 with its adreno 220...but still y cant it cant beat up the gs2? what is the main reason for this?? and is the msm 8660 on cdma evo 3d is jus d same as 8260 except for cdma connectivity? or it has its differences?? will there b a better benchmark on msm8260 anywhere soon?? even the latest smartbench 2011 which supports dual cores also lists the 8260 at lower benchmark!!! sum1 plz explain,,,...and y msm 8660 is way powerfull than exynos though it shows low benchmarks??
The Exynos is IMO an overall better processor than any Qualcomms. The Exynos is a ARM Cortex-A9 processor while the Sensation's is from what I understand similar to ARM Cortex-A8 architecture. The only advantages the Sensation's processor has over the GS2's are on paper: the Adreno 220 GPU is supposedly better, and the Sensation has asynchronous cores, which the GS2 doesn't have. Otherwise, I don't really know what makes the Exynos better, and I also don't know what the difference is between the Sensation and Evo 3D units.
the 8660 is the CDMA version of the 8260
I don't put alot of stock into benchmarks, and very few are accurate because they can't truly read dual cores.
To the two noobs in post 1 and post 2
The Sensation processor really isnt inferior compared to the SGS2
Why do i say that, because your sensation at this moment in your time in your hand is probably ONLY using one core. the 2nd core will be in an idle state and only activate when you need it.
THE SGS2 no matter what u do, both cores will work together, even when your just looking at touchwiz you are using two cores, even with the screen off in your pocket your using two cores, there is no way to turn one off, thus consumes a little more battery.
With the sensation the 2nd core kicks in when you need the power. they do not work together. Currently if you are looking at the dev thread in the development section you will see the progress.
SImpler term
think of a turbocharger
SGS2 uses two turbos continuously,
Sensation uses one turbo but when it needs more power the 2nd turbo kicks in
I'm well aware that no one has really been able to push the Sensation's processor to what it's capable of. That said, I have done my research on the SGS2 and Sensation processors and still believe that the Exynos is superior to the Qualcomm. I am excited to see what the Sensation can do when we can explore its power, but I still think that it will fall a little short of the Exynos because of the similar to A8 vs. A9 architecture. My prediction is that once proper dual-core support comes for us, we will easily be able to get better performance than the SGS2 has stock, but when it comes to fully modded out Sensation vs. fully modded out SGS2, the SGS2 will still be faster.
To use another car analogy, it's like saying "my car isn't inferior" just because if you throw on some bolt-ons you will be able to get marginally better performance than a stock competitor. But, if both cars were to be fully modded (bolt-ons, FI'd, proper custom engine management, better rubber, etc.), the other car would pull ahead. Essentially, I think that the ultimate the SGS2 can achieve is greater than the ultimate that the Sensation can achieve (but it won't be by much once proper support comes out).
Exynos's A9 has shorter pipelines and is fully out of order and the Sensation's Adreno, despite being faster, has to render at a higher resolution.
Sure, the Qualcomm may win some synthetic benchmarks, but the A9 is still faster due to a better architecture. Same way how K8 was better than Netburst despite the latter having higher clocks, cache, etc, but its deep pipeline was ultimately one of its bigger flaws.
The A9 will always have a 20-25% performance benefit over the A8 if they are running at the same clock speed. The Scorpion architecture is based off of the A8, but it also has some A9 elements because there's so such thing as a dual-core A8 processor. The performance of the Scorpion is somewhere in between an A8 and an A9 because of this. The Exynos at its current state inside of the GSII is clocked at the same speed as the MSM8x60 inside of the Sensation and EVO 3D which is why it has a performance advantage. If it were clocked at 1.5 GHz, then the MSM8x60 would probably have the same type of performance, if not better.
Anand Tech said:
From a CPU standpoint, Apple has a performance advantage at the same clock speed, but Qualcomm runs its cores at a higher clock. NVIDIA claimed that the move to an out-of-order architecture in the A9 was good for a 20% increase in IPC. Qualcomm has a 20% clock speed advantage. In most situations I think it's safe to say that the A5 [ARM Cortex-A9] and the APQ8060 [dual-core Scorpion] have equally performing CPUs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hope that helped.
thank u so much to all of u guys out here...!! nd from wat ive studies...as u all said the msm8660 in sensation nd evo 3d uses only 1 core and the 2nd strts oly wen needed thanks to the asynchronous architecture of the 8660..!! and the cpu nd gpu of sg2 is jus "ordinary" as compared to 8660 though it has a9 architecture...and 8660 isnt a a9 nor an a8..its different..it may resemble a8 but its different..i has the advantages of both a8 nd a9....check the anandtech review of 8660 along with the review of exynos side by side then u will know what really has the power...the latest optimus 3d's chipset matches to that of qualcomm with a great score in GLegypt.. thanks alot for all of u guys..
I really feel the benchmarks are pointless as they never relate to real world use. Who here could possibly use the CPU like the benchmark can?
After the 2.3.4 update, my phone is faster. The web browsing is twice as fast for me!
I eagerly await CM7 but really dont think it can improve my phone that much more. I am stock, rooted, S-OFF and use ADW EX along with Sense 3.0 FROZEN solid. My battery life (chichitec) is more than I need with moderate use. I like to charge my phone at night while I sleep, so if it lasts me until I am done for the day...GREAT!
At this point, when I look at the SGS2, I feel my phone works just as well but looks 100 times better!
I do feel that the Sensation CPU will wind up outperforming the SGS2 once it is used like it should be...
Matt
It doesnt matter if msm8260 is better than exynos or adreno 220 is better than mali 400, the only thing that matters is real life performance and Samsung optimized their devices better than htc. If only htc take the time to better optimized their drivers and such it would be a faster and better device than samsung. HTC already wins hands down when it comes to design and choice of materials,too bad they are too lazy to optimize for a more superior experience.
brusko1972 I agree with your point that Samsung hardware and software collaboration that makes Samsung efficient than HTC. HTC need to work on hardware and software match to improve their performance specially with power efficiency and distribution. HTC Sense UI is quite heavy and more power and hardware consuming where as Touchwiz is very light UI. That may be also the reasons for low benchmarking results.
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).
Does anyone else think that the new-generation Exynos SoC will support 802.11ac and LTE-A? Or playing back 1080p video at 60 fps and 2k quality at 30 fps? These are features which were never really discussed about the chipset itself.
The Snapdragon 800 was confirmed to have compatibility and capability of all of the aforementioned. It sounds as if the Snapdragon 800 series will be the superior chipset, while the Exynos Octa will likely provide better power efficiency in some regard. It would be pretty disappointing if the Galaxy S IV got stuck with a Snapdragon 600 processor, given the date it's likely going to be pushed out on. It might make me consider the Note this time around.
i really hope all these rumors are fake, samsung should use Exynos on there flagship Galaxy S line ! if not the octa, maybe the Exynos 5 Quad Core 1.8-2.0GHz !
All the Snapdragon 600 happens to be is a mid-tear SoC, which improves upon the same GPU and performance of the S4 Pro. Real A15 architectures should blow this chipset out of the water. People seem to think that what they see now is good. But when the Snapdragon 800 and other A15-based chips start making their debut, this will feel dated quickly in the coming months.
megagodx said:
All the Snapdragon 600 happens to be is a mid-tear SoC, which improves upon the same GPU and performance of the S4 Pro. Real A15 architectures should blow this chipset out of the water. People seem to think that what they see now is good. But when the Snapdragon 800 and other A15-based chips start making their debut, this will feel dated quickly in the coming months.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
clock-per-clock a15 is just 15% faster than krait, dont think that there's so much differences between the two.
they are both really solid performers and the batle is all on the maximum clock/power required rateo.
The SD800 will also feature Quick Charge 2.0, which is supposed to charge your battery 75% faster than other SoC chipsets without that same function. SD600 doesn't feature that either. I'm pretty sure if you seen the initial Tegra 4 benchmarks (based off of real A15 architecture) - they wipe the floor with the HTC One's SD600. Being 75% increased in performance over the Snapdragon S4 Pro (last year's best mobile SoC), the SD800 should bring comparatively the same or better results than the T4 mentioned. That's kind of going to be a disappointment if the S IV ends up with a SD600 and no Exynos 5 Quad/Octa, at least.
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.