Hello,
I have a question that I've been scouring the internet for ages for but have never found the answer,
I own a Nexus 7 and a cheap Tablet that utilizes the Mali 400-MP.
In my expirences with general gaming (and benchmarks) the Mali 400 outperforms the tegra by a long shot.
My question is why this is the case, I checked the specs of both chips and the tegra has 12 cores vs the Malis 4 cores, the Tegra even has a higher clock rate so I just can't understand why the Tegra is less powerfull.
Is it just that the games I play are optimized for the Mali better than the tegra?
My thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this
chip are different as Pentium dual @3Ghz = core 2 duo @1.6Ghz
Both have 2 core, but since the first is netburst an the second core architecture they don't have the same way to calculate, manage tread etc etc
Thanks
chocoboss said:
chip are different as Pentuim dual @3Ghz = core 2 duo @1.6Ghz
Both have 2 core, but since the first is netburst an the second core architecture they don't have the same way to calculate, manage tread etc etc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow that was fast! thanks for responding so quickly,
im still a little unsure, the Tegra 3 uses the ARM Architecture and so does the Mali so i don't think its that simple, i could be wrong i guess...
if it is just for that reason, how would you go about comparing the two to find out which is better when looking at the specs?
Edit: ive just checked, they both use The ARM v7 Instruction Set, and i think they are both variations of the ARM Cortex-A9 chip,
plus what im looking for is more a comparison of the GPU where as i think Architectures are more to do with CPU's.
SIMD's and MAD's
I've been scouring the internet and came across the fact that the Mali 400 has more SIMD Units.
Could this be why the Mali is better? I must admit that I'm not really sure what a Single Instruction Multiple Data unit does performance wise.
Bump.
Recap: my question is why a GPU with more cores and a higher clock speed has less GFLOPS than a GPU with less cores and a lower clock speed
Related
Hey guys there was a great thread before about tegra vs. Snapdragon. With the recent release of new chips such as tegra 2 and Qualcomm QSD8672(snapdragon 2) I wanted to see which chipset is more powerful and offers the best battery life. Omap 4440 Qualcomm QSD8672 or tegra 2.
I'm not excited about Snapdragon 2 because it's just based on current A8 architecture but overclocked and better gpu.
What interests me are OMAP4 and TEGRA2 because both are based on next generation A9 cpu. Although both announced as dual cpu's OMAP4 will be released with single core variant which early phones might adapt. Unlike TEGRA2 which is assured to be dual core.
LG's Optimus range will have the Tegra 2!!! Im so excited to see this! Next week Tuesday is the big reveal.
can someone tell me which soc have the best gpu and which does better rander triangles per second
.
What is better dual core or single core??
SupremeBeaver said:
LG's Optimus range will have the Tegra 2!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Optimus 2X does but the Optimus 3D uses the OMAP 4430 SoC.
CARLITOZ18 said:
What is better dual core or single core??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It honestly all depends on how you're looking at it.
Battery- Dual core most likely, since it's total tdp is about a much as a single cores tdp.
Performance- This varies a lot on the system. If the system is multi-core ready, then multitasking will be better. If the app is multi-core ready, the dual core will as long as the single core isn't say 2.5x clocked. Remember something, double the cores does not mean double the performance.
Speed- Again, this varies on the system and app.
Really, I feel that multiple cores and threads are the way to go. Clocking the cpus higher is only going to raise the power usage up. Multiple core systems can be more efficient, if the system makes use of it.
I'd say the OMAP4 from Texas Instruments is the top dog as of this moment in the SoC category, especially considering Tegra 2's Achilles heel in the high profile 720P/1080P dept.
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).
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.
Some exciting news, the first real-world benchmark has appeared for an ARM A15 chip, in this case the Samsung Exynos 5250, which has been launched in the latest Chromebook.
Chip Info - dual-core A15 @ 1.7 GHz & Mali T604 GPU.
http://www.samsung.com/global/busin...t/application/detail?productId=7668&iaId=2341
The benchmark is Sunspider, which is not multi-threaded, i.e. does utilise multiple cores, so you can evaluate the actual performance (javascript) of a single-core., now we can see the performance improvement ARM has baked into their latest hardware
Courtesy of Gigacom, Sunspider on the ARM version of Google Chrome that comes installed on the Chromebook = 660ms (Lower is better). Compared to the current King of the Hill ARM A9 device the Galaxy Note 2 (Exynos 4412), which is clocked at 1.6 GHz, it achieves 972 ms accorded to GSM Arena, other sites have similar figures.
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_note_ii-review-824p5.php
LOWER IS BETTER
Exynos 5250 - A15 @ 1.7 Ghz = 660 ms
Exynos 4412 - A9 @ 1.6 Ghz = 972 ms
The 5250 is clocked 6% higher than the 4412, so if we adjust the results for CPU frequency parity
Exynos 5250 = 660 ms
Exynos 4412 @ 1.7 Ghz = 914 ms
This is not an exhaustive performance test!, but we can see that in this one popular benchmark that ARM A15 is ~30% faster than the A9 architecture when adjusted for clock speed.
To sweeten the deal further A15 SoC will run at a higher clock than A9s, Tegra 4 (T40) is stated to run @ 1.8 GHz with a bump to 2 GHz after a couple of quarters, just like Tegra 3. Samsung has the even mightier 5450, a quad-core variant of the chip in this test, rumored to run @ 2 GHz, combined with much more powerful GPU, and Android's software optimisations 2013 is going to be one hell of year for tech fans:victory:
Source:
http://gigaom.com/mobile/video-hands-on-with-googles-new-249-chromebook/
Nice find. I am also looking for Mali-T604 results. GLbenchmark results will be interesting. 72GFLOPs does sound very good.
EDIT: I think he says 620ms in video. Also, I am sure it will get better as the Chrome OS code is optimized for ARM. This is just first release. Exynos 4 has been optimized to limit. They can't push it any further now, at least not by a big margin.
hot_spare said:
Nice find. I am also looking for Mali-T604 results. GLbenchmark results will be interesting. 72GFLOPs does sound very good.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You may have to wait a while, ChromeOS can't run Android apps like GLbenchmark, only webapps. The reason Sunspider is a good test in this case, is that they both use the ARM version of Chrome, which uses the same underlying technology (Webkit & V8 Javascript engine)
Edit, there some unverified benchmarks from ES 2.0 Taiji, but there are v-sync limited to 60 fps, so we don't know how powerful the T-604, from that bench.
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Sams...i-T604-graphics-pops-up-in-benchmarks_id34681
True. I think have to wait for SGS4 for those benchmarks. More interested in browsermark, peacekeeper, google octane numbers. google itself mentioned that sunspider is outdated.
http://sunspider-mod.googlecode.com/svn/data/hosted/sunspider.html
hot_spare said:
EDIT: I think he says 620ms in video. Also, I am sure it will get better as the Chrome OS code is optimized for ARM. This is just first release. Exynos 4 has been optimized to limit. They can't push it any further now, at least not by a big margin.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the video he mentions 620 ms, but in the comments he states 660 ms for Sunspider when asked the question, I chose the 660 ms to be conservative.
Antutu benchmark!
I kept looking, and found something interesting now.
"Supposedly" first Antutu benchmark for Exynos 5250. Now the values show it's running at 1.5GHz. For a dual-core SoC, 14185 score sounds very good.
The most interesting part is the 3D graphics numbers. This is 3x compared to 4412 SoC.
Source: http://www.antutu.com/view.shtml?id=2718
With more optimization, this can be really powerful.
Looks like this chip will also end up in the Nexus 10
Turbotab said:
Looks like this chip will also end up in the Nexus 10
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's going to be a monster tablet.
Peacekeeper browser benchmark for Exynos 5250 gets more than 1200:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JoeWilcox/posts/8LrBK9CKJG4
Better than any other mobile SoC so far.
This chip rapes every other chip out there, even the s4 pro and apple a6. look here- http://www.androidauthority.com/exynos-5-dual-benchmarks-125134/
prajju123 said:
This chip rapes every other chip out there, even the s4 pro and apple a6. look here- http://www.androidauthority.com/exynos-5-dual-benchmarks-125134/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude please don't use the word rape, an ugly word. But we must wait for the a GL Benchmark results of the Mali T-604 against the Apple A6 & A6X, I hope it beats them, but it won't be easy Apple used a lot of die space to create them.
Hoping for a Exynos 5450 (5 Quad) by March or April of 2013
Is it the same chip they use in the new Chromebook?
lz2323 said:
Is it the same chip they use in the new Chromebook?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly the same, dual-core Exynos 5250 - Mali T-604.
I was going to buy a tablet for uni, and as i have some experience with computers i decided to compare the tablets and buy which was best for me, however i realized I'm a complete greenhorn in terms of phone/tablet hardware.
I found that these two processor was the ones i had to pick from:
Samsung Exynos 5250 - A15 Dual core @ 2 Ghz
Has an excellent GPU T-604
Rockwell Rk3188 - A9 Quad core @ 1.8 GHz
Has an decent GPU Mali 400
I know that the Exynos has a MUCH better GPU and has the newer A15 architecture, clocked at higher speed but is a dual core.
But the Rockwell is a quad core but has a older A9 architure and has the worse GPU.
I tried to search for a comparison but came nil because I was comparing between different release date/architecture.
Could you guys people explain to this newbie the advantages and disadvantages of each processor, and which one i should pick?
Which Processor is better? why is it better? Better by how much?
Which processor would be better at Nds emulation? I know android nds emulator support multicore and GPU support
Rk3188 (quad core) vs exynos (better GPU, architechture)
Which one has the lower battery consumption?
Thank you for your time.
at first is it Rockchip RK3188 , not Rockwell .. 2nd, A15 is faster than A9 even A9 is in A9 quad core state, for better compatibility support for apps and games .. take exynos chip but the price is hinger than rockchip RK3188 tablet... battery comsumption are vary depnds actual MAH on the tablet + how the user usage on it's tablet + version ROM that perform
Tablet is not only about processor, build quality, screen, speakers - its a package.
As you did not mention exact models under comparison, it depends on what you look for and budget.
For price/quality top score, you can't go wrong with one of Cube u9GTV (quad) tablets :
Retina, aluminum body, IPS, HDMI, stereo speakers and 9+ hours of battery.
I have one myself, and I used the dual core (old model) for a year, so I know they last well and are robust.
One of issues to consider is that having ADB over USB to Cube tablets is sometimes a mess, so I'm using ADB over IP to debug things, which might be not the best solution for a developer.
Best luck with your choice!
Ramjali said:
I was going to buy a tablet for uni, and as i have some experience with computers i decided to compare the tablets and buy which was best for me, however i realized I'm a complete greenhorn in terms of phone/tablet hardware.
I found that these two processor was the ones i had to pick from:
Samsung Exynos 5250 - A15 Dual core @ 2 Ghz
Has an excellent GPU T-604
Rockwell Rk3188 - A9 Quad core @ 1.8 GHz
Has an decent GPU Mali 400
I know that the Exynos has a MUCH better GPU and has the newer A15 architecture, clocked at higher speed but is a dual core.
But the Rockwell is a quad core but has a older A9 architure and has the worse GPU.
I tried to search for a comparison but came nil because I was comparing between different release date/architecture.
Could you guys people explain to this newbie the advantages and disadvantages of each processor, and which one i should pick?
Which Processor is better? why is it better? Better by how much?
Which processor would be better at Nds emulation? I know android nds emulator support multicore and GPU support
Rk3188 (quad core) vs exynos (better GPU, architechture)
Which one has the lower battery consumption?
Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse