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.
Hi, I am planning to buy the Galaxy Note and came across an article on Galaxy Note 2. (I can't post the link as a new user. It is on Android.gs Geeks under the title "Samsung Galaxy Note 2 release date to be mid December, 2012"
I can wait until December if the Galaxy Note 2 will be much faster than the current one. From the rumored specifications, the Exynos 1.4 dual-core chip will be upgraded to 1.4 quad-core. In the computer world, although more software (especially games) are starting to take advantage of multi-cores, the number is still small. Most applications can take advantage of at most dual cores. How is the situation in the Android world? Besides games, how many Android's Apps can benefit from the two extra cores? Can you name a few useful Apps that would benefit from a quad-core processor?
The 5.3-inch is already a bit large. I probably may not be able to handle a 5.65-inch unless Samsung takes a longer Note while keeping the width the same. What is the chance of having the Note 2's width the same as the current Note? Also, what are the advantages of having to move the HD display from 720p to 1080p on such small device (when compared with a laptop)? The non-removable battery is a bit of a turn off.
So, the only reason for me to wait for the Galaxy Note 2 is the possibility that the overall performance will be, say over 15%, better than the current one. How likely will that be?
Any opinion appreciated. Thanks.
When I came here 2 days ago hoping to get answers about the differences between i9500 and i9505, I've had a very hard time and had to look through 40+ pages of discussion. So here I am trying to create a shorter and easier list for people who want to decide.
Samsung Galaxy S4 i9505
Qualcomm APQ8064T Snapdragon 600
Quad-core 1.9ghz processor
- LTE (4G) support - most countries do not have 4G yet
- Uses battery slightly more efficiently (talk time difference is significant, 17 hours on i9505 vs 11 hours on i9500)
- Open-source, good for developers
Samsung Galaxy S4 i9500
Exynos 5 Octa 5410
Quad-core 1.6ghz processor
Quad-core 1.2gz processor (8 cores, not actually used all simultaneously)
- Sound and Camera quality are slightly better
- A little cheaper in some places
- Slightly faster than the i9505. All around I would say 5%-10% faster.
Benchmark comparisons: google "gsmarena i9505 vs i9500" - I liked this comparison as it included everything but there are many others out there.
Notice how most sentences include the word 'slightly' or 'a little' - this is because most differences are hardly noticable for the average user. LTE support and open-source may be very noticable for some.
I hope this helps with the very confusing task of choosing which one is more fitting for you. Feel free to suggest additions/changes to the list.
i9505 vs i9500
This thread has some usefull information.
All comparative information between i9505 vs i9500 can be posted here
In the i9500 variant you should correct it to 1.2Ghz instead of 1.3Ghz.
also add that the Audio chip is better on the i9500...
frrlod said:
Samsung Galaxy S4 i9505
- Uses battery slightly more efficiently (talk time difference is significant, 17 hours on i9505 vs 11 hours on i9500)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is something I'm not sure is true.
I've also read the GSMArena comparison and was a bit surprised because until that comparison, I've mostly seen the opposite.
Check Erica Griffin's comparison for example :https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=KGyf72N6tEqF4_iAI_0uAw&bvm=bv.47380653,d.ZWU
On the battery thread in the General forum, you can also see that most of the time, people with the i9500 can often get more than 6 hours screen time in a 24-48 hours period (some get close to 8 hours actually), while the i9505 struggles to reach 5 to 6 hours.
I might be wrong, but this seems to be the trend.
I also got great battery on my i9500, around 6 to 7 hours screen time over 2 days last week end, but since I only got the device last thursday and I don't use it as much during the week, I'll need more time to see if this is a regular thing
I think that the battery will be better on the i9505 for people who do a lot of heavy gaming or other intensive tasks since the Snapdragon 600 is more efficient than the A15, but when doing light or background tasks or while the device is idle, the i9500 will consume less battery because it'll use the A7 CPU.
About the camera quality : the i9500 has the new Sony IMX135 chip (Exmor RS) which has a stacked CMOS, while the i9505 probably has a IMX091PQ (Exmor R) which is an older sensor, still a great one though
Also, the i9500 can record slow motion videos (up to 1/8 speed) at 720p resolution, while the i9505 can only record that at 800*450 (probably due to the newer sensor and/or the CPU as well).
I thought those might be useful info, hope this helps
Mithrandir007 said:
This is something I'm not sure is true.
I've also read the GSMArena comparison and was a bit surprised because until that comparison, I've mostly seen the opposite.
Check Erica Griffin's comparison for example :https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=KGyf72N6tEqF4_iAI_0uAw&bvm=bv.47380653,d.ZWU
On the battery thread in the General forum, you can also see that most of the time, people with the i9500 can often get more than 6 hours screen time in a 24-48 hours period (some get close to 8 hours actually), while the i9505 struggles to reach 5 to 6 hours.
I might be wrong, but this seems to be the trend.
I also got great battery on my i9500, around 6 to 7 hours screen time over 2 days last week end, but since I only got the device last thursday and I don't use it as much during the week, I'll need more time to see if this is a regular thing
I think that the battery will be better on the i9505 for people who do a lot of heavy gaming or other intensive tasks since the Snapdragon 600 is more efficient than the A15, but when doing light or background tasks or while the device is idle, the i9500 will consume less battery because it'll use the A7 CPU.
About the camera quality : the i9500 has the new Sony IMX135 chip (Exmor RS) which has a stacked CMOS, while the i9505 probably has a IMX091PQ (Exmor R) which is an older sensor, still a great one though
Also, the i9500 can record slow motion videos (up to 1/8 speed) at 720p resolution, while the i9505 can only record that at 800*450 (probably due to the newer sensor and/or the CPU as well).
I thought those might be useful info, hope this helps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The synthetic battery tests done by various websites usually include having a webpage refresh every x amount of seconds - it might be disadvantageous for the i9500 since it'll be firing the A15's up and down frequently. It really depends on the refresh-rate they have in their battery test scripts.
Also if I'm not mistaken (not sure), the i9505 doesn't have the dedicated Audience ES325 audio voice chip for noise cancellation.
AndreiLux said:
The synthetic battery tests done by various websites usually include having a webpage refresh every x amount of seconds - it might be disadvantageous for the i9500 since it'll be firing the A15's up and down frequently. It really depends on the refresh-rate they have in their battery test scripts.
Also if I'm not mistaken (not sure), the i9505 doesn't have the dedicated Audience ES325 audio voice chip for noise cancellation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would explain it then.
And I didn't know about the audio voice chip, thanks for the info
I think we should list problems of the 2 devices too.
e.g i9505's audio has crackling with certain headphones
i9500 has camera startup issues? (From what I've read)
etc...
DevilzGtr said:
I think we should list problems of the 2 devices too.
e.g i9505's audio has crackling with certain headphones
i9500 has camera startup issues? (From what I've read)
etc...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the camera issue has been corrected by the newer firmwares.
At least, I never had any trouble, and I updated my phone as soon as I got it.
Sent from my GT-I9500 using xda app-developers app
DevilzGtr said:
I think we should list problems of the 2 devices too.
e.g i9505's audio has crackling with certain headphones
i9500 has camera startup issues? (From what I've read)
etc...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In me1 not have any reboot using since 22 May, in my country only advantage is cm full support.
Sent from my GT-I9500 using xda app-developers app
AndreiLux said:
The synthetic battery tests done by various websites usually include having a webpage refresh every x amount of seconds - it might be disadvantageous for the i9500 since it'll be firing the A15's up and down frequently. It really depends on the refresh-rate they have in their battery test scripts.
Also if I'm not mistaken (not sure), the i9505 doesn't have the dedicated Audience ES325 audio voice chip for noise cancellation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wrong. Both the i9500 and the i9505 have the Audience eS325.
Besides BB/AP/RF, the only IC differences between the two solutions are the CODEC, GPS, and ISP.
racerex said:
Wrong. Both the i9500 and the i9505 have the Audience eS325.
Besides BB/AP/RF, the only IC differences between the two solutions are the CODEC, GPS, and ISP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Something up with their voice processing then, there are videos showing night and day differences between the two in record quality.
I was comparing the Exynos i9500 and Snapdragon i9505 as well. The quick Down and dirty "subjective" comparisons from several XDA Senior members are below ( read original question to understand), but Andrei has a great thread here which gives background info on the Exynos Octa Core which will help consumers decide on which S4 version to purchase. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2191850 . I posted comparisons below but the thread has tons of info.
Here's my original question giving the parameters for i9500 vs. i9505 comparison so you understand the answers I got.
Cap'nO said:
My Help Challenge
I buy phones for the long haul, so appreciate the phone with the most potential for the future.. Which S4 has the most potential to still be a relevant device 3 years from now?
Potential for me =
power efficiency because I'm on the metro or bus a lot. I browse net, play games, email, stream movies, hotspot, etc. also fly a lot
good hardware to support anticipated software or development ( sorry if I say it wrong) longer without being all super slow (sic).....*edit*which version will have better development so it can be relevant longer using the mods put out by developers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here are the answers I received from XDA Senior Members.
Answer Provider Username: warfareonly
Status:Senior Member
warfareonly said:
1.) I dunno about that. The S600 SoC is quite power efficient, but I have no idea about the exynos 5410(in the i9500 variant)
2.) If you mean development support from the xda community, then I'd suggest you to go for the i9505 without any qualms.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Answer Provider Username:demlasjr
Status: Senior Member
demlasjr said:
@Cap'nO Totally agree with @warfareonly. To have a good mobile for 3 years from now, I9505 is a great selection.
- First of all you have 4G LTE (just in case you have 4G or will have in the future in your location)
- The GPU is better, you have OpenGL ES 3.0 (I9500's GPU have only 2.0), which may become a standard, not this year, but maybe next one or in 2 years
- Even if Samsung will not update your phone after 2 years and you will want the last Android version on your phone, Cyanogen will always have a stable and complete version for the S600 CPU (even if you probably will lose some features. Exynos never released their code
- Ignore those small results in the benchmarks, there is enough space to improve through upgrades and the difference are not visible in normal use. Also, if you play games, your battery life will be lower on I9500 due to A15 cores. Resuming this, with I9500 you have better battery life in standby but weaker while playing or browsing, while I9505 you have balanced battery life.
Cheers !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Answer Provider Username:i9100g user
Status: Senior Member
i9100g user said:
1.As for battery life,I would say Exynos variant may turn turnout to be better ,if a different implementation of big.LITTLE (Cluster migration is not the "most" battery friendly)
is implemented.
2. AOSP support would be better on snapdragon variant, so if you plan to install CM roms or you like pure/stock android then snapdragon S4 is for you.
All in all both variants should provide good support in future as there are developers working for both of them.
But as you live in a country where 4G would become a huge necessity in a year or so(and you are planning to keep your phone for a longer period of time) ,I would say go for snapdragon variant.
Also snapdragon variant should be better for handling games in future(like 2-3 years).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The best info that helps you understand the advantages/disadvantages of Exynos vs Snapdragon is in Andrei's first post:
AndreiLux said:
I'm going to write this as an guide/information page so we stop as soon as possible the stupid discussions about how 8 cores are useless.
[Update 25/05]
The below information was based on how things should have been. Reality is the Exynos 5410 has some serious issues with its cache coherent interconnect / CCI which cripples the chip to only cluster migration, effectively making the major parts of the big.LITTLE operating scheme useless. This is an issue in silicon which cannot be solved.
[/update]
What's it all about?
The Exynos Octa or Exynos 5410 is a big.LITTLE design engineered by ARM and is the first consumer implementation of this technology. Samsung was their lead partner in terms of bringing this to market first. Reneseas is the other current chip designer who has publicly announced a big.LITTLE design.
Misconception #1: Samsung didn't design this, ARM did. This is not some stupid marketing gimmick.
The point of the design is to meld the advantages of the A7 processor architectures, with its extreme power efficiency, with the A15 architecture, with extreme performance at a cost of power consumption. The A7 cores are slightly slower than an A9 equivalent, but using much less power. The A15 cores are in another ballpark in terms of performance but their power consumption is also extreme on this current manufacturing generation.
The effective goal is to achieve the best of both worlds. Qualcomm on the other does this by using their own architecture which is similar in some design aspects to the A15 architecture, but compromises on feature and performance to achieve higher power efficiency. The end result is for the user can be expressed in 2 measurements: IPC (Instrucitons per clock), and Perf/W (Performance per Watt).
In terms of IPC, the A15 leads the pack by quite a margin, followed by Krait 400, Krait 300, Krait 200, A9, A7, and A8 cores, in that order.
In terms of Perf/W, the A7 leads by a margin, followed by A9's and the Krait cores, with the A15 at a distant last in terms of efficiency.
Real-world use
Of course, the Exynos Octa is the first to use this:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Currently, the official word seems to be that the A7 cluster is configured to run from 200 to 1200MHz, and the A15 cluster from 200 to 1600MHz.
There are several use-cases of how the design can be used, and it is purely limited by software, as the hardware configuration is completely flexible.
In-Kernel Switcher (IKS)
This is what most of us will see this in our consumer products this year; Effectively, you only have a virtual quad-core processor. The A15 cores are paired up with the A7 core clusters. Each A15 has a corresponding A7 "partner". Hardware wise, this pair-up has no physical representation as provided by an actual die-shot of the Exynos Octa.
The IKS does the same thing as a CPU governor. But instead of switching CPU frequency depending on the load, it will switch between CPUs.
Effecively, you are jumping from one performance/power curve to another: And that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
The actual implementation is a very simple driver on the side of the kernel which measures load and acts much like a CPU governor.
The above is a demonstration; you can see how at most times the A7 cores are used for video playback, simple tasks, and miscellaneous computations. The A15 cores will kick in when there is more demanding load being processed, and then quickly drop out again to the A7 cores when it's not doing much anymore.
Misconception #2: You DON'T need to have all 8 cores online, actually, only maximum 4 cores will ever be online at the same time.
Misconception #3: If the workload is thread-light, just as we did hot-plugging on previous CPUs, big.LITTLE pairs will simply remain offline under such light loads. There is no wasted power with power-gating.
Misconception #4: As mentioned, each pair can switch independently of other pairs. It's not he whole cluster who switches between A15 and A7 cores. You can have only a single A15 online, together with two A7's, while the fourth pair is completely offline.
Misconception #5: The two clusters have their own frequency planes. This means A15 cores all run on one frequency while the A7 cores can be running on another. However, inside of the frequency planes, all cores run at the same frequency, meaning there is only one frequency for all cores of a type at a time.
Heterogeneous Multi-Processing (HMP)
This is the other actual implemented function mode of a big.LITTLE CPU. In this case, all 8 cores can be used simultaneously by the system.
This is a vastly more complex working mechanism, and its implementation is also an order of magnitude more sophisticated. It requires the kernel scheduler to actually be aware of the differentiation of between the A7 and A15 cores. Currently, the Linux kernel is not capable of doing this and treats all CPUs as equals. This is a problem since we do not want to use the A15 cores when a task can simply me processed on an A7 core with a much lower power cost.
The Linaro working-group already finished the first implementation of the HMP design as a series of patches to be applied against the Linux 3.8 kernel. What they did is to make the scheduler smart enough to be able to track the load of single process entities, and with that information to schedule the threads smartly on either the A7 cores or the A15 cores. This achieves much lower latency in terms of switching workloads, or better said, switching the environments (CPUs) to the respective work-loads, and exposes the full processing capabilities of the silicon as all cores can be used at once.
You can follow the advancements of this in the publications of the Linaro Connect summits that happen every few months. The code was only published in the middle of February this year for the first working implementation equivalent in power consumption to the IKS.
Misconception #6: Yes the CPU is a true 8-core processor. It's just not being used a such in its initial software implementations
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A lot of reading but should help inform decisions.
As there are much newer technology,some of them are enough for us or even overpowered.But the main problem is,Do we really need more than 4 cores?
Yes,some of them are about marketing,but i promise it won't be to much. From i know people around me thinks more cores means a better,faster phone...
There,Let's discuss why quad cores are better(if you stand at octa it's fine,just a little technical discuss),And why market prefers.
So we use a more simple way to explain why octa core is not better than a quad core phone.
"Uses a right,lower power processor to do some simple jobs"
No go away please.If 2/4 cores could handle flawlessly,why do we need those spare cores for?
Energy Consumption
Yes,refers to above,useless cores wastes more energy and your battery will drain faster if system/cpu governor is not totally optimized.
Heat problem
This happens not only on Snapdragon 810,Also Exynos 5420...etc
Well,it's nothing but a feeling of keeping a furnace in your pocket.
Application Design
Actually,not many apps could take all 8 cores,and because based on big.LITTLE,those 8 cores can't be running at the same time.
But,It still have advantages:
Maybe,Benchmarking.
Yeah probably you will get a higher mark on core benchmarking,but so what?Experiences is on your own,benchmarking means nothing.
Using android as a workstation
Yeah that Maybe helps if you are using adobe clip editing tool on an android phone...
And Marking side makes more complicated.
Most of users which doesn't have/or having very little tech skills will just prefer an octa core phone because they will think the performance on a 8 core chipset is doubled.
And it may sounds cool,but there's too much drawbacks.
So,Conclusion:
Since nowadays phone are having too much spare power,and "fast"includes a lot of other parts in the chipset or phone like GPU,RAM,EMMC..etc
NONONO....We doesn't need more core,we need a BETTER core.
Think an apple i6 .Although i hate it,but there are only 2 cores and they performed pretty well.
And last,optimization is important in the first place,because if you even have 1000 cores,fail optimization makes it useless.
Reserved
The problem is that application development in order to use the extra cores is difficult. Multithreading in applications increases complexity a great deal, introduces hard-to-reproduce bugs and worst of all - trying to use more cores may actually make the app slower.
While multithreaded applications might be able to get a boost with extra cores, I think the real benefit is better handling of multiple tasks (such as playing music and running navigation, with Bluetooth audio). I'm not sure that having more than four offers all that much benefit, though. I've certainly found quad-core phones to be more responsive compared to the dual-core models I've used.
Bobby Tables said:
While multithreaded applications might be able to get a boost with extra cores, I think the real benefit is better handling of multiple tasks (such as playing music and running navigation, with Bluetooth audio). I'm not sure that having more than four offers all that much benefit, though. I've certainly found quad-core phones to be more responsive compared to the dual-core models I've used.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Based on big.LITTLE,You could just split works to 2 different designed cpu,one is high density and one is more "Energy saving"(Actually it was just 4+4)
And for your example,i have found out that Bluetooth audio(Because communicating with more components on the phone,so it is considered as a high density work)
Also same as navigating.It is hard to program these applications to use the lower power cores.
Hi all,
I used to have SofaScore on all my phones, it's a great app (for me the best app) to track every sport.
Since I got my new galaxy S7 I noticed the app has a strange behavior....
On my old Sony Z3 the app is perfect.. Super smooth but in the new Samsung flagship it's so laggy.
So I reported to SofaScore's DEV and the answer was:
" Hello ,
Thank you once again for your feedback.
We have just tested SofaScore app on new Samsung flagship, and yes performance is rather atrocious. But I must disappoint you, every other well established apps suffer from the same problem. We don't know what Samsung has done with their phone, but we ran some benchmarks. These are the graphs.
1. Samsung Galaxy S6 - Android 5.1.1
2. Samsung Galaxy S7 - Android 6.0.1
3. Google Nexus 5X - Android 6.0.1
Horizontal green line represents the normal usage. As you can see on the graphs - on our S6 with 5.1.1, everything is normal, app is fluid and no laggs or hiccups. On S7 on OTOH, we notice some heavy frame dropping and choppiness. We then ran test against the Nexus 5X on the same Android (6.0.1), and the results are similar to the S6.
Please note that this kind of behavior is happening on every other non-Samsung app we tried. We don't know what kind of magic tricks did Samsung do in their new phone. Our assumption is that they underclocked the GPU, and that the GPU struggles with most basic tasks such as app animations. Hopefully, they'll address that soon enough, to save it's customers from further struggle.
Hope you'll understand,
Best regards
Thomas "
Attach:
Nexus 5:
Samsung Galaxy S6:
Samsung Galaxy S7:
What you think ?! How can we adress this to samsung ?
Some Galaxy s7 possibly encryed
I'm having the same problem too! But I don't know how to address the problem to Samsung. However it's my CPU that's a bit underclocked because my CPU tells me it's a Quad core 1.59Ghz Qualcomm Technologies, Inc MSM8996. However in Qualcomm website it claims that the Snapdragon 820 (which is a MSM8996 model) can produce a 2.2Ghz proformance. But I not done yet! My ram specs tells me I have 3.4Gb of ram total! Which is strange because Samsung claims its 4Gb. That's 600Mb of missing ram. And I tell my self I can't be the only one. I realize when I watch speed comparison, the ram management are no different to the previous model (Galaxy s6) and this could be why. My theory is some Galaxy s7 came encrypt when they were shipped to the markets.
Eric24720 said:
I'm having the same problem too! But I don't know how to address the problem to Samsung. However it's my CPU that's a bit underclocked because my CPU tells me it's a Quad core 1.59Ghz Qualcomm Technologies, Inc MSM8996. However in Qualcomm website it claims that the Snapdragon 820 (which is a MSM8996 model) can produce a 2.2Ghz proformance. But I not done yet! My ram specs tells me I have 3.4Gb of ram total! Which is strange because Samsung claims its 4Gb. That's 600Mb of missing ram. And I tell my self I can't be the only one. I realize when I watch speed comparison, the ram management are no different to the previous model (Galaxy s6) and this could be why. My theory is some Galaxy s7 came encrypt when they were shipped to the markets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The CPU is not underclocked. It has 2 clusters - 2 cores performing at 1.59 and 2 at 2.2 Ghz - and usually it is the smaller cluster get's reported. Get a proper app like CPU-Z to see the real frequencies.
RAM is 4 GB and 3585 MB is reported available - why? Well, because ~512MB is reserved for the GPU as it does not have any dedicated VRAM - this is how it is done on all Android devices so far.
RAM management is just a little improved versus Galaxy S6 - Android 6.0.1, but it is miles better what was on the S6 -5.1.1
Encryption is not impacting the performance of the S7 - it was tested already in the forums, in some cases maybe by 2-3%.
---------- Post added at 08:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:15 AM ----------
borgez said:
Our assumption is that they underclocked the GPU, and that the GPU struggles with most basic tasks such as app animations. Hopefully, they'll address that soon enough, to save it's customers from further struggle.
What you think ?! How can we adress this to samsung ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This imakes no sense. The S7 uses the Adreno 530 (snapdragon) or the Mali-T880MP12 (exynos) GPUs which are pretty damn powerful GPUs - even compared to last year's GPU used in the S6.
Moreover, it is not underclocked and it is running at is intended 650 Mhz (Mali) most of the time. I mean there are intensive 3D apps and other similar apps to SofaScore which do not lag at all - so this has to be something with their app.
On the other hand, even if the GPU would be underclocked - it still should be able to render the graphics in such an app.
EDIT: Just tested SofaScore - and no issues at all.
davebugyi said:
The CPU is not underclocked. It has 2 clusters - 2 cores performing at 1.59 and 2 at 2.2 Ghz - and usually it is the smaller cluster get's reported. Get a proper app like CPU-Z to see the real frequencies.
RAM is 4 GB and 3585 MB is reported available - why? Well, because ~512MB is reserved for the GPU as it does not have any dedicated VRAM - this is how it is done on all Android devices so far.
RAM management is just a little improved versus Galaxy S6 - Android 6.0.1, but it is miles better what was on the S6 -5.1.1
Encryption is not impacting the performance of the S7 - it was tested already in the forums, in some cases maybe by 2-3%.
---------- Post added at 08:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:15 AM ----------
This imakes no sense. The S7 uses the Adreno 530 (snapdragon) or the Mali-T880MP12 (exynos) GPUs which are pretty damn powerful GPUs - even compared to last year's GPU used in the S6.
Moreover, it is not underclocked and it is running at is intended 650 Mhz (Mali) most of the time. I mean there are intensive 3D apps and other similar apps to SofaScore which do not lag at all - so this has to be something with their app.
On the other hand, even if the GPU would be underclocked - it still should be able to render the graphics in such an app.
EDIT: Just tested SofaScore - and no issues at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi, yes the app come with a couple updates and there is no more issues . the problem no longer existed for some time
What is speed like in the Galaxy s7
The Galaxy s7 is powerful in GPU and CPU but android is very heavy and thus the Galaxy s7 has to push more power. The specs looks very promising but their always a ratio in terms of the OS (Andriod Marshmallow). Let me give you a real life example, I have a tank and it has a pretty powerful engine with a strong horse power, but the tanks weight is vast. The horse power to weight ratio would effect the tank and can really make it struggle. However since it does have a strong horse power it will make the tank move with a punch, but driving through tougher landscape like a hill would make the tank struggle since its vast. The crew from inside the tank would perceive the struggle of the tank and feel the weight of it. My point is implied this example to the Galaxy s7. Now don't get me wrong it's a powerful phone but when doing lots of multitasking it becomes a leisurely "like" phone.