Related
Hello everyone.
Despite the fast native CPU speed of the HD2, there is still some lagging under many circumstances that could be aided with a bump in CPU speed, for which I thing the Snapdragon Processor has lots of headroom for. The HD2 rarely gets warm even under heavy loads.
Equally, I've noticed that there is some sort of a clear thermal throttling process going on because when doing large operations (like searching for files or moving large items around), the progress bar gets progressively slower and so does the operation of the phone. After a few seconds its faster again.
I'd like to submit a feature request for a simple app that hopefully control/prevent thermal throttling to kick-in and that can also overclock/underclock (for battery saving situations) the Snapdragon Processor on the HD2.
Not sure how easy it is or not, but this is the single wish list. There a few generic CPU optimization applications but they really don't work for the HD2 specifically. The HD2 would benefit tremendously of a little bit extra Processor speed.
Thanks to all
Man it was one thing when we all had 400mhz processors and we were looking to see if we could get a little more out of our phones but 1024mhz and still asking for more? I mean I don't disagree with you. I've noticed the same thing but lets not get greedy here.
dharvey4651 said:
Man it was one thing when we all had 400mhz processors and we were looking to see if we could get a little more out of our phones but 1024mhz and still asking for more? I mean I don't disagree with you. I've noticed the same thing but let's not get greedy here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but the load of today's applications is exponentially higher than the speed at which CPUs have been scaling. My 3 year old Palm Treo 680 is blazing fast compared to my HD2 at everything it does, because both the OS and the apps are minimal footprints, yet the Treo's CPU is a turtle. That is why it is still my main phone. Its instant in all it does, feel great to use. The Snapdragon CPU is to be upped to 1300MHz or 1500MHz this year and multi-core designs are all on the way. The HD2 with all animations and bells and whistles on can certainly use more speed and by the end of this year, this phone will be completely prehistoric at all levels.
My request stands and we could all benifit from it
Why would a phone need it? Wouldn't battery life just suck?
Sent from the key to my world.
Sure, if you want a portable console lol.
The response speed would be great thought, and camera will be able to record in full HD without trouble. But, the software will need to be programmed to take advantage of the dual-core processor.
As for the battery, not necessary. The cpu will throttle back its speed a lot, and a dual-core might be able to drop really low and remain fully operational which will require less battery. Also the new dual-core cpu nanometer architecture would most probably be lower which means better battery consumption but at full load (like when playing graphically intensive games) battery probably won't last long. Still thought, new battery technology will need to be manufactured soon to keep up with this new phone technology. Next you'll see are dual-gpu phones lol
I'm waiting for the 2011 CES to see if anything dual-core will be announced before dropping $800 on a phone as I would love such a device, just for fun.
CES is just next week right?
They've already announced one phone to run it, I just think technology is getting crazy with portability. My computer still has a 1.6ghz processor, these new phones will undoubtedly surpass my poor system. Ha.
Sent from the key to my world.
One thing that the makers of the chips take into consideration, is power usage. And it's easy to see that too. I'll use desktop cpus and laptop cpus for example. Intel and AMD's 6 core designed both have a TDP of under 125W. Old single core pentiums had a TDP higher than that, and were much bigger in nm range. Laptop cpus now only use at the most, 1/4 the tdp of a desktop cpu.(Not as fast though)
Other than that, right now I can bet that there is no multi-threaded apps available, and is Android really able to take advantage of a multi-core system? Probably not on it's own.
HAPPY NEW YEAR people!!
Yeah, CES is just next week. I know they announced some phone but I would like to know when they are coming so I know if I should buy the best thing right now or not.
I wouldn't have a clue if Android can handle multicore processors but maybe the new Honeycomb version of Android will enable this? If this is the case then maybe this phones will come March/April....sigh
And yeah, TDP of this chips will be lower then current chips. I bet they are working hard to make the best use of the battery.
ceg1792 said:
Why would a phone need it? Wouldn't battery life just suck?
Sent from the key to my world.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A multi core cpu does not necessarily use more power than a single core cpu; it's mostly dependent on the architecture.
NVIDIA talks about benefits of dual core:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/08/nvidia-touts-the-benefits-of-multi-core-processors-for-smartphon/
I think there is a definite need for Dual-Core Processors in phones. Gaming is making a mainstream shift from dedicated handheld gaming consoles to Smartphones. In order for developers to make more robust and graphically appealing games, they are going to need more processing power. Another point is that Dual-Core Processors will help browser rendering speeds. With HSPA+, WiMax, and LTE we are getting some serious downlink on our devices. But if you notice, a smartphone getting 3mbps down and one getting 10 mbps down renders a webpage at the same speed. Right now the processor bottlenecks webpage rendering, not our data connection. With these faster processors it helps eliminate the bottleneck to provide a gratifying web experience to the end-user.
It'll help if the application has multi-thread support. But if the app can only use 1 core/thread, then that's where dual core is useless. Also gaming isn't the main focus of Smartphones, there's probably a huge minority of people using their Smartphones as a serious gaming machine compared to people who are using their smartphone for work, talk, text, or other multimedia.
I know i'm gonna get burned at the stake for this one, since this is a tech forum, but dual core is just overkill AT THE PRESENT MOMENT. It's like computers. They are all now dualcore, most come with almost 4 gigs of ram. What in the hell would 95% of the population need AT THE MOMENT with something more powerful than that? LIke a quadcore with 8 gigs? NOTHING. It's just a ploy to get more money. Our 1ghz phones can run everything just fine. This isn't like the early days of android where it always felt like more ram and raw power was needed. We have hit a plateau where the current cellphone landscape fits MOST peoples needs. Can i really be the only one who thinks that it's just unnecessary?
Remember, xda only represents .0000000001% of actual real world use. I am talking about the layman who is actually gonna fall for the "OMFG ITS GONNA DO EVERYTHING SO MUCH BETTER AND FASTER", um no it's not. Most people dont even max out there current hardware.
Edit: Seriously people get a grip on reality. I'm not pushing my views on anyone. It's a ****ing forum, you know, one of those places where people discuss things??? The debate that has come out of this has been fantastic, and i have learned alot of things i didnt know. I'm not gonna change my original post to not confuse people reading the whole topic, but i can now understand why dual core does make some sense. Quit attacking me and making stuff so personal, it's uncalled for and frankly i'm about to ask a mod to close this topic cause it's getting so ridiculous. Learn how to have a debate without letting all the emotion get in the way or GTFO. YOUR the one with the problem, not me.
Xda doesn't care. We like specs, maxing out our devices, and most of all, benchmarking
redbullcat said:
Xda doesn't care. We like specs, maxing out our devices, and most of all, benchmarking
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well as do i! I'm talking about the uneducated masses.
more cores mean;
more threads
meaning better apps
meaning better FPS
meaning HD everything
meaning more capabilities
meaning more fun with less devices.
Do you remember the days you had a cell phone, a PDA, an MP3 player, a digital camera AND a laptop? All that was missing is your bat symbol and cape. I like not having to have a utility belt of gadgets on my person.
I would rather see them work on battery saving and density technologies to eventually allow for one week [heavy usage] times.
iamnottypingthis said:
I would rather see them work on battery saving and density technologies to eventually allow for one week [heavy usage] times.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hard for you to believe, i know, but that's what having a multi-core does, it helps improve battery life (both in standby and in usage). Sure it's not a definitive answer to our battery problems, but it's a first.
Hey Lude219, I thought I'd post this as I thought you gave a good explanation on battery life and usage (fifth one down).
It really all comes down to the person's requirements. If someone requires to run several apps at once, or requires to watch movies at a higher frame rate, or requires to have the 'best phone on the market', then they'll buy a dual-core phone, no-one else will care (much). Most people I talk to agree and think that Dual-Core in a phone is unnecessary ('dual-core phone' it even sounds ridiculous lol), but, I must admit that I was surprised at how laggy my DHD was out the packet, and don't get me wrong, I know once it's rooted it will be much better just because the SW is cleaner, but most people will not even contemplate rooting their phone, so if it's not an option for them, dual-core will surely help.
Dual-core procs don't have a higher power consumption than single-core procs (or at least they won't if they design/implement them properly), so it shouldn't (fingers crossed) make power consumption any worse.
Personally, I'd also rather they put they're time and effort into making better batteries and improving general power consumption.
It'll be the next marketing point after the dual-core hype has ebbed (Now with Three Days Standby!! YEY!!)
Well i think most people who do buy these "powerful" devices have one important reason to buy, and that is to future proof themselves. But ey, i'm looking at the perspective of a tech savy guy, I suppose the masses simply want the next best thing.
But you are right however, it is a ploy to make money, but everything in business is, so there's no difference between dual core, one core, 8 mp camera, 5 mp, 720p. 1080p, it's all business. If there was no business then.. well, where'd we get our smartphones?
lude219 said:
Hard for you to believe, i know, but that's what having a multi-core does, it helps improve battery life (both in standby and in usage). Sure it's not a definitive answer to our battery problems, but it's a first.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can easily go into why you're wrong, but I won't waste the calories. Other things besides just adding a core are done to get those gains. If more cores equaled more power savings, ULV cpus would be octo-core.
Just a matter time when they get battery life ironed out in smartphones and to the OP i would agree in some aspect, but they are smartphones why not just keep improving them. Else if someone never thought outside box we would still stuck with dumb phones =no fun.
here a link for next gen snap dragons sounds promising.
I won't lie, right now dual core is overkill. But in time like everything else has computer wise, it will be the normal and will be the way all devices go, that's not just considering dual core. I'm talking pure multicore threading. It's not just the number of cores you're buying as well, it's the difference core to core when you compare say arm cortex a8 to the Tegra II's Arm Cortex a9, single core the a9 will be faster and more efficient and also produce less heat thanks to the die shrink, which then also means less power draw per core. Right now for phones, dual core is futureproofing a bit for when we do have android that is fully multithreaded, and apps that are as well.
There's also something you need to remember, XDA isn't really a big fraction of people using android devices and what not, but not every android user is on XDA. I also disagree with everyone maxing out their hardware, just running my Evo with a few of the aosp live wallpapers my evo runs terrible, and web browsing isn't the greatest either depending on the website.
Oh dude you should so post this one overclock.net, the beat down you would get would be hilarious. But anyway back one topic, as for phones, well for some people dual core is nice, for example me and my friends, when we head off to lecture, all we can do is browse the web on our phones, all of us, for some odd reason like to have at least 6-8 tabs open at the same time and for the phones we have (I have an iphone 3gs, theres a couple captivates, Droid Inc 2, and some others), they sometimes tend to slow down with all of the tabs open. Also when you open up numerous applications, you have to sometimes close out of some of them because the one that is open starts to slow down. Thats a couple reasons that dual core is nice, with massive multitasking. But with the computer part, where you say that no one needs a quad core processor, well think about it, there are a lot of people who want performance (not just XDA, theres overclock.net, techpowerup, EVGA, HardOCP, etc) and just random people who want fast computers for reasons such as video processing, gaming (this is probably a big reason), ridiculous multitasking (I fall into this category cause I have over 125 tabs open in chrome right now and I actually needed to upgrade to 8 gb's of ram because it was saying I was running out of ram with only 4), and some people that want just plain snappiness from their computer. So I would not say that a quad core processor is overkill for most people as the demographic I mentioned above does include a decent amount of people.
Oh and I forgot to mention watching Hi def videos, your average intel integrated graphics card cannot play a 1080p video without issues so thats why you might need a faster processor and a faster GPU to play those videos in an HTPC.
But yes for your average everyday joe, a simple nehalem based dual core would suffice for everyday tasks such as web browsing and such but it cannot do much else.
xsteven77x said:
I know i'm gonna get burned at the stake for this one, since this is a tech forum, but dual core is just overkill AT THE PRESENT MOMENT. It's like computers. They are all now dualcore, most come with almost 4 gigs of ram. What in the hell would 95% of the population need AT THE MOMENT with something more powerful than that? LIke a quadcore with 8 gigs? NOTHING. It's just a ploy to get more money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which is why netbooks took off for a while there (until people realized those were a bit too slow)
Our 1ghz phones can run everything just fine. This isn't like the early days of android where it always felt like more ram and raw power was needed. We have hit a plateau where the current cellphone landscape fits MOST peoples needs. Can i really be the only one who thinks that it's just unnecessary?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I completely disagree. The difference between dual and single core for mobile devices is *huge*. There is a *huge* difference between everything running "fine" and everything running "great". The biggest difference is for games and web browser, which most people absolutely care about. There is also the wide range of more powerful apps it enables, which for now is more important on the tablet, but that will come to phones as well.
Dual core is not overkill, for one, its future proofing your phone, most ppl buy the phones on contract and in a couple of months dual cores will be the standard for high end smartphones, second, it allows for better GPU performance which leads to better games and overall experience, there are many benefits to it, too many for me to list...
iamnottypingthis said:
I can easily go into why you're wrong, but I won't waste the calories. Other things besides just adding a core are done to get those gains. If more cores equaled more power savings, ULV cpus would be octo-core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, it's better if you don't, because I dont think you have any substantial knowledge on the matter to go against the research and knowledge of all the computer engineers out there. The reason why it's not octo-cores yet is because it's called a BUSINESS. But I wont waste the calories in telling you why that is until you go and read up on "economy of scales."
It'll be interesting at least to see what develops. See if they'll start doing proper separate GPU Die's or if they'll dedicate GPU cores on the proc (i.e quad core chip with 2 CPU cores and 2 GPU cores).
Hope people don't start to get burnt when they begin maxing out/overclocking their cores.
Funny, if you stop developing you get nothing because you are satisfied with nothing.
Us at XDA are techies and you give us more core more ram more battery we will figure what to create with the new abilities. That is how progress is done.
As far as the masses, let marketing depts do their thing to them........we do not care, never did. As for me, I have a 12 core motherboard with 32 gigs of ram.etc and I jack it to 85% demand almost every day, and I am sure that there are very very few computers that have this capabilities.
The funny thing more innovation make more efficiencies my computer under a full load uses less than most of the gaming rigs out there and has 50% more muscle.
On the phone dual core allow one to create algorithms that will make the battery use way more efficient.
More cores more ram === win win win for everyone, but us in XDA and other forums like this it is just great great great for us.......... don't worry we will use what ever is created 110% and make it better.
If dual core in your Nokia 3210, yes it's overkilling, but if dual core in your cad workstation, it's been overkilled. All depends on the user, usage, and design of the device.
Actually it's an arueable question whether dual-core cpus are an overkill today, they have several advantages but most of those can be applied to netbooks and tablets rather than phones.
1. When there are several CPUs, multi-threaded applications can be really run concurrently (and basically, even if one application is performing, the scheduling overhead for multi-core system is lower and background tasks like gui/hardware drivers can be executed on a separate core).
2. Another use case (although this is a misuse and abuse of CPU anyway) is the use of multi-core systems for encoding/decoding media. It brings absolutely no advantages to the end user, but when the CPU is powerful enough to handle the media stream, one may use it instead of a proper DSP processor which Google will likely be doing for VP8/WebM
3. SMPs can be useful in tablets and netbooks - for example, tegra2 will outperform intel atom in most cases (first of all, it is dual-core. and secondly, it has a very powerful GPU). I am personally using debian on my tablet (in chroot though) and many people are using ubuntu on toshiba ac100 - arm SoCs are a fun to hack and give an incredible battery life. But this is IMHO only acceptable for geeks like us and I think dual-core (or x-whatever-core) ARM CPUs will be useful for consumers (hate this word but whatever) if some vendor releases a device which will run a full-fledged linux distro with LibreOffice, math packages like octave/maxima, development environments like kdevelop so that it can be used as an equal replacement of an x86 netbook.
As for the popular arguement about power consumption - surprisingly, but there is little correlation between the number of cores and power drain. Newer SoCs are more energy efficient because they have improvements in technical process (literally the length of wires inside the chip), more devices are integrated into one chip, more processing blocks can be put to sleep states. Even if you compare a qualcomm qsd8250 running at 1GHz with a GPU enabled, it will use less power than an old 520 MHz intel pxa270. Besides, as I have already mentioned, a multiprocessor system can execute tasks concurrently which means that the computation will take less time and the processor will spend more time in a power-saving state.
Basically multi-cores are a popular trend and is a good way to make consumers pay for new toys. For me personally the reasons to change a device have always been either the age of the device (when it literally began to fall apart) or the real improvements in hardware (I updated from Asus P525 to Xperia X1 because ever since I had my first pda I was frustrated by the tiny 32 or 64 mb ram and awful screens with large pixels that were really causing pain in eyes if one used them for long) but unfortunately the situation now is the same as it is in the desktop world - software quality is getting worse even faster than hardware improves. Hence we see crap like java and other managed code on PDAs and applications that require like 10 Mb ram to perform simple functions (which were like 100 Kb back in winmo days). I do admit that using more ram can allow to use more efficient algorithms (to reduce their computational complexity) and managed code allows for higher portability - but hey, we know that commercial software is not developed with the ideas of efficiency in mind - the only things corporations care about are writing the application as quick as possible and hide the source code.
lude219 said:
Yea, it's better if you don't, because I dont think you have any substantial knowledge on the matter to go against the research and knowledge of all the computer engineers out there. The reason why it's not octo-cores yet is because it's called a BUSINESS. But I wont waste the calories in telling you why that is until you go and read up on "economy of scales."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That and yields for Nehalem 8 cores aren't so high. Bulldozer yields are working out okay so far, but then again it's not a real 8 core cpu...
Hey guys,
Could someone please let me know which tablets are being/have been released in 2011 sporting the Tegra 3 (Kal-El) processor? Especially if they're out/easily importable to the UK! Thanks
*EDIT* The one I'm aware of atm is the Asus Transformer Prime - does anyone have a definite release day for this?
Prime is the only one that's anounced yet!
http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/09/transformer-prime-detailed-10-inch-super-ips-display-12-hour
"December" is still all I've heard of a release date. But it supposed to be a worldwide release so I'm assuming shortages will be a given.
mordbane said:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/09/transformer-prime-detailed-10-inch-super-ips-display-12-hour
"December" is still all I've heard of a release date. But it supposed to be a worldwide release so I'm assuming shortages will be a given.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah cool, so I'll be able to order it from the UK? Hoping to get it by xmas ya know
Prime in december
Cyrano4 said:
Prime in december
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not for the UK though?
Nice Tegra 3 is very good
Ant38 said:
Nice Tegra 3 is very good
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
why? beacuse of 4 cores?
You won't use the power of them... at the moment Android doesn't use 2 cores properly
2, 4 or idk 16 cores doesn't mean that system will be faster
look at HTC 7 Mozart with WP7.5 - 1 core snapdragon with 512 MB and system is very smooth and fast
I think that producers must focus at optimization of their version of Android
making smartphones with better hardware is not a solution - it only makes more problems
darasz89 said:
why? beacuse of 4 cores?
You won't use the power of them... at the moment Android doesn't use 2 cores properly
2, 4 or idk 16 cores doesn't mean that system will be faster
look at HTC 7 Mozart with WP7.5 - 1 core snapdragon with 512 MB and system is very smooth and fast
I think that producers must focus at optimization of their version of Android
making smartphones with better hardware is not a solution - it only makes more problems
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree with you when you say about Android, which doesn't take full advantage of 4 cores.
But the main feature in the quad-core technology is the battery life saving.
Eventually, in the next year when there will be optimized app for dual and quad- core CPU, this tablet ( or any other 4cores phone) will rock for many, many months.
yukinok25 said:
But the main feature in the quad-core technology is the battery life saving.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
4 core CPU takes less energy than 1 core? you are wrong
yes its true that power use per 1 core in tegra3 is low but overall its larger that single or dual core
darasz89 said:
4 core CPU takes less energy than 1 core? you are wrong
yes its true that power use per 1 core in tegra3 is low but overall its larger that single or dual core
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, its' use less power for normal usage.
It's obvious that if you use ALL 4 cores, the drain would be more than a single core CPU:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/hi...n-actually-use-less-power-than-dual-core/7976
Qualcomm as well is claiming that his next generation quad core phones will save 65% of battery life compare to the current ARM CPU:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer...debuts-single-dual-quad-core-snapdragon-chips
speculations and promises of manufacturers
the major factor of power usage is system resources managment
at start new 4-core CPU will consume more energy beacuse of lack efficient support for 4 cores - but someday it will be optimized well
but the question is: do we really need 4 cores? i think that we need better optimized sotfware
did I loose my mind? look at devices running WP7.5 and tell me that Android is smoother [I'm not a M$ fanboy ]
now with 2cores we have big computing power and it should be use efficiently
darasz89 said:
speculations and promises of manufacturers
the major factor of power usage is system resources managment
at start new 4-core CPU will consume more energy beacuse of lack efficient support for 4 cores - but someday it will be optimized well
but the question is: do we really need 4 cores? i think that we need better optimized sotfware
did I loose my mind? look at devices running WP7.5 and tell me that Android is smoother [I'm not a M$ fanboy ]
now with 2cores we have big computing power and it should be use efficiently
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really hope is not speculation, cause we need battery life saving for our devices.
I am agree about the lack of apps optimized for a 4 cores CPU, however my I7-740Qm use less battery (I repeat on normal usage) than my old AMD Athlon XP, because of the improvement in architecture and technology such as Turbo Boost or Hyperthreading that Intel has implemented.
I believe the new 28nm CPU from Qualcomm and Nvidia will bring similar helpful features.
you're comparing normal CPU's
all the time I was talking about CPU on smartphones
difference between those two CPUs you mentioned is comparable to difference between Ford T and Ferrari Enzo
on smartphones we have limited resources - you cannot easily add f.e. 512 MB of RAM, change CPU or GPU
we have more limited hardware compared to PC
the goal is optimalization of software not adding cores to CPU or more RAM
Edit
Tegra2 and Tegra3 both have 40 nm process
Source
@OP
2011 is not a good year for hunting Tegra 3.
With only one product Asus TF Prime out, it could happen like the Xoom launch.
Although the prime seems like a very nice upgrade, I'm already reading about Lenovo and Acer bringing 1920*1200 res screens.
I know you may have your preference on your Manufacturer, I do too, but it's better to wait a bit to see all the players then choose.
I waited a bit and got a Galaxy Tab 10.1 one of the best tegra 2 tablets. Really interested in what Samsung can bring in 2012.
darasz89 said:
you're comparing normal CPU's
all the time I was talking about CPU on smartphones
difference between those two CPUs you mentioned is comparable to difference between Ford T and Ferrari Enzo
on smartphones we have limited resources - you cannot easily add f.e. 512 MB of RAM, change CPU or GPU
we have more limited hardware compared to PC
the goal is optimalization of software not adding cores to CPU or more RAM
Edit
Tegra2 and Tegra3 both have 40 nm process
Source
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup that was just an example darasz89
Why do you think we have limited resources? Would you expect 2 years ago that one day we would use a smartphone big like 2 packs of cigarettes combined together, with a full OS installed, 4 cores, and 1GB of RAM?
Mobile technology is the future. We will see much more hopefully...
Yup, only Qualcomm for now will use 28nm technlogy.
priority of Android devices should be optimized software before hardware
I don't think that way you see the future of Android is bad, but first we should use all of "given power" of 2 core CPU and after that extend to 4core
funny summary: "With great power comes great responsibility."
Just pre-ordered prime from my local Future Shop. *Anxiously awaiting*
darasz89 said:
priority of Android devices should be optimized software before hardware
I don't think that way you see the future of Android is bad, but first we should use all of "given power" of 2 core CPU and after that extend to 4core
funny summary: "With great power comes great responsibility."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually that should be the priority of software in general, but wrriting good code is hard enough. Right now, ever since the software crisis, hardware has always been two three steps ahead of software, and right now it is in a way a good thing. You don't want a software to be lagging on your computer because its not powerful enough right? You'd rather have the extra juice to power any software with ease.
Hey guys!! According to bestbuy canada, the expected warehouse delivery date is December 5, 2011. Not going to check elsewhere, but just an FYI to all who asked.
Link
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.