Sorry if this has been asked in the past, but I'm a bit curious. I'm asking in context of the same IPC/Instructions per clock(same processor architecture, so that the actual speed of say, 1GHz is identical).
For example, for gaming PCs, its generally optimal to have a 4 core processor, with a higher clock speed(usually thru overclocks) such as say 4GHz, rather than say, an 8 core processor at 2GHz, or maybe a dual core processor at 8GHz(even tho 8GHz is kinda not that practical and/or possible ATM).
So for Android, what would be preferred? Of course, it does depend on what the main focus of the device is(like above, gaming). Would say, an 4 core 2.6 GHz processor be better in general, or an 8 core 1.3GHz? I feel that the clock:core ratio isn't exactly proportional, and so the 4 core processor would probably be better.
Are there any videos/articles with this comparison?
If it's possible, could someone test this out? Downclock all the cores by half for the first time, and the second time, disable half the cores on the second time.
YeshYyyK said:
Sorry if this has been asked in the past, but I'm a bit curious. I'm asking in context of the same IPC/Instructions per clock(same processor architecture, so that the actual speed of say, 1GHz is identical).
For example, for gaming PCs, its generally optimal to have a 4 core processor, with a higher clock speed(usually thru overclocks) such as say 4GHz, rather than say, an 8 core processor at 2GHz, or maybe a dual core processor at 8GHz(even tho 8GHz is kinda not that practical and/or possible ATM).
So for Android, what would be preferred? Of course, it does depend on what the main focus of the device is(like above, gaming). Would say, an 4 core 2.6 GHz processor be better in general, or an 8 core 1.3GHz? I feel that the clock:core ratio isn't exactly proportional, and so the 4 core processor would probably be better.
Are there any videos/articles with this comparison?
If it's possible, could someone test this out? Downclock all the cores by half for the first time, and the second time, disable half the cores on the second time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is kinda difficult to answer.
Number of cores and clock speed are not everything.
There are examples of fewer cores with lower clock being faster than more cores with higher clock.
I DO NOT PROVIDE HELP IN PM, KEEP IT IN THE THREADS WHERE EVERYONE CAN SHARE
Related
Has anybody besides me already read those news?
http://phandroid.com/2010/09/09/arm-quad-core-2-5-ghz-cortex-a-15-is-definitely-happening/
Pretty exciting! Even though we'll have to wait.. but I guess in about 10 to 20 years.. we'll laugh about 1Ghz CPUs in our mobiles! Maybe even about 4Ghz+
I see you haven't learned about the CPU war over the past decade, have you? Pushing Mhz was really the only way chip developers felt like they could increase speed until AMD chose a different approach i.e. made chips more efficient per clock rather than just pushing Mhz like Intel carried on doing. Both both companies realised that they could re-develop their chips to be more efficient then the whole 'multi-core' race started.
While 2.5Ghz sounds impressive, 4 cores @ 1 Ghz doesn't sound that bad either and I see that being more practical in 10 years time, not 4Ghz+.
20 years ago Intel released the 80486DX processor, look at how far processing power has come since then.
Heck I still look back and laugh at my XT with it's 8088 CPU running at a stonking 4.77MHz! 0.33MIPS
So given how much CPUs in general have developed in the last 10-20 years, and they're talking about releasing a quad core 2.5GHz CPU in 2012, I don't think it's too much to think that in 2030 as processors will be so much more powerful that looking back to the CPUs of 2015 we'll view them as slow and pathetic.
Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition i980EE 147,600 MIPS at 3.3 GHz, compare that with 30 years ago the 8088 giving only 0.33MIPS at 4.77MHz!
Wow, just reading this and watching the video got me really excited!
Quote: "...its benchmark puts Kal-El at a higher performance bracket than even Intel's Core 2 Duo full-on-PC processors."
Enjoy: http://pocketnow.com/android/nvidia-quad-core-kal-el-in-android-devices-this-summer
I guess my next phone will somewhere on par with my [email protected], nah not quite but still impressive.
Its freakin ridiculous isn't it, I can't imagine how powerful wayne, logan, or even stark will be.
By the way, those are the architectures coming after Kal-El as seen in the roadmap here
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4181/...-a9s-coming-to-smartphonestablets-this-year/1
Can't wait for my Q6600 to have a little brother as well.
dreadlord369 said:
Its freakin ridiculous isn't it, I can't imagine how powerful wayne, logan, or even stark will be.
By the way, those are the architectures coming after Kal-El as seen in the roadmap here
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4181/...-a9s-coming-to-smartphonestablets-this-year/1
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow sick! I had a feeling the technology was gona explode once dual core starts being implemented into phones but this is just ridiculous. I wander which C2D they are comparing to though. Can't wait to play some Crysis on my phone !!
omg it looks so cool!
7
Its lie, arm can not beat intel dual core cpus for next three year
It might be better then atom dual...
Sent from my LG-SU660 using XDA App
uhh three years is too long if they havent already beat some dual core chips, least thats what i think...specially since the kal-el and omap 5 cpus and whatever qualcomm have planned are gunna be freaking awesome!
OMG!!!! Its amazing
Mobile phones better than my first PC
Well since nvidia is supposedly releasing quad core in q4 of this year I say that computers will prolly eventually die out. Especially since this year smartphone sales beat computers...just a thought
HTC HD2 w/ 2.3 : )
CTR01 said:
Well since nvidia is supposedly releasing quad core in q4 of this year I say that computers will prolly eventually die out. Especially since this year smartphone sales beat computers...just a thought
HTC HD2 w/ 2.3 : )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Funny you mention that, I was just in uni talking about networking (my major) and technology and a classmate said the same thing. I would say it could happen in maybe 20+ years.
I would like to see a Tegra 3 rendering a complex 3D scene or something like that which would really show it's performance.
Is this the Q6600 club or what? <3
Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk
I have an Athlon X3 435 at 3.6 ghz. Can go up to 3.8 ghz as well. But too much v-core.
Although they are saying these newer processors are supposed to be much more efficient, are these dual and quad core processors going to be a viable option with the today's battery technology?
Or is it going to be more of a "use it if it is available" for the app devs, and therefore negating any positive improvements in battery life?
icecold23 said:
Although they are saying these newer processors are supposed to be much more efficient, are these dual and quad core processors going to be a viable option with the today's battery technology?
Or is it going to be more of a "use it if it is available" for the app devs, and therefore negating any positive improvements in battery life?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I don' think the battery technology is on par or evolving on par with the processors. At this rate, we'll have "stationary" tablets with the current battery technology.
icecold23 said:
Although they are saying these newer processors are supposed to be much more efficient, are these dual and quad core processors going to be a viable option with the today's battery technology?
Or is it going to be more of a "use it if it is available" for the app devs, and therefore negating any positive improvements in battery life?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It just really depends on how optimized these cores are for power. It's not adding cores that gives a higher TDP, it's the vcore of the core and the frequency the cores run at. But really, I can't see cpus going any other way but multicore or multithread. It's more efficient for power and performance to have 2 cores running at 1 ghz each, instead of having a cpu at 2ghz that will have a higher tdp and vcore to keep it stable. If the cores are a smaller die size, then it works out perfectly.
vbetts said:
It just really depends on how optimized these cores are for power. It's not adding cores that gives a higher TDP, it's the vcore of the core and the frequency the cores run at. But really, I can't see cpus going any other way but multicore or multithread. It's more efficient for power and performance to have 2 cores running at 1 ghz each, instead of having a cpu at 2ghz that will have a higher tdp and vcore to keep it stable. If the cores are a smaller die size, then it works out perfectly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agreed...while im no cpu expert i do know the slight basics and did a little reading that agrees with vbetts. they said the 4 core kal-el nvidia cpu is supposed to have ~12 hours of play back for hd video...least thats what someone on a thread of mine posted...
vbetts said:
It just really depends on how optimized these cores are for power. It's not adding cores that gives a higher TDP, it's the vcore of the core and the frequency the cores run at. But really, I can't see cpus going any other way but multicore or multithread. It's more efficient for power and performance to have 2 cores running at 1 ghz each, instead of having a cpu at 2ghz that will have a higher tdp and vcore to keep it stable. If the cores are a smaller die size, then it works out perfectly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah exactly, I personally thought the move to dual core would be sooner with a 2 500mhz core cpu or lower since that would still be better then a single 1Ghz chip.
Battery is definitely a issue, with today's technology I wonder how much these chips will consume at 100% load or when playing a game which use most of the devices grunt. On my DHD I can take it up to 1.9Ghz stable and if i'm playing FPse while at that frequency current widget show consumption of around 425mA, while at 1Ghz it's around 285mA. That's quiet a difference! So in order for these chips to be efficient they shouldn't use much more battery then todays chips.
I love my Q6600, max OC I could get was 4Ghz but it required 1.6v Vcore and on air that was HOT. Still I made it into Windows and did some benching, 13.110s on a 1MB SuperPI/1.5 XS mod
CTR01 said:
agreed...while im no cpu expert i do know the slight basics and did a little reading that agrees with vbetts. they said the 4 core kal-el nvidia cpu is supposed to have ~12 hours of play back for hd video...least thats what someone on a thread of mine posted...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I read that as well or heard it somewhere.
Yeah exactly, I personally thought the move to dual core would be sooner with a 2 500mhz core cpu or lower since that would still be better then a single 1Ghz chip.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If the app is multithreaded capable, then yes. Easily better. But 2 500mhz cpus would probably be best for multitasking.
Battery is definitely a issue, with today's technology I wonder how much these chips will consume at 100% load or when playing a game which use most of the devices grunt. On my DHD I can take it up to 1.9Ghz stable and if i'm playing FPse while at that frequency current widget show consumption of around 425mA, while at 1Ghz it's around 285mA. That's quiet a difference! So in order for these chips to be efficient they shouldn't use much more battery then todays chips.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Battery has always been an issue though, even on my old Moment the battery sucked. But that's what you get with these I guess. But man, 1.9ghz stable from 1ghz! For a small platform, that's pretty damn impressive.
I love my Q6600, max OC I could get was 4Ghz but it required 1.6v Vcore and on air that was HOT. Still I made it into Windows and did some benching, 13.110s on a 1MB SuperPI/1.5 XS mod
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ouch, how long did the chip last? I've got my 435 at 1.52vcore. I can go higher but I need this chip to last me for a year or so.
I can't believe that they set the time-frame for the release as early as they did. Hopefully they will live up to this standard
In the technical specification of some chinese Android Phones like the Tops 8 Phone there is a fascinating detail:
Two MediaTek 6516 Chips with different Speed, 460 MHz and 280 MHz
Does someone know whats the sense of such a construction? Maybe there is one core clocked lower for more accu lifetime. But is there still real dual-core proecessing for apps possible? Or runs one core the Android OS and the other core the apps? Ore is one core needed to control the GSM and WLAN interface?
I think one chip handles signal cell tower stuff.
Sent from my X10mini using XDA App
One could be CPU second could be GPU.
Fascinating indeed. These chinese phones are marketing their phones as dual-core, when, in reality they only have one core for application processing. All phones , even ones from 2002 have cores for handling the modem. Tegra 2 has something like 8 cores total, yet they only advertise their two CPU cores.
It is possible. The Evo 3D and HTC Sensation have this. They're called Asynchronous cores and they basically each manage their own clock speeds based on the load they have on them. It's much more battery efficient than, say a Tegra II, which runs both cores at the same speed. However for a phone like that, I'd say the second CPU is probably the radio CPU, which doesn't affect actual phone performance.
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
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.